I didn't know what the .span# really meant when I used Bootstrap, so I'm sure it ideally works about the same as Foundation? Basically, I downloaded a template from bootswatch and then updated my "html" to match what was in it.

Haha, yeah, you can override it with your own CSS.

I'm so confused by what is going on with their idea of Sass that I have zero desire to try and figure it out, so I'm just going to use the minified CSS then use my own secondary CSS and hope for the best. Mind that I am quickly irritated with frameworks and tend to look for any excuse to quit trying to understand them. In this case, I ran Compass, saw a funny error, then said **** it.

If important! offends my tastes too much, I could also do:

then:

in bootstrap, span1 through span12 sets a column width, but they have to appear inside a <div class="row"> or <div class="row-fluid"> in order for all the float stuff to work properly

There's also offset1 though offset12 that set which column to appear in, if you're not filling all of them (i.e you have one div that's 1/6 of the container wide, and appears aligned entirely right, it would be <div class="span2 offset10">

Anyone use d3.js here? My mind is blown. This may even replace jQuery.

I've never used it, but I've been trying to find a reason to. I'm not sure if it would replace jQuery, and I don't think they're trying to. It also doesn't support IE8, and that's still a lot of people. But yeah, mind blown as well.

Well, I didn't read the documentation for bootstrap. As I said, I only downloaded a theme from bootswatch.com and filled in the blanks. From what you are describing, the fundamental difference is that Bootstrap uses the box model to it's advantage by extending margins whereas Foundation erases the box model entirely and instead uses blank boxes to build the grid. Not sure which idea is better.

With that said, the responsive issues on the Bootstrap version is probably due to me not knowing about the 12pc build at the time I worked with it.

So, this should complete my opinion:

Bootstrap:
Uses LESS which I know nothing about.
Uses margins instead of boxes

Foundation:
Based of the RoR hyper-opinionated philosophy.
Uses Sass but it doesn't seem to matter from what I can decipher.
I also don't like the file tree it creates when you install with Compass.

Pick your flavor and go with it, or ask a real maestro and ask for an expert opinion. I think I find them both proficient for my abilities and needs and it would take me a few years of design + CSS study to ever get to the level where I can give a satisfactory answer. Whether I was using Foundation or Bootstrap, I would be complaining about the short-comings the entire time, but at least heed the benefits.

Despite my complaining about Foundation's default colors, they do have this: http://foundation.zurb.com/download....mizeFoundation which lets you customize all the default colors to your liking. I don't see Bootstrap offering this ability, but it's probably not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I have that site bookmarked. Truly is an amazing looking framework. But isn't it more of a graphics framework and not a smooth scroll-up / drop-down framework a'al jQuery?

I wonder, though, if the ie8 thing is an issue, wouldn't it be possible to use, for example, Python + PyLab on the server and have this rendering the output so that there is fallback?

Yep, incredible. The library design is insanely elegant too.

Backbone.js confirmed fun.

Hard to know if what I'm writing is total crap though, there aren't a lot of great resources out there and it's not as opinionated as other frameworks, so you get a lot of variance in the code you'll see.

Also, it's annoying that most of the posts I see for backbone seem to be in coffeescript... though it's not very hard to pick up. I guess I should start writing in it at some point, but I don't see it saving a lot of time (I'm pretty good at not missing commas/stupid stuff).

Has been a while but I opened my desktop machine today (to check if there might be any unforseen issues with hooking up the extra disk). Holy dustmania batman.

Ordered a 512GB SSD which should arrive on Saturday. I'll have 128+512 SSD disks and then my old 1TB HDD which I'll mount as data in /home or something i.e. /home/data

Entire system will be installed into the two SSDs and the HDD will just be mounted as storage for backup stuff and the like (might not use it at all tbh)

If anyone has any usefull tips, hints etc. about SSDs+Linux now is the time to speak up. Was planning on going with ext4 for the FS all around.

Edit: basically I just read this
http://superuser.com/questions/22865...-best-with-ssd

i've heard good things about reiserFS

anything?

Also... http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ (obv needs chrome)

Depends on your OS, what kinds of hooks exist in it to simulate inputs, and whether your flash player does weird things that defy that.

can you expand some more on this? i've never done any web programming so that terminology is lost on me.

sorry if i'm coming off as someone who's too lazy to do research on my own, i just honestly don't know where to start. if you could point me at some resources to get the ball rolling, that would be fine too.

Playing a flash game wouldn't be web programming. It'd be purely desktop program, to write a desktop program to control the web browser or flash app with the game in it.

Heh, if you use bootstrap and want to update to the latest, which is announced a few hours ago:

noMoreCamelCase
Grids overhauled <-- is it Foundation-style?
And other stuff...

I'm confused, what's the 512 GB SSD for? Surely the OS and any critical apps will fit on just the 128 GB, and then you use the HDD for storage. How does the second SSD come into play?

SSDs can matter quite a bit for video capture.

Games maybe

I want an SSD only system, HDD will basically be hooked up but only used to archive stuff for good.

128GB is kind of running out on this Windows box thus I added another one. Could probably get along with 128GB only but I felt like giving myself an incentive to finally do the reinstall thus I bought a new SSD

lol pseudoselectorments

So, I recently finished building an e-mail/text messaging marketing application for someone, and I'm wondering what the best practice is for how I should have setup the database and app.

The app allows people to opt in/out of receiving emails and/or texts. The DB has, among others, a table for customer information, along with two tables that identify which users are signed up to receive emails and texts, respectively.

Here is the users table (trimmed for space):

E-mail table:
And text msg table:
I'm fairly sure this is more complicated than it should have been.

I could have accomplished the same thing with one table by adding two tinyint columns to the users table, named something like "send_email" and "send_sms" that default to 0 and are set to 1 if the user opts into either one. This would result in simpler queries and presumably faster app speed b/c fewer table joins would be required.

But, for some reason, this approach doesn't feel right. I'm not sure why, but it seems like the approach that I used is more "correct."

The current setup could be susceptible to DB errors if someone were already opted in and the code attempted to re-add a user's ID to the either the email or SMS table. However, there are checks in place to prevent this, so that's not a concern.

What do you guys think? Which approach is best? Should I have gone another route entirely?

IANADBA but i don't see any reason to normalize the data like this and i think you're only adding complexity. tables with one column have to be a smell, right?

if your user table is super complicated, there's probably a better way to fix that. phone1 through phone3 columns are another smell; you probably want one row per contact number. a table mapping user_id to phone number would handle this and also might make it cheaper to detect phone number collisions.

I think you misread the table. The insertion would be:

INSERT INTO users VALUES
(user_id, area_code, first_three, last_four, ....)

or in English

INSERT INTO users VALUES
(default, 555, 555, 5555, ....)

Why did you do that? Couldn't you do force the entry to be: 555-555-5555

so you can do:

SELECT *
FROM users
WHERE phone_number like '555-%'

or even make the numbers like (555) 555-5555:

SELECT *
FROM users
WHERE phone_number like '(555)%'

I'm assuming you want to query area_codes here.

oic.

yeah if you need to handle area codes specially then this could make sense (dave, those substring queries are going to be expeeeeeeensive at scale). i can't imagine separating the prefix though unless you're doing something crazy with exchanges. which i guess you might be since you're going to all this trouble.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that engine=innodb was MySQL, not Mongo DB.

I'm sure he didn't do that strange thing with the phone numbers for no reason.