(no subject)

[mrv3000]

Okay look, LJ. 142 icon spaces are really not enough. By a long shot. You give me 10 GB of space, why can't some of that be used for icons?? So far I've only used 89 MB of my 10 GB, and this is with over 2,300 pictures in my gallery. (1,479 of which are of Doctor Who. What?)

I'd happily knock off some of my server space for the ability to have more icons. Hmph.

Comments

[elismor.livejournal.com]

I wish I could give you some of my empty icon spaces. I have, like, 30 of them at the moment. :)

I don't think that the 10G space and the number of icons are related, really. That is, icons are stored in and callled from a database and the pictures in the gallery are just files on a server. Sure. Everything is just files on a server, but expanding the database code to allow for more icons is probably more complicated and taxing on the machines than partitioning off space on hard drives.

Or. At least that's what they tell me here at Cornell when I want to change how things in our database function.

[mrv3000.livejournal.com]

I wish I could give you some of my empty icon spaces. I have, like, 30 of them at the moment. :)

They would immediately be filled up with DW icons. :D

I don't think that the 10G space and the number of icons are related, really. That is, icons are stored in and callled from a database and the pictures in the gallery are just files on a server. Sure. Everything is just files on a server, but expanding the database code to allow for more icons is probably more complicated and taxing on the machines than partitioning off space on hard drives.

Hmph.

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

Scrapbook photos are stored in a database just like icons. (I mean, the actual image files of each are stored on a server, but the metadata about them--filenames, keywords, descriptions, which gallery they're filed in, etc--is in a database). There's really no difference.

LJ won't let you allocate photo storage space to icon space because it would screw up their business model. In real terms icons barely take up any space at all, in either the database or server space sense. But people are willing to pay far more for them than they're actually worth. (The really weird part is that they don't let people spend massive money buying more and more icons. They could do it, and a lot of people would pay. I suspect it's just another example of them being out of touch with their userbase, though, or being more interested in selling ads to advertisers than in selling features to their users.)

[mrv3000.livejournal.com]

BAH! Stoopid people.