Computing desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 8 >

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.

September 7

apt-get

What happens if I run apt-get (in Ubuntu) with certain listed packages and stop it using CTRL-C while it's downloading? Is there a command I should run to perform some clean up tasks?

In particular, say I've run three apt-get install commands each with one ore more listed packages? How do I get back to how the system was before running them all. NOTE: Not all the commands may have been fully executed. For example, I stopped one while downloading, in another I mistyped one of the packages so i don't know if any of them installed. --178.208.209.155 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do it while it's downloading then no problems will be caused. Package files are stored for later continuation of the apt-get process in '/var/cache/apt'. If the download process does not complete, then no installation will occur. If the configuration/install part of apt-get began, then some weird things can happen, but running 'apt-get -f install' as the command tells you to in such a case should fix it. 'dpkg -r' or 'dpkg --purge' will let you remove individual packages. 'cat ~/.bash_history|grep apt-get' will show you what you tried to/did install, provided you put in the commands fairly recently. Nevard (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTP Server

I set up an FTP server at home, so I can retrieve forgotten homework from school. However, at school, it cannot connect. It does work in other places, both on the same router and not. How is it being blocked (traffic analysis or just port number?), and how could I bypass this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.172.142 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely done by port number, I would guess. I would try changing it to run on Ports 80 or 443. (HTTP /S) They generally can't block those ports without blocking every website on the Internet. (I used a trick like this at an old workplace with "content filtering" garbage.) ^Avic _ennasis @ 02:47, 8 Elul 5771 / 02:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the consequences of using the http port? Could I access websites from server or client while a connection is going? 69.180.172.142 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm having trouble understanding file permissions. What are "Append", "List", and "+ Subdirs"? 69.180.172.142 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making your FTP server use the HTTP port should have no effect on your ability to access websites. All it means is that your own server is running on port 80; requests to other servers are unaffected.

You'll have to consult your FTP software documentation for precise information on permissions, but as a guess, "append" means the right to upload a file. "List" means the right to see the files in the directory, and "subdirs" means whether users can access subdirectories. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the whole "one program, one port" rule? Is that for something different? 69.180.172.142 (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTP requires a control port and a file transfer port. I would really recommend that if you're using Windows, use something that's meant to bypass firewalls easily, like LogMeIn. If you're using Linux or MacOS X, setting up a bog-standard HTTP server which lets you download files, with if necessary a random CGI script off the net to upload files, is probably gonna be easier. Nevard (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it take so long for this page to start to scroll?

This page takes a long time from the time it comes up until it will scroll. Why is it so slow? (The embeded videos?) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your computer is too slow? It loads quickly and scrolls nearly immediately for me. Dismas|^(talk) 05:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my computer was about the best I could get when I bought it a few months ago, and yet that page not only took a long time to load, it refused to close and almost stopped everything else from working as well. So, a little advice, be cautious when following that link or you might have to turn everything off and start again. 85.210.126.207 (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page loaded slowly for me too. I tried it with flash disabled and it loaded normally, so the embedded videos do seem to be the problem. AvrillirvA (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nothing to do with your computer but rather your internet connection speed. The page was very slow to scroll while it was downloading objects but fast to scroll when it stopped loading. Sandman30s (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fast connection, 6Mb/sec I think. It takes so long for it to allow scrolling once the page comes up. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a test on DSLReports, and my d/l speed is 6.2 Mb/s. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what your download speed is if the server isn't serving the page at that speed. -- kainaw ™ 17:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is the reason it is so slow the server, or did they put too many videos on the page? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it isn't a single server. You have the web server and the video server. Any (or all) of them could be slow depending on current use. Cramming a lot of multimedia on a page does make it take a long time to load, regardless. -- kainaw ™ 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reasons I believe. One thing is that there are alot of images and embed stuff in it, which can make it slower. Another reason is that your browser is taking time to show the content. Another probable reason is that it's downloading slowly. IN MY OPINION, to solve the first thing, I suggest that you try getting a better computer or get a more efficient browser. For 2, I suggest perhaps a better internet connection. And for 3, why not try out Firefox or Google Chrome? It may solve you're problem. And I reiterate-I may be wrong. General Rommel (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My computer is about 4 months old and has a quad i7. My download speed is 6.2 Mb/s. I used Firefox until a few days ago and quit using it because recent versions are so buggy. But Firefox does quickly allow you to start scrolling. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I use up-to-date firefox versions; haven't noticed any bug problems with any version for as long as I can remember, and haven't had any slow scrolling problems with this page. Additional options for causes of problems might be crappy AV software or some sort of operating system issue? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox is fast on the page in question (as opposed to IE), but starting a few days ago, Firefox won't display my Facebook page correctly (plus other problems I don't remember right now.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

free video editing

Is there anywhere online a free to download program that I can use to make a few simple edits to films from my camera? Just to for example cut the last minute off the end or to trim the edges in a little throughout?

85.210.126.207 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avidemux [1] AvrillirvA (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Movie Maker or Windows Live Movie Maker depending on your version of Windows is free and should be able to handle simple tasks like this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not free, but very cheap, is QuickTime Pro. It's my go-to app for small, simple edits to movies, like the ones you are describing, and unlike a lot of programs, it easily imports and exports to a range of different formats, and has a pretty straightforward interface. I've found the world of free video editing to usually be less than totally wonderful; QTP was definitely worth the price for me in terms of time and frustration saved over the years. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a profile into search results

I have a fair amount of intellectual property (photographs) on the 'Internet' which are credited to my full name (first, middle, last). When doing a google search on my full name, people will find a lot of my photographs in the first few pages and also two facebook profiles for people who are not associated with me, and do not even have the same surnames now. I believe they come up in the search results because their maiden names are the same as mine (I am female).

Obviously I can't stop their names from being hits, but I would at least like my facebook profile to also come up. I don't use my middle name for my facebook though. Is there a reliable way (apart from changing my facebook account name) to get my FB profile as a hit when searching on my full name? I wondered if I could sneak my full name in somewhere on my profile: would it then be indexed for the full name search? Is there some external way to get the profile page linked to that search?

Even if the answer is no, I would appreciate some explanation as to why (just to learn!).

Thanks in advance. 195.27.52.146 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine companies decide how they want to index pages. If they want to index Facebook *only* by the name on the account, they can. If they want to search the profile for other names, they can. If they want to charge everyone on Facebook $5 to get your profile listed on the search engine, they can. Further, they can change their mind anything they like - so whatever may work today, may not work tomorrow. -- kainaw ™ 17:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a field known as SEO(Search engine optimization) and also Search engine marketing.Smallman12q (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are DOIs temporary?

I was just about to comment on a Refdesk question, and found that a DOI reference I'd read before no longer works: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.1946.02870380008004 cited from Alkylating antineoplastic agent, also cited by two other sites online: [2] Are DOIs something temporary dependent on subscriptions or something? Should we discourage their use as URLs in our articles? Wnt (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are supposed to be permanent, but probably only as permanent as the company operating them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital object identifier. That particularly DOI appears to be correct as confirmed by the source [3]. No idea why it doesn't work, probably "the DOI does not resolve due to a system problem". From a few quick tests JAMA DOIs 1998 onwards (after the backfiles) work but those in the backfiles don't seem to. I have reported the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless

Can a wireless router such as this be used to connect to an wireless ad hoc network instead of using a something like this? 82.43.90.142 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The adapter allows the computer to connect to the router. The router is not used to connect to another router (or whatever you feel like calling the receiver on the network). -- kainaw ™ 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, you could design such a device; in practice, a Linksys WRT54G is not configured (read: it does not have the software or firmware support) for the radio modes that use 802.11 as an ad-hoc protocol. The WRT54G, like most home-use routers, is designed to serve as a router, residential gateway, NAT and firewall, DHCP server, and wireless access point all in one box. Ad-hoc and other advanced 802.11 features aren't available. Nimur (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're pointing to an image of a WRT54G, which is about the most open bit of wireless router hardware out there. I'm using an older version of the DD-WRT firmware on just such a router. DD-WRT allows connections to adhoc networks, as would most non-standard firmware. I doubt that any of the firmware on your typical recent computer routers will let you do that. Really- you should avoid wireless wherever possible- if you can't run ethernet cabling, powerline networking works best, then phone line networking. The WRT54G is the established least bad wireless router out there, though some people think that they are lacking because you can't get the wireless N speeds that only work if the wireless devices are about a meter of cheap ethernet cabling apart. If you absolutely must, for whatever reason, connect to not just a wireless network but an adhoc wireless network (and you must use a wireless router rather than a $10 direct import Chinese home market wireless stick), make sure you either make a pretty cheap buy from a consumer electronics dealer which will let you return the thing if it doesn't work, or buy cheap and used off ebay. Check available manuals for the model first. Nevard (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: as a sidenote, I'd be careful of powerline networking, if you're really worried about security - I have a friend that live in an apartment, and by using one of those adapters, he can sniff packets from other tenants' powerline networks. Not sure if houses would be any different (obviously not wired directly together, but still attached to the gird.) ^Avic _ennasis @ 04:03, 9 Elul 5771 / 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Power circuits tend not to reach out very far beyond a house- though power line communication has been set up over wide areas. For phone line communication circuits these things tend not to reach too much further than the breakout box at a property boundary. Nevard (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User space article drafts

Hi!

I have some user space pages that I used to prepare articles that are now empty. What do I do to delete them? Ditto for one I miss titled.

Thanks in advance for any helpful info you can provide. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit each page to place {{db-u1}} at the top and it will be deleted by an admin under WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#U1. A good place for this sort of question is WP:Help desk. Thincat (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitwise data collection

How does hitwise get their data from ISPs?Smallman12q (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ISPs install a program on their own servers that provides reports for the ISP. It is like a data analysis tool. The tool also sends "anonymous" data to Hitwise that they use to aggregate general Internet usage. Not all ISPs use Hitwise's tools, so not all ISPs report to Hitwise. -- kainaw ™ 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

phone

If I picked up a phone which was connected to a line being used by a computer for dial-up internet and recorded the computer sounds being heard on a tape recorder, could that be converted back into text and images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organize this text file (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had the ENTIRE communication, then yes. It could. You just need to turn the signal back into 1's and 0's and then turn all that back into the original messages (likely PPP packets). Because you are working with a single computer, all the messages should be coming from the computer or destined to the computer. That makes it much easier. -- kainaw ™ 20:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some data might be sent using an secure, properly-encrypted protocol; so you would not be able to reconstruct that data. Wiretapping the telephone-line would be a form of man-in-the-middle attack, which is exactly the sort of thing that proper cryptography is designed to prevent. You could collect and record 100% of the data that was sent and received, but it would be infeasible to reconstruct it into useful, human-readable data.

Note that most computer users do not properly safeguard their internet transactions with secure protocols - so on many systems, you could use a telephone wire-tap to collect a large amount of unprotected data.

Also, a tape-recorder's fidelity, signal-to-noise-ratio, and sampling rate may all be unsuitable for recording a 128kbps ISDN digital data stream; you might need better recording equipment; but this is an "implementation detail." Nimur (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]