LinuxToday seems slow - Linux
This is a discussion on LinuxToday seems slow - Linux ; Has anyone else noticed that it takes awhile for user control to
return when a page is reloaded or the Back function is used? When I
read a story, then go back to the main page, I keep having to ...
-
LinuxToday seems slow
Has anyone else noticed that it takes awhile for user control to
return when a page is reloaded or the Back function is used? When I
read a story, then go back to the main page, I keep having to wait for
something to load from LinuxToday before I can use the scroll bars or
click on anything. I hate to seem cynical, but I wonder if this is an
attempt to drive up ad revenue. Web ad effectiveness is not just
measured in hits, but also by the time a person was on a page. Very
annoying!
Dave,
--
e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm
-
Re: LinuxToday seems slow
On 2007-10-31, Dave claimed:
> Has anyone else noticed that it takes awhile for user control to
> return when a page is reloaded or the Back function is used? When I
> read a story, then go back to the main page, I keep having to wait for
> something to load from LinuxToday before I can use the scroll bars or
> click on anything. I hate to seem cynical, but I wonder if this is an
> attempt to drive up ad revenue. Web ad effectiveness is not just
> measured in hits, but also by the time a person was on a page. Very
> annoying!
>
> Dave,
Works OK here. For a second I thought maybe they'd put *everything* on
Winders or something. But I went to a few pages, and going back again
worked just fine.
--
Only the good die young. Note the average age in Congress.
-
Re: LinuxToday seems slow
____/ Sinister Midget on Wednesday 31 October 2007 19:54 : \____
> On 2007-10-31, Dave claimed:
>> Has anyone else noticed that it takes awhile for user control to
>> return when a page is reloaded or the Back function is used? When I
>> read a story, then go back to the main page, I keep having to wait for
>> something to load from LinuxToday before I can use the scroll bars or
>> click on anything. I hate to seem cynical, but I wonder if this is an
>> attempt to drive up ad revenue. Web ad effectiveness is not just
>> measured in hits, but also by the time a person was on a page. Very
>> annoying!
>>
>> Dave,
>
> Works OK here. For a second I thought maybe they'd put *everything* on
> Winders or something. But I went to a few pages, and going back again
> worked just fine.
>
You ought to see TuxMachines. Much slower, so I gave up on it some months ago.
It's sometime to do with how much spyware they run (XSS like Google
Analytics). Just disable JS (NoScript if you use Mozilla Firefox, for
example), disable graphics, and hope for the best.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Surely, Microsoft has given up on altruism in the IT industry
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
23:05:02 up 1 day, 3:16, 3 users, load average: 2.06, 2.26, 1.97
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-
Re: LinuxToday seems slow
After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Dave spake thusly:
>
>> Has anyone else noticed that it takes awhile for user control to
>> return when a page is reloaded or the Back function is used?
>
> According to privoxy, hitting http://www.linuxtoday.com generates:
>
> 108 requests, of which...
> 14 are gif files
> 40 are png files
> 40 are on the path "/RealMedia/ads/" (crunch!)
> 5 are cascading style sheets
> 9 are javascript files
>
> That's a /lot/ of advertising. Maybe you should just block them, it
> might speed things up a bit.
Or go to your Firefox about:config and increase
network.http.max-connections-per-server
That'll show 'em!
Or you!
http://www.tweakguides.com/Firefox_9.html
The maximum is 255, however note that raising this setting to a high
value (in conjunction with a high value for the
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-.* settings below)
may be construed as a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack by
some servers and your connection may be refused or even permanently
banned.
--
Tux rox!