Files Too Large?

[Unsaturated]

I try to attach a file to save a thousand words of tortured descrption (how many hard drives, how many partitions, what's on which partition, which hard drive is in the boot order first, etc... and the thing keeps telling me "file size too large". It was a 110 kb .jpg file.

[xenopeek]

You can attach small files (< 100 KiB). For larger files use an image or file hoster. For images I'd suggest https://imgur.com/ and then include the link to the image in your post.

[Unsaturated]

You can attach small files (< 100 KiB). For larger files use an image or file hoster. For images I'd suggest https://imgur.com/ and then include the link to the image in your post.

I think the <100kb limit is unworkable. Could it be raised to 200kb?

[Flemur]

I try to attach a file to save a thousand words of tortured descrption (how many hard drives, how many partitions, what's on which partition, which hard drive is in the boot order first, etc... and the thing keeps telling me "file size too large". It was a 110 kb .jpg file.

It's probably better to include the thousand words of tortured description - inside "code" tags - rather than a picture of the words. If not, you can make a very-readable 1680x1050 jpg image of text be about 80-90KB by playing with the compression.

[xenopeek]

It could but then somebody comes along with a 210 KiB file with the same reasonable request to raise it to 300 KiB. And so on from there. The attachment size limit was set back when we had issues with too many large files being uploaded. It's now set such that (zipped) logs, small patches and the like can be attached. I can review attachment limits at a later date again but that doesn't help you now.

For now, for larger images you can use an image or file host. Imgur is friendly; you don't need to create an account if you don't want to and after uploading you'll also get a link to delete the image (save the link so you can delete the image at a later time if you want; or create an account to be able to delete images you upload to that account at any time).

[Unsaturated]

I try to attach a file to save a thousand words of tortured descrption (how many hard drives, how many partitions, what's on which partition, which hard drive is in the boot order first, etc... and the thing keeps telling me "file size too large". It was a 110 kb .jpg file.

It's probably better to include the thousand words of tortured description - inside "code" tags - rather than a picture of the words. If not, you can make a very-readable 1680x1050 jpg image of text be about 80-90KB by playing with the compression.

I shrunk the 130 kb screenshot down to 50 kb using Windows Paint (Win7) and it was unreadable. That was when the frustration kicked in. I do a fair amount image editing and sometimes I wonder if there isn't some kind of invisible "bloat" in the output of Windows Paint that you can't see, because sometimes very small images seem too large.

Also I'm operating off the more "global" understanding that data storage costs have shrunk in the last 5 - 10 years such that a 4 Tbyte HD can be had for less than $120.00

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 5AD4R59999

In 2007 I paid $250 for a 250 Gbyte HD. So from about $1.00/Gbyte to $0.33/Gbyte, and I'm fairly certain image file sizes have gotten smaller due to advances in image compression technology.

And also from a more aesthetic "User feelz" perspective, impediments like this reduce User experience and discourages forum participation both from the perspective of "Poster" (hampers ability to communicate), as well as "Reader" (cripples communication, makes the transfer of information longer and less interesting. Color is good. Pictures are good. That's why they have a lot of them in children's books. Restricting the ability of people to post pictures is not good, and so I wonder if there's a good reason for this. Data storage is cheap, and I'd be willing to bet it's a small and fast setting in some Admin's "Control Panel" somewhere.

[xenopeek]

Data storage is cheap

Consumer hard disks don't hold up in data center use. Server storage and backup is more expensive and there are also the network bandwidth for each time the image is viewed. Personally I'd rather money be spent on Linux Mint development. Like I said I can look at the limits again later but for now that doesn't help you. Just use a image or file host. They are free and convenient (many screenshot tools can upload screenshots directly to various image hosts).

[phd21]

Hi "Unsaturated",

I just read your post and the good replies to it. Here are my thoughts on this as well.

Uploading a screenshot, image, or images to this forum
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=232332&hilit=screenshot

Hope this helps ...

[Flemur]

I shrunk the 130 kb screenshot down to 50 kb using Windows Paint (Win7) and it was unreadable. That was when the frustration kicked in. I do a fair amount image editing and sometimes I wonder if there isn't some kind of invisible "bloat" in the output of Windows Paint that you can't see, because sometimes very small images seem too large.

Take a look at irfan-view; with a plugin it has a great "Save for web" function where you can define the output file size (for jpg, gif and png) and it'll find the compression to match that size and also show a preview of what the result will look like.

[rene]

I agree with poster that 100K is unusable; approximately as unusable as the forum search, say. And that is saying a lot. However, he probably found himself here due to another thread of his I was in, and in that context, I'd also rather advise that images are seldomly best. The output of for example lsblk allows being copy/pasted into the body of the message, preferably within a code block (see buttons above edit field), and could very well be as interesting.

[Cosmo.]

I fear, that in case the size limit should get enhanced, we will get more inxi reports and other terminal output as screenshots. So I vote against raising the limit.

[karlchen]

I fear, that in case the size limit should get enhanced, we will get more inxi reports and other terminal output as screenshots. So I vote against raising the limit.

inxi screenshots are simply great!

[Cosmo.]

inxi screenshots are simply great!

If I look at the screenshot, I miss a smilie. "Great" in the sense, that it does not fit? Obviously the lower part is missing. And if at all, the terminal window should get enlarged, most easily to be done by pressing F11, to avoid the line breaks.

The screenshot confirms my vote. We would get more of them.

[Rocky Bennett]

You can attach small files (< 100 KiB). For larger files use an image or file hoster. For images I'd suggest https://imgur.com/ and then include the link to the image in your post.

I think the <100kb limit is unworkable. Could it be raised to 200kb?

Just set up a Dropbox account. Cheap (free) and easy. Solves everything.

[MintBean]

I try to attach a file to save a thousand words of tortured descrption (how many hard drives, how many partitions, what's on which partition, which hard drive is in the boot order first, etc... and the thing keeps telling me "file size too large". It was a 110 kb .jpg file.

That's the site's way of telling you to use text, not an image of text.

[Cosmo.]

Just set up a Dropbox account. Cheap (free) and easy. Solves everything.

IIRC one of the sites, where without activated javascript nothing works. A bad choice,