Computing desk
< January 31	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 1

DMS -doc managing system- for Ubuntu?

Which one is really free? Knowledgetree is nice, but not free enough. Ps: I don't need a content managing system. 212.169.190.130 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail very slow in IE8

Yesterday I was helping out a friend whose Gmail took ages to load, and then a long time to do simple things like opening the screen to compose a new email. It was in Internet Explorer Version 8. Other sites in IE worked fine. My workaround was to install Google Chrome, where Gmail worked fine. This friend is a 60-something year old lady who is paranoid about computers, and a challenge to teach new skills to. Any ideas? HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she's paranoid and a computer nood, tell her that Microsoft is monitoring her gmail, that's why it takes so long to download. That will make her want to use Chrome.212.169.190.130 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Mozilla Firefox. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone paranoid be using any Google products? 74.14.108.195 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail's HTML view may be faster. Also Chrome Frame will probably be fast, but won't require switching to a whole new browser. Paul (Stansifer) 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth downloading the Malwarebytes scanner and checking whether she has some sort of IE specific malware. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas folks. Much appreciated. I could try Firefox, but Chrome's working fine, so I probably won't bother unless I have a lot of time to play on that PC. Gmail's HTML view did work faster, but it removed a couple of features this user had come to depend on. Teaching her new tricks is a challenge. When I left her she was happily clicking on the Chrome icon for her Gmail (which I had made the home page) without even knowing she was using a different browser, while happily still using IE for everything else. I would still love to know what the real problem is, so Tuttle, I'll give Malwarebytes a go, again if I can get my hands on the PC for long enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real URL of a PDF file

Hey, I am trying to get the real URL of a PDF

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=14849 is a redirect to the actual location, but I'm not sure how to view the actual URL of the file WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That URL is the actual location, it's not redirecting for me at all. Perhaps there's some confusion because the URL isn't providing a filename, so the downloaded file (for me) gets the name 'key-documents' ? Unilynx (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there is no real URL, but the server's response includes the header Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Airbus_Price_List_2011.pdf". Modern browsers should recognize this header and save the file as Airbus_Price_List_2011.pdf. -- BenRG (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many websites use a content management system that stores the document in a database and builds the PDF on-the-fly when you select the download. This saves the administrator from manually creating a PDF on every update or correction. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 8691 or 8601 for date formatting?

It seems ISO 8691 and ISO 8601 are used interchangeably in some places (for instance 1, 2, 3) but I can't seem to find anything official regarding ISO 8691. Is that merely a common typo (9 is close to 0 in the keyboard)? If so, and if there isn't an ISO 8691, should we redirect the incorrect title to the correct one? --Waldir ^talk 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 8691 is about Petroleum products -- Low levels of vanadium in liquid fuels -- Determination by flameless atomic absorption spectrometry after ashing. See also google. 8601 is indeed date formats. So we should eradicate any 8691s on our estate which do not reek of gas. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added a redirect and updated ISO 8601 with a hatnote for those actually looking for ISO 8691. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has been speedily-deleted (at my request). While I understand the logic of "plausible typo", I don't think it should apply to numbers - otherwise we'd end up with redirects from ISO 7601, ISO 9601, ISO 8501, ISO 8701 (and corresponding hatnotes) etc. (And then repeat for every other ISO number article.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But are those common? You see, I created the redirect because I got confused after seeing that in several places referring to dates (as linked above) and getting no definitive explanation. I had to assume it was a typo. Anyway, I do see your point, and I think that creating a stub for ISO 8691 might be a good compromise solution for this situation. But please don't speedy-delete it as well :) --Waldir ^talk 11:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A stub for ISO 8691 would be fine (but it should not refer to 8601). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much files in a folder?

Is it a good idea to make sub-folders within a folder, so that you don't have too much files in it? I mean, regarding the access of said files and considering that you have 1,000 or more files. (I know that there's a maximum numbers of files that can be saved in the same folder, but that's a different thing). Quest09 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for what? For your own use? For the file system? The answer is really going to depend on what you mean by a "good idea." In some contexts, having everything in one big folder might be easiest/smartest (for example, I have folders that are full of sequentially numbered PDFs — it's easier for me to just find the files I want when they're all together, rather than separating them out into small folders). In some contexts, it isn't. There's no universally right answer, here, and I don't know why one would assume there should be. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, would it improve the speed of access? Or it doesn't matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't like to have more than 20,000 files in a folder because Windows Explorer usually crashes trying to open it. Using 7zip as a file manager has been a good work around for this problem in my experience. Basically, the more files you have in a folder the more system resources will be needed to open and process them. You'll have to find out what works for you by trial and error, since there are too many factors involved such as type of files, whether you have previews enabled, your RAM, hard drive / usb speed, etc etc for people to give a definitive answer. Worth noting; I've seen some programs (usually badly written ones) which have trouble with long path names (having folders inside folders inside folder etc) but that shouldn't be a problem for most programs. 82.43.92.41 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On most operating systems, or maybe all of them, yes, there are performance advantages to having fewer files in a particular directory. But, as Mr.98 noted, this may conflict with your preferred way of working with the files, and the act of needing to dig through the folders may take you longer than the performance advantage. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NTFS uses efficient data structures so that finding files in huge directories is fast, as do the primary file systems of other modern OSes. FAT (all variants) doesn't. Even if you're not using FAT, badly written applications may choke on huge directories if they use inefficient data structures or algorithms. But, in principle, huge directories are not a problem, as long as you avoid the cases where they are. -- BenRG (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound cards

Is there any advantage to having more than one sound card? Can you get better acoustics or something, similar to the way more video cards give you better graphics? Or is it the same whether you have one or five? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional-grade software can output arbitrarily many separate audio channels. For that purpose, you might need multiple hardware output jacks (though nowadays it's more common to connect over a USB or other connection to a professional audio mixer (like this regrettably discontinued Fender 8500) with multiple hardware line outs. If your software, video, music, or other audio-source doesn't have multi-channel audio, then any extra outputs will be either identical or synthetically generated via interpolation between existing channels. Most home-users have a maximum of 5 or 7 speakers, so there's no need to have more audio channels than that. Professional acoustic engineers, such as those who operate concert-halls, or IMAX theaters, may have need for additional audio channels. At this point, though, such sophisticated audio setups communicate from source-to-speaker using software, IP sockets, and in-speaker controllers, not analog line-outs. Nimur (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ripping Video DVDs

I want to be able to copy some of my films on DVD to my hard drive in .AVI format. Can anyone recommend some software that will both rip the DVD and save it as a .AVI file please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurumaister (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HandBrake is an easy-to-use front-end software that can perform the transcoding, but as a standalone program it cannot read the data from digital-rights-management protected DVDs. (So it would work for ripping most home-made DVDs). To rip commercial DVDs with content protection systems, you will need an implemenetation of DeCSS, or another decryption program, as well as a transcoder like HandBrake or FFMPEG. In some regions, DeCSS and other DRM-circumvention software is not permitted by local laws. Nimur (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use VLC media player for the ripping, then HandBrake would be a decent choice for the conversion. AVI is just a container format, and not a particularly wonderful one; I'd definitely also recommend h.264 (MPEG-4) for the actual video. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both - that was clear, concise and exactly what I needed. Gurumaister (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singular table names in Rails-generated tables.

How can I get Ruby on Rails to default to non-plural table names, as well as using "id" as the name of a table's primary key? Rails can be "opinionated" all it wants, it's still wrong. 173.11.0.145 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using this Rails Table Generator to generate database tables, or some other method? Nimur (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista microphone not monitored

How can I get Windows Vista to throughput a microphone to the speakers/headphone allowing it to be monitored whilst recording? There is no "mute" option in the mixer whatsoever and the mic does not throughput by default (no mic does -- I've tried a USB compressor mic, the built-in mic on the laptop, a standard 1/8in jack mic, and a line-in all to no avail) 173.11.0.145 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the soundcard and what software are you running?

For example on my system the standard windows volume control does not show the microphone output, because the Realtek HD Audio Monitor has the buttons to mute input and output. Once the mute is taken off in there it appears on the windows mixer. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox: clearing EVERYTHING

I would like to completely, as much as possible, remove all traces of my web surfing history once I am done. When I am in Firefox, I always go to tools → clear recent history → put "everything" in the menu, and then click "clear now". In the screen it has a list of the things I am clearing, which includes "browsing and download history", "form and search history", cookies, cache", "active logins" and "site preferences", yet when I go to Wikipedia, for example, and attempt to login, it autofills in my username. It's obviously remembering things, and the clearing I am doing is not clearing everything. Can anyone instruct me on a complete clearance? Thanks.--108.14.201.140 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make sure in prefs you have Privacy: Firefox will: Use custom settings for history: [ ] Remember search and form history, and Security: [ ] Remember passwords for sites. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually helpful with security questions to say what types of attackers you are trying to resist. You can't remove all traces of your surfing history whatever you do, because all surfing creates records at your ISP, at the sites you surf to including places that serve any transcluded web beacons, and possibly other places. Even just on your PC, the "clear" button makes the history stop showing up in the "view history" screen, but if you're concerned about someone examining the hard disk with file recovery tools, all you can do is overwrite the hard drive with zeros or random data, then reinstall all the software. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Tools -> Options. The security tab has options for saving of usernames/passwords in forms, the privacy tab allows you to disable the saving of history and to delete your cookies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when the arrow keys don't work?

I was curious about how I might find the details of what would cause arrow keys on the keyboard not to work. This used to happen a lot more often at libraries with older brosers. What happens most often is that I will get a pop-up ad and click on the red x in the upper right corner to make it go away, and the arrow key won't work after that. Most of the tme, I only have to use the mouse with the arrows on the screen once to bring the arrow keys back, but rarely the arrow keys are completely disabled until I go to a new page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This usually means that your browser has lost keyboard focus. You can probably restore focus by using ALT+TAB, or clicking the application window using the mouse. Unilynx (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course those are the obvious solutions, but I was wondering what is going on if (as was common with older browsers) the arrow keys dont start working again?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook's Suspected Sockpuppet fan pages

Anyone know why Facebook has fan pages for vandals now? Is it an individual or Facebook themselves posting these? Examples: Keegscee, LBHS Cheerleader, and Pickbothmanlol. Just curious. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Facebook has an internal interface that is capable of viewing any Wikipedia article, including user-pages, meta-pages, and so on - in essence, Facebook is now hosting a Wikipedia mirror. I am not sure how Facebook translates a generic Wikipedia URL into an internal URL, but it appears to be a lookup-table using the numeric tag at the end of the URLs you linked.

I am also not sure that Facebook's interface to navigate Wikipedia articles is entirely compliant with the licensing of our content, per Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks policy. They do seem to be showing the necessary license text, though.

www.facebook.com has already been noted on our comprehensive list of known mirrors; it has been listed since at least July 2010. Nimur (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What intrigues me is the fact that they have pages for "Suspected sockpuppets of vandal X" yet no pages for great administrators like User:Beeblebrox, User:LessHeard vanU, and User:Zedla. Almost like they're glorifying them. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. Any page on Wikipedia can be accessed via Facebook's interface. It appears to be a complete, dynamically-generated mirror of the official http://wikipedia.org through a Facebook interface. Nimur (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]