I think it looks really slick. Nice work. A small nit: I prefer when outside links open in a new tab (a gripe I have with SO as well).

Checked out your SplitScreen vid -- is there a similar program in windows? Also, would be cool if you added a feature to "Select Split Windows" then the first window you touched became left, and the next window you touched became right, to avoid having to use the dropdown selector twice.

And love all the vim open source stuff!

I actually have a GreaseMonkey script that strips blank from link targets. Middle click opens a normal link in a new tab. If the target is set, there is no way to override it and say "No, I really want it to stay in this window."

true but no middle click when on my laptop, and doing right click, open in new tab is annoying. i almost never have the need to open an external link in the same window anyway. conceptually, it's the start of a new browsing thread, as it were.

Thanks for the feedback . Good point about opening links in a new tab, I will add that.

Re SplitScreen, I think win 7 has aerosnap so you dont need additional software to make it work. SplitScreen also has shortcut keys bound to actions, so you can just CTRL-A, CTRL-B to split the windows. The video isnt very clear about the shortcuts... I think I need to update it and add some sections demonstrating the shortcut keys.

I think gaming_mouse has a good point tho, the majority of users will probably want to open external links in a new tab. When I end up on someone's landing page, if I click on any of their social media links, its typically to take a quick peek. This is quicker if it opens in a new tab, then I can just close the tab and I am back on the landing page.

I know I'm not the normal user. I'm an engineer and like it when I have the option to do what I want, not what someone else thinks I want. For me, there were too amny times were I just wanted to use the back button on my mouse, but instead had to close the tab.

The point about laptops is valid. I've found that most touchpads map right & left click to middle click, but it is not idle because if they are not completely in unision then you get two clicks. The last laptop I had (~4 years ago) let me set up a hot corner that mapped to middle click.

Pretty damn excellent imo...the switch away from the head thing is a little odd though. Can't quite point my finger at it but I kind of expected that to stay around as the navigation not be replaced (so I kind of expected the content to show up where the wobbly ball links are but that leaves the question where I'd put those)

Thanks for taking a look.

Originally the links were going to scroll with the page, but I played around with this and just couldnt get it smooth enough. The animation was just always a bit jerky.

Also, I found that having those big text links on the left of the page drew your eye away from the actual content, so decided to go with the 'top bar' instead.

Clicking any of the links forces a refresh of all my open tabs in Safari (5.1.2).

ah good point. not only did i forget about this useful feature, but i missed an opportunity to take a dig at mac for not having it built in!

Strange, I actually developed the site using safari so no sure why its playing up. Will see if I can reproduce it when I get home. Thanks for pointing it out.

G

Ye, given all the other window management tools they have (spaces, expose etc), you would think they would have implemented something similar to aero snap.

Edit: Kinda hope they dont do it too soon tho

Tzzzzz snapple di dapple. tmux FTW

Does anyone remember the name of the site where you could have bots play eachother for playmoney?

poker paradime. Now only on facebook?

PM PokerParadimeMK

Hah..I wrote a Poker Paradime hand history scraper for a 2+2er a couple years ago.


So I am building a medium sized Django intranet site at work that is going to replace a whole whack of ad hoc Excel spreadsheets and applications. It's going great so far and everybody is very excited to get it up and running.

I have a fair bit of experience running Django apps with nginx/Apache in Linux and that would be my preferred (and in fact the Django communities preferred) method of deployment. There will be less than 100 users of the application and I know this could be done very cheaply with modest hardware.

However, due to factors beyond my control, we are being forced to use IIS & SQL Server. It is possible to run Django on IIS but it's a bit hacky and certainly not ideal.

Anyways the IT department gives us a quote of over $13000 (!!!) for a dual core, 4GB RAM server with Windows Server, IIS and SQL Server.

Can some of you with Windows server experience tell me if this is totally insane or not? I don't have a breakdown of the costs, but will most of this be from software license costs?

FWIW it's probaby $11000 more than I would have estimated for an equivalent LAMP setup.

Jalex? Gullanian?

Sounds insane to me. Why the hell won't they run it on the proper software platform? The costs certainly can't be coming from that kind of hardware, unless it's forgetting to mention the 16TB SSD 10GBe SAN array or something lol.

God only knows. It's only accessible from the intranet so it's not even like there are any security concerns. The response was pretty much just "we don't support Linux".

Two 100GB 7200rpm hard drives :/

"With SQL Server 2008 R2, Microsoft continues to be the value leader" - Microsoft Joke Department

$13k is insane.

Ask for a cost breakdown, I imagine they are giving you a quote for a premium edition of SQL Server:
Standard = ?400 to ?2,000
Enterprise = ?7,000 to ?25,000
Datacentre = ?15,000 to ?75,000 (I have no idea why prices vary so much haven't looked into it)

Use SQL Server Express, it's free and has a couple of limits (check these, this is from memory):
- Max 4GB database size
- 1 CPU core usage max
- 1GB Ram useage max

Unless your app is performance critical this will be fine. It's not nice obviously to know you have those limits but it's suitable for 99% of stuff:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/e...s/express.aspx

Otherwise ask them to look at the Small Business Editions of SQL Server Standard Edition

fwiw even though the pricing is epic I still think SQL server is a great database

with 100 users, you could put it on a shared host for $5/ mo and be more than fine.

Thanks Gull. Yeah, there are going to be 100 people tops using this and a more typical load will be 15 people using it so SQL Server Express should be sufficient. There may occasionally be some light number crunching (<0.5s per calculation) but most of the time will be spent just serving up pages, processing forms etc.

I'm going to talk to my boss tomorrow and hopefully she can talk to the IT department. The funding has already been approved but it seems irresponsible to spend that kind of money to me.

Believe me I know. It's super frustrating to me to just be met with "we don't do that here" no matter what logical arguments you use. Serves me right for working for such a large organization (> 16000 employees).

yeah, insane. with the discrepancy so large it makes you wonder if there is more than stupidity at work, like perhaps the IT dept needs to spend X got X again next year, or someone has figured out a way to siphon funds off, or something of that nature.

That's a good point. It's quite possible it's a situation where they benefit in next years budget by spending more this year, so they just go all out.

Startup idea: Money sponge. If you have lots of money to use up in a business so your budget next year doesn't suffer just pour it on the money sponge.

this seems like a good spot for:

lol iis, lol sql server, lol windows-only IT departments

sincerely,
tyler the money sponge