| Time |
Nickname |
Message |
|
02:17
🔗
|
godane |
i'm at 268,500 uploads now |
|
03:06
🔗
|
godane |
i'm starting to upload more m.wsj.net |
|
03:09
🔗
|
joepie91 |
SketchCow: congratulations, you were faster in darking that item than I was in telling the individual in question that it'd be darked in 24-48 hours |
|
03:09
🔗
|
joepie91 |
lol |
|
03:12
🔗
|
SketchCow |
It's depends when you get me |
|
03:12
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I'm trying to keep the inbox clear |
|
03:12
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I'm also listening to standup and trying to pack up boxes to go to an archive |
|
03:13
🔗
|
joepie91 |
hehe |
|
03:14
🔗
|
* |
SketchCow is shoving in arcade games |
|
03:18
🔗
|
tfgbd |
IA claims I can't upload more than 2GB with Firefox |
|
03:18
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I'm using 33 |
|
03:18
🔗
|
tfgbd |
is this still the case? |
|
03:18
🔗
|
SketchCow |
You're uploading a 33gb item? |
|
03:19
🔗
|
tfgbd |
No, Firefox 33 |
|
03:19
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I could give you an FTP and I can shove it in for you. |
|
03:19
🔗
|
tfgbd |
An FTP that IA owns? |
|
03:19
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I own it, on IA property |
|
03:20
🔗
|
tfgbd |
That would be nifty. I hate this primative "modern" stuff ;P |
|
03:20
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I'll see how it goes this time and bother you again if I need it. |
|
03:20
🔗
|
tfgbd |
good to know, though |
|
03:20
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I was just wondering if that 2GB limit still applied to the latest Firefox or it's something that has been there for 5 years |
|
03:21
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I can't answer. I do everything by command line. |
|
03:23
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I'm cruising at Inbox 3 |
|
03:28
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Is there any kind of GUI python upload tool out there? |
|
03:28
🔗
|
SketchCow |
I use no gui |
|
03:28
🔗
|
SketchCow |
internetarcade in pip |
|
03:28
🔗
|
tfgbd |
obviously |
|
03:28
🔗
|
SketchCow |
Take a look |
|
03:28
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Yeah, installed it already |
|
03:28
🔗
|
tfgbd |
do you mean internetarchive? |
|
03:28
🔗
|
SketchCow |
yes |
|
03:29
🔗
|
SketchCow |
Sorry, arcade on the mind for some reason |
|
03:29
🔗
|
tfgbd |
internetarcade sounds like something else :P |
|
03:29
🔗
|
tfgbd |
surprised nobody wrote a GUI for that app |
|
03:29
🔗
|
joepie91 |
SketchCow: gosh, I wondder why |
|
03:29
🔗
|
garyrh |
>some reason |
|
03:29
🔗
|
joepie91 |
wonder * |
|
03:29
🔗
|
joepie91 |
:P |
|
03:29
🔗
|
garyrh |
heh |
|
03:29
🔗
|
tfgbd |
bias, I'd imagine |
|
03:31
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: pretty sure the 2GB limit only applies to the flash uploader, no? |
|
03:31
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I'm using the shitty javascript one that doesn't show any progress |
|
03:32
🔗
|
aaaaaaaaa |
firefox used to (still does?) give wrong content lengths above 2GBs |
|
03:32
🔗
|
joepie91 |
aaaaaaaaa: really? that's bizarre |
|
03:32
🔗
|
aaaaaaaaa |
Probably an overflow or something |
|
03:32
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: um, the javascript ("HTML5") one *does* show progress |
|
03:32
🔗
|
joepie91 |
perhaps you're using a shitty browser? :D |
|
03:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
It's called Firefox? |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(yes, yes, I know, all browsers are shit, I fully agree, but some more than others) |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: well, see above :P |
|
03:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Yeah, I kind of hate browsers and the way. |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
apparently it can't handle uploads correctly... |
|
03:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
especially that dynamic shit |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
well, I really like browsers and where they're going |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I'm just frustrated by some of the stupidity going around |
|
03:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Even as a kid if was concerned it would be hard to archive ;P |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
but comparatively, there's less stupidity than elsewhere, so there's that |
|
03:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Like confusing version numbers? |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: ? |
|
03:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
Red Hat would like to talk to you |
|
03:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
:p |
|
03:34
🔗
|
tfgbd |
How Firefox 33 is really just Firefox 5 or something ;P |
|
03:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: shitty versioning has been around *forever* |
|
03:34
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Yeah, but it's gotten worse with these modern browser wars |
|
03:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
you'll find that the JS ecosystem is actually one of the very few where people almost religiously follow semantic versioning for that reason |
|
03:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
not really |
|
03:34
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Though, it seems MS at least hasn't fallen victim to it yet |
|
03:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
there's just more people shouting at it |
|
03:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
anyway, as far as I can tell, Chrome's versioning is more or less reasonable |
|
03:35
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I dunno, it's still a preeeety high number |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
not quite semver |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
but not far off |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
yes, but high numbers are meaningless |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
the number doesn't matter |
|
03:35
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Browsers didn't used to do crazy high version numbers until Chome popularized it |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it's about what you can *derive* from the number |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
again, this is not a problem |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
high version numbers don't break or complicate anything |
|
03:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
complaining that they're "too high" is complaining for the sake of complaining |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
as long as the version numbers *tell* you something, it's perfectly fine |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and the Chrome version numbers do tell you something |
|
03:36
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Like? |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: okay, so, Chrome has three different branches |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
stable, beta, dev |
|
03:36
🔗
|
tfgbd |
ahh, like linux distros |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
beta is stable+1, dev is stable+2, in terms of major version number |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(always) |
|
03:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
the major version changes when the featureset or underlying architecture changes |
|
03:37
🔗
|
joepie91 |
minor version only indicates patches or small implementation changes that should not cause a difference noticeable to the end user |
|
03:37
🔗
|
joepie91 |
basically, upgrading to a new major version means "you're probably going to notice it being different, as an end user" |
|
03:37
🔗
|
joepie91 |
whether visually or technically |
|
03:37
🔗
|
joepie91 |
can be a change of rendering engine, can be a new "accounts" feature |
|
03:37
🔗
|
joepie91 |
can be sudden support for a new HTML5 video codec, etc. |
|
03:38
🔗
|
joepie91 |
minor versions, only a small subset of end users who were encountering a particular bug/issue/shortcoming will notice a difference |
|
03:38
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that's more or less the meaning of Chrome's versioning |
|
03:38
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and it's not *quite* as nice and descriptive as semver, but it's definitely consistent |
|
03:38
🔗
|
joepie91 |
Firefox, I don't know enough about, but from what I've gathered they follow similar versioning |
|
03:39
🔗
|
tfgbd |
IMO, baking the codecs in the browser is the stupidest idea |
|
03:39
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: in fact, IE follows the same process - the problem is that IE barely ever releases new features or architecture changes (which is why it's always behind) |
|
03:39
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and that's why the version number isn't as high |
|
03:39
🔗
|
tfgbd |
But that's a good thing for some people |
|
03:39
🔗
|
joepie91 |
Microsoft follows a more traditional release cycle |
|
03:39
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it really isn't |
|
03:39
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that's a myth |
|
03:39
🔗
|
tfgbd |
They usually release a new version with a new OS |
|
03:40
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it's perfectly possible to introduce new features or architecture changes without breaking backwards compatibility - that Microsoft is apparently unable to do so doesn't magically make their shitty release cycles "a good thing for some people" |
|
03:40
🔗
|
joepie91 |
those "some people" just need a better browser vendor that actually knows wtf they're doing |
|
03:40
🔗
|
joepie91 |
you build something for Chrome, Firefox or any other standards-compliant browser, it's not going to break with the next major update |
|
03:40
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Really, Microsoft is excellent with backwards compatability elsewhere |
|
03:40
🔗
|
joepie91 |
in fact, you can expect it to work for the next $long_time |
|
03:40
🔗
|
joepie91 |
lol |
|
03:40
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: ehhh |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I'd dispute that... |
|
03:41
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Windows 10 still runs DOS and Win16 programs pretty well. |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
no, it doesn't |
|
03:41
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Well, it obviously depends on the app |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
windows 8 doesn't anyway, so unless they;ve SPECIFICALLY implemented new crap for that... |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
yes, exactly |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and that's the problem |
|
03:41
🔗
|
tfgbd |
But it sure beats the competition |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that's not what I call "good backwards compatibility" |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
the competition being? |
|
03:41
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Linux and OSX |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
eh |
|
03:41
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I can grab an arbitrary Linux thing from 25 years ago, compile it on my current desktop |
|
03:42
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and be reasonably certain that it'll run |
|
03:42
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Linux has awful binary (and even source) backward compat |
|
03:42
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it'll probably look like shit and need old libs |
|
03:42
🔗
|
joepie91 |
but it will /work/ |
|
03:42
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Could a CHROOT help? |
|
03:42
🔗
|
joepie91 |
binary backward compat is not an issue at all if it's statically compiled |
|
03:42
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(which is the equivalent of shipping a pile of DLLs with your app) |
|
03:43
🔗
|
tfgbd |
OSX seems to even have not so great backward compatibility even with versions from a few years earlier |
|
03:43
🔗
|
joepie91 |
OSX, I can agree with |
|
03:43
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Not really. |
|
03:43
🔗
|
joepie91 |
iOS is also shit, as is Android |
|
03:43
🔗
|
joepie91 |
for backwards compat |
|
03:43
🔗
|
tfgbd |
static compiles are static compiles |
|
03:43
🔗
|
tfgbd |
You can do it on Windows too |
|
03:43
🔗
|
joepie91 |
but Linux and the *BSDs, not at all |
|
03:43
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Like compiling MFC in your app, etc. |
|
03:43
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: I'm not saying they're *technically* equivalent |
|
03:43
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I'm saying they're *practically* equivalent |
|
03:43
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Android seems okay but I've seen some problems, yeah |
|
03:44
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(Android backwards compat is terrible, even forwards compat is) |
|
03:44
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(just a lot of devs work around it) |
|
03:44
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Isn't that my point? |
|
03:44
🔗
|
tfgbd |
android is linux |
|
03:44
🔗
|
joepie91 |
... no, Android is Android |
|
03:44
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I'm sure it's worse if it isn't just a java app. |
|
03:44
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Like using linux libs that break on a newer kernel |
|
03:45
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: that is an extremely rare problem |
|
03:45
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I guess that's how debian can still use 2.6 |
|
03:46
🔗
|
tfgbd |
What issue have you had with Win16 and Windows 8? |
|
03:47
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: personally, I haven't used Windows since XP - third-party, I've heard a lot of issues starting from Vista and ongoing with 7 and 8 about not being able to run older software |
|
03:47
🔗
|
joepie91 |
on 64 bits systems anyway |
|
03:47
🔗
|
joepie91 |
16-bit software apparently just going "nope" altogether |
|
03:47
🔗
|
joepie91 |
lots of 32-bits 95/98/NT/2000/ME stuff not running correctly |
|
03:47
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I even remember this back from XP |
|
03:47
🔗
|
joepie91 |
where similar issues existed |
|
03:48
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Well, there is no Win16 on AMD64 so I'm talking about x86-32 |
|
03:48
🔗
|
joepie91 |
because suddenly, admin account system |
|
03:48
🔗
|
joepie91 |
yes, I'm not |
|
03:48
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I even had issues with some 32-bit stuff on AMD64 |
|
03:48
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Mostly just because it doesn't know where to properly put the registry entries |
|
03:49
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I dunno. It's still pretty good even ignoring the issues. |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
well there you go |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
yeah, I don't actually have these problems |
|
03:49
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Window XP and 7 can still run Windows 1.x stuff with modification. |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
the biggest issue I've had is Xorg ABI compatibility |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
with proprietary AMD drivers |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and that problem is soon history |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(yay unified driver) |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: "with modification" |
|
03:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I can still run crap in DOSBox |
|
03:50
🔗
|
tfgbd |
That's an emulator, though |
|
03:50
🔗
|
joepie91 |
doesn't make the OS I'm using "backwards compatible" |
|
03:50
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Windows 1.x apps run native. |
|
03:50
🔗
|
joepie91 |
missing the point |
|
03:50
🔗
|
joepie91 |
if you have to change shit, it's evidently not compatible anymore |
|
03:50
🔗
|
tfgbd |
They just need to be modded because the loader only knows how to run windows 3.0+ win16 apps |
|
03:50
🔗
|
joepie91 |
so, not compatible |
|
03:50
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Okayt |
|
03:50
🔗
|
tfgbd |
that was a bad example |
|
03:50
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Point is, 3.0+ stuff should run |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and doesn't on recent hardware because 64-bits whoo |
|
03:51
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Well, yeah |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and again |
|
03:51
🔗
|
tfgbd |
you just don't use the 64-bit edition |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
16-bits isn't even my issue |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I can kind of understand not supporting that if it's a CPU arch issue |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
which it supposedly is |
|
03:51
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Unfortunately, the newer server editions do not support Win16 |
|
03:51
🔗
|
tfgbd |
But Virtualization isn't that bad, I guess |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
my issue is that shit from 95/98/NT/ME/2000 will ALSO not run on modern Windows |
|
03:51
🔗
|
tfgbd |
though, that obviously doesn't count |
|
03:51
🔗
|
joepie91 |
without modification |
|
03:52
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Sometimes you have to disable some security like the compat checker to run stuff on NT 6.x kernels |
|
03:52
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: there are a lot of theme park rides, for example, that still run windows 95 or 98 |
|
03:52
🔗
|
joepie91 |
simply because it doesn't run on newer Windows |
|
03:52
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(yes, theme parks largely run Windows) |
|
03:52
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Oh, of course you can't use older stuff sometimes |
|
03:52
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that. was. the. point. |
|
03:53
🔗
|
tfgbd |
You can't expect everything especially if it depends on DOS drivers or whatever. |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it doesn't depend on DOS drivers. |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it's software that was written for 95/98. |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and/or derivativges |
|
03:53
🔗
|
tfgbd |
But, for the most part, a lot of generic Win16 and Win32 stuff that is just a program SHOULD still run |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
derivatives * |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
should, yes |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
will, no |
|
03:53
🔗
|
joepie91 |
seriously |
|
03:54
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I mean, I can continue arguing this, but I don't feel like you're going to actually listen to the arguments... |
|
03:54
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I know some still run XP because they need something that is broken on vista |
|
03:54
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Point is, Windows 8 will still run Wordperfect 6 for DOS and Word 6 for Win16 out of the box |
|
03:55
🔗
|
tfgbd |
That's pretty neat to me. |
|
03:55
🔗
|
* |
joepie91 sighs |
|
03:55
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I'd say that is still better than Macs |
|
03:55
🔗
|
tfgbd |
or iOS or Android |
|
03:55
🔗
|
joepie91 |
"Windows can still run this and that 16-bit application when you're running a 32-bit Windows even though you're using 64-bit hardware, so the backwards compatibility is better than on Linux where you can arbitrarily compile nearly anything from the 25 years and have it run without issues" |
|
03:56
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that's what this argument reads like to me by now |
|
03:56
🔗
|
joepie91 |
:| |
|
03:56
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and yes, it's better than OS X, iOS and Android |
|
03:56
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I already said that |
|
03:56
🔗
|
joepie91 |
but nowhere near Linux or *BSD |
|
03:56
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I hear BSDs are pretty nice |
|
03:56
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Linux is nowhere near BSD or Windows |
|
03:57
🔗
|
tfgbd |
If you have to compile it, that ain't backwards compat |
|
03:57
🔗
|
joepie91 |
uh, yes it is |
|
03:57
🔗
|
joepie91 |
try compiling software for 98 on 7 and running it |
|
03:57
🔗
|
joepie91 |
still won't run |
|
03:57
🔗
|
joepie91 |
because in the meantime the Win32 API changed too much |
|
03:57
🔗
|
joepie91 |
with no backwards compat wrappers |
|
03:57
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and/or registry keys changed |
|
03:58
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and/or suddenly, security architecture that keeps you from writing shit to the application dir |
|
03:58
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Ehh, just have to be careful what compiler versions you are using and what APIs you use |
|
03:58
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and so on, and so on, and so on |
|
03:58
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Also, sometimes the compilers make breaking changes if only in an attempt to obsolete the older OS |
|
03:58
🔗
|
joepie91 |
anyway, even if you don't compile, most stuff that isn't games will still run on a modern Linux box even if it's really really old |
|
03:58
🔗
|
joepie91 |
only games are a notorious problem child but that's mostly for proprietary driver reasons |
|
03:59
🔗
|
tfgbd |
So, if you manually remove imports that don't work, sometimes you can get it running on the older OS with a newer compiler |
|
03:59
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Not everything for Linux has source |
|
03:59
🔗
|
joepie91 |
well aware. |
|
03:59
🔗
|
joepie91 |
see above. |
|
04:00
🔗
|
SketchCow |
see last 20 years |
|
04:00
🔗
|
tfgbd |
It weird me out that Windows 95 was almost 20 year ago. |
|
04:01
🔗
|
joepie91 |
.wik windows 95 |
|
04:01
🔗
|
botpie91 |
"Windows 95 (codenamed Chicago) is a consumer-oriented graphical user interface-based operating system developed by Microsoft." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 |
|
04:01
🔗
|
joepie91 |
... |
|
04:01
🔗
|
joepie91 |
not helpful |
|
04:01
🔗
|
joepie91 |
ah, 95 was *actually* released in 1995 |
|
04:01
🔗
|
SmileyG |
yah;D |
|
04:02
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I vaguely recall something about windows server editions being released a year prior to their name |
|
04:02
🔗
|
joepie91 |
lol |
|
04:02
🔗
|
SmileyG |
yey work has been utterly shit. Can IAget a uk DC and hire me plz :( |
|
04:02
🔗
|
tfgbd |
With the NTs called NT in the product, they were released around the same time. |
|
04:02
🔗
|
tfgbd |
And NT5/2000 too, I think. |
|
04:03
🔗
|
tfgbd |
It was only with XP that the XP server edition got released way later |
|
04:03
🔗
|
tfgbd |
and then they did it again with Vista/Vista Server(2008) |
|
04:03
🔗
|
tfgbd |
With Windows 7, 8 and 10 they seem to be releasing them at the same time again |
|
04:05
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Afaik Windows 7/2008r2, 8/2012, 8.1/2012r2 and whatever 10 ends up being called were all released at the same time. |
|
04:08
🔗
|
SmileyG |
hmmm |
|
05:27
🔗
|
kyan |
hi, could someone save this? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GjP09-q9vCoJ:www.infoworld.com/article/2844525/techology-business/boxs-success-built-on-a-lie-reveals-coo.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thanks :) it looks like the original page got pulled |
|
05:37
🔗
|
SmileyG |
archivebot to the rescue |
|
05:39
🔗
|
kyan |
ty :) |
|
05:46
🔗
|
joepie91 |
kyan: https://archive.today/dYtnP |
|
05:46
🔗
|
kyan |
joepie91 thanks :) |
|
05:46
🔗
|
joepie91 |
(it was already there) |
|
05:46
🔗
|
kyan |
oh! |
|
05:47
🔗
|
kyan |
i guess someone else noticed |
|
05:49
🔗
|
joepie91 |
hehe |
|
06:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
SketchCow: |
|
06:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
.tw https://twitter.com/joepie91/status/530969441962823680 |
|
06:27
🔗
|
botpie91 |
<Teridax> this week taught that "[rip'd site] 2" is a failing formula <asshurt> myspace 2 is great though, admit it <Teridax> ello? love it (@joepie91) |
|
06:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
How do you guys usually mirror FTPs? |
|
06:34
🔗
|
garyrh |
http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=FTP |
|
06:34
🔗
|
tfgbd |
NM http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=FTP |
|
06:34
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Though, sometimes I like to hear realtime differences of opinion |
|
06:34
🔗
|
tfgbd |
That that preserve the item and folder dates? |
|
06:36
🔗
|
tfgbd |
does* |
|
06:58
🔗
|
yipdw |
tfgbd: just try it |
|
06:58
🔗
|
yipdw |
(the answer is yes, it does) |
|
07:02
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I am. Doing other things, ATM |
|
09:28
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Okay, just checked. wget is not preserving the folder timestamps |
|
09:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Maybe it's just not possible on any OS ;/ |
|
11:13
🔗
|
joepie91 |
tfgbd: what OS are you running this on? |
|
11:13
🔗
|
joepie91 |
because anything to do with filesystems tends to be spotty on Windows |
|
16:27
🔗
|
tfgbd |
joepie91: I was using ubuntu but it seemed to have the same issue as on Windows NT with the command I found suggested on the wiki |
|
16:29
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I notice most of your FTP rips on IA don't have proper folder stamps either :/ |
|
16:30
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I get the impression it may just not be possible or if it is, it's rarely implemented and will take lots of trial and error with various clients and configs |
|
16:31
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I get the impression it may just not be possible or if it is, it's rarely implemented and will take lots of trial and error with various clients and configs |
|
16:33
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I'm willing to spend some time to get a proper dump, though |
|
17:01
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I can find a few things that will do the opposite (transfer local folder dates to the server) but nothing to preserve them on the local machine from an FTP server |
|
18:04
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Ugh, this FTP is preventing me from downloading much at one time... |
|
18:08
🔗
|
tfgbd |
It seems they already have blocked me from downloading files after just downloading one directory |
|
18:10
🔗
|
yipdw |
tfgbd: the command given on the wiki preserves create timestamps fine |
|
18:10
🔗
|
yipdw |
if the timestamps that you're getting back are incorrect, verify that they match what the FTP server is sending back and that you aren't running any processes that would muck with that |
|
18:10
🔗
|
tfgbd |
for folders? |
|
18:11
🔗
|
tfgbd |
let me check again |
|
18:11
🔗
|
tfgbd |
I know the timestamps for files work fine |
|
18:11
🔗
|
yipdw |
oh directories |
|
18:12
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Yeah |
|
18:12
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Most software gets the file stamps just fine |
|
18:12
🔗
|
tfgbd |
at least when you enable it |
|
18:12
🔗
|
tfgbd |
It's the directories I care about |
|
18:12
🔗
|
tfgbd |
is there nothing to sync the folder stamps? |
|
18:12
🔗
|
tfgbd |
Should I just give up and download whatever shit I can? |
|
18:14
🔗
|
yipdw |
hm |
|
18:14
🔗
|
yipdw |
- |
|
18:14
🔗
|
yipdw |
~/tmp/ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux$ stat -c '%w' kde-redhat |
|
18:14
🔗
|
yipdw |
that might be my filesystem being dumb |
|
18:14
🔗
|
yipdw |
because I don't have birth times for any files |
|
18:19
🔗
|
yipdw |
tfgbd: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.wget.general/11431 |
|
18:19
🔗
|
yipdw |
so wget doesn't do it, whether or not it is a bug is arguable |