Nobody shares knowledge better than this
-
Great Search exposes Aliens
@SQLDave said:
Man, I'm gonna regret this, but... were there any ALIENS in attendance at (or perhaps presiding over) that council meeting?
Please don't bring that up again. It's embarrassing having people know I spend that much time around politicians. Like why can't the guy get any normal friends. Sad so sad.
Great searches helps find everything; even Aliens. Slow slow motion leaves them exposed.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
There is just a warm feeling, when you have Swamp search on the taskbar.
That's just because you shit yourself again. Maybe buy diapers?
@SpectateSwamp said:
Can't search video.
SSDS can't search video either. It can search manually entered EmDee, or randomly display random parts of random videos. Neither of this techniques has anything to do with searching the actual contents of the videos.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Not even any fun things for Text. Slowed print, Flash display option.
Again, not a feature any desktop search should have.
@SpectateSwamp said:
My QUESTION with RR is how long a snippet can I play before there is a copyright problem. 2 seconds, 3 secs?
IANAL, but I'd say 0 seconds, if you want to publicly play anything copyrighted without paying the copyright owner. There's copyright-free music however, you could use that for a public showoff.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Or again do I have to do all the manual work. Typing typing forever keyboarding and reading.
Errr... "hooray SSDS!"?
@SpectateSwamp said:
Is reading manual or automatic?
Automatic reading is known as OCR, I believe.
-
Ditties to fight the Prosecutorials.
@derula said:
SSDS can't search video either. It can search manually entered EmDee, or randomly display random parts of random videos. Neither of this techniques has anything to do with searching the actual contents of the videos.
The Super slow motion abilities of SSDS enables everybody to search Videos for Aliens. They are there you know. And Not your dumb old EmDee's either
And what about the threat to Video knowledge sharing posed by the MFD group. There are 2 great videos that don't get appreciated in their fullest. Strutting Ruffed Grouse and Bright Shiny Object. And that is just me. Multiply that by 6 Billion and what do you get. We get trouble. Locally there is some kid with the prosecutorials all over him for some racial slurr. I won't say that or any bad word. Not when they are watching and they are watching. Just how did they find these 2 videos (included music) out of the hundreds I have posted. One day the net will be tracking the prosecutorials out there. It will you know. We can only hope..
@derula said:
Again, not a feature any desktop search should have.
Thanks again for pointing out the shortfalls of the other desktop searches. SSDS limit 30GB the others; tiny tiny compared to this number. Random slowed print of your favorite book. A voice over and a screen reshoot of this random text. Nobody has that capability except SSDS. Nobody.
@derula said:
Zero seconds is a guess. Only hard numbers here please.IANAL, but I'd say 0 seconds, if you want to publicly play anything copyrighted without paying the copyright owner. There's copyright-free music however, you could use that for a public showoff.
Make sure you are in a music free zone when shooting anything where the audio is important. And it always is. Otherwise the MusicFolksData group will be all over you. That's why we don't see the JimmyHoffa tape. There was some damned copyrighted ditty playing in the background. Like I say. My own personal copyrighted ditty will be playing back everytime. I do something that could possibly be considered illegal on video. That is 30,000 + laws in a province. So everything is illegal. Down with Illegal. Up with legal. Starting with you know what.
-
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
And that is just me.
QFT.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Multiply that by 6 Billion and what do you get. We get trouble.
Agreed. If there were 6 Billion copies of you, we'd be in a lot of trouble. Like, where to bury all those corpses? You can't sink all of them in the Atlantic Ocean.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Like I say. My own personal copyrighted ditty will be playing back everytime. I do something that could possibly be considered illegal on video. That is 30,000 + laws in a province. So everything is illegal. Down with Illegal. Up with legal. Starting with you know what.
You know, SwamptateSpec, it's (usually) not illegal to record anything copyrighted. It is just illegal to pass it on to another without paying the original author. You can film your cat while Mariah Carey is playing in the background. You can watch that hilarious scene over and over again. Hell, you can show it on family meetings, as long as they're not in a public restaurant. You just can't display it to the crowd somewhere to show off your furry little friend.
Btw., my tags are awkwardly matching the topic right now. Mostly.
-
@SQLDave said:
@SpectateSwamp said:
Multiply that by 6 Billion and what do you get.
42?SpectateSwamp * 6,000,000,000 = 42
⇒ SpectateSwamp = 0.000000007 q.e.d.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
The Super slow motion abilities of SSDS enables everybody to search Videos for Aliens. They are there you know. And Not your dumb old EmDee's either
That is not searching a video though, that is called watching a slow video.@SpectateSwamp said:
And what about the threat to Video knowledge sharing posed by the MFD group. There are 2 great videos that don't get appreciated in their fullest. Strutting Ruffed Grouse and Bright Shiny Object. And that is just me.
No threat there because you made up MFD anyway, why would a made up music cabal have anything to do with video though; or is the conspiracy bigger than we first realised? I have seen the second video although I remember it as the 'video compression artifact I wasted precious seconds of my life watching' video rather than the 'Bright Shiny Object' video.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Thanks again for pointing out the shortfalls of the other desktop searches. SSDS limit 30GB the others; tiny tiny compared to this number. Random slowed print of your favorite book. A voice over and a screen reshoot of this random text. Nobody has that capability except SSDS. Nobody.
SSDS will not do more than 2GB, simply becaue it uses functions that cannot cope with more than 2GB so the 30GB claim is utter toss. Watch the link in my sig for proof of what SSDS can do! Search tools are there to search - hence the name, cramming useless crap into a shitty product doesn't change this.
-
Size barriers can't stop Swamp Search
@spenk said:
SSDS will not do more than 2GB, simply becaue it uses functions that cannot cope with more than 2GB so the 30GB claim is utter toss. Watch the link in my sig for proof of what SSDS can do! Search tools are there to search - hence the name, cramming useless crap into a shitty product doesn't change this.
Someone lied to you SpenkSwamp. I just created a 2,161,617KB file using the merge function. I used SSDS to show me the last page of that huge file. That meant it reads to the last of the file. Then reads it a second time. Starting the display just before the end. There were 37,675,811 lines of text and the elapsed time was 269.39 seconds. 4 Min 30 seconds. It read that file twice. Come on Swampies use the merge option at prompt 2 and build some huge file. Even huger than the one I built with SSDS. I found the limits of the competition for you. Find the limits of SSDS for me. Maybe there is no limit. SpenkSwamp and SpenkSwampDaddy sure don't know. Just yet anyway.
Come on Swampies don't be afraid to create huge huge text files with SSDS/merge and view the last page with the 'y' option; as a test. It isn't going to hurt anybody. Or again is this just sitting and yapping forum. So far any responses to size is from 2GB to 30GB. Both guesses. Nobody has ran SSDS till it stops; yet have you. Don't want to know? Probably not. Intentionally not knowing is avoidance.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Come on Swampies don't be afraid to create huge huge text files with SSDS/merge and view the last page with the 'y' option; as a test. It isn't going to hurt anybody. Or again is this just sitting and yapping forum.
We would really like to use SSDS to create large text files and see how it fails, just to prove you wrong. However, we can't figure out how to use that
piece of softwareabomination. We're at most stupid stupid IT professionals, some even less than that (me e.g. a math student), we're not computer science Messiahs as you are.
-
Way more explaining needed.
@derula said:
We're at most stupid stupid IT professionals, some even less than that (me e.g. a math student), we're not computer science Messiahs as you are.
Sorry. I sometimes forget. No I forget quit a bit. Not everybody has been arguing desktop search and this one in particular with me for years. You are not that stupid. You just didn't have enough help.
First off to do a merge. You need a running version of the search. It is a little problematic during the initial started up. Creates control files etc and needs to be "x"'ed or "e"'ed out. Now to the merge. Start the search a 2nd time. at prompt #1 take the default provided as this file doesn't matter for a merge. At prompt #2 enter "merge" The next prompt is for the directory or device to merge files from ie "c:\search\" is the one I want to merge the text files from. The next prompt is for the file type "txt" is the default. The next prompt is for the output file of the merge operation. The default is "merge.txt" the next prompt is for Append or Overwrite. (overwrite is the default; creates a new file) select the O default. The merge/append now starts. When done SSDS displays the folder counts and the files merged. Hit enter returns you to #1 file prompt. Enter "merge.txt" and at prompt #2 enter "y" (y being near the end of the alphabet and for 'Y'esterday notes at the end of the file) and SSDS will read the file twice showing you the final page.
Once I have a big file merged. I made a couple of copies of it naming them temp1.txt temp2.txt temp3.txt then run the merge again. The output file gets bigger. I do 1 final merge with a New file zzz.txt in at the end of the directory. In that file I put a search string that I will use to test the imposters to the Desktop Search throne. I make up a number "2774302836" and a special set of text characters "fred ziffel walked his dog". SSDS checks for numbers faster as; no Ucase command (changing the text to uppercase) needs to be done when searching for numerics. I tested the 4 I listed this way. Those numbers are not guesses. They are tested. I'd check to see that the info was truly there with SSDS. Their files sizes were still very small. How far can SSDS go. I don't know.
Maybe after some tests of the other Desktop Search systems maxes. I'll give you the instructions to random random. Or maybe tomorrow? It's even simpler.
I use the search to keep and display my youtube view counts.
first I go into youtube and my account and it displays 75,123 which I select and copy. Then I go into SSDS at promp #1 I select mystuff.txt which is the default. At prompt #2 I select "e" to enter text. I'm entering text "youtube views " (Paste) 75123 enter" 22Jan2010" then enter enter enter and SSDS closes out. I want to see my counts. I select the default file #1 which is mystuff.txt. At prompt #2 I select "s" for single line matching only (no context) and at prompt #3 (search criteria) I enter "youtube views/2010" (usually one of the 20 of previous searches - select by 3 or 4 etc)" and the 22 lines of matches for this year show up. I don't need this damn info but I keep it from day to day. The more I argue the more those counts go up and up.
I seldom ever leave SSDS running. I just close and start it when I need it. The defaults are there and it starts up fast.
-
Thanks for the explanation SpectateSwamp. Now, where do I get VB5 to be able to compile SSDS?
-
Re: Way more explaining needed, because SSDS is impossible to figure out without a lot of help.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Sorry. I sometimes forget. No I forget quit a bit. Not everybody has been arguing desktop search and this one in particular with me for years. You are not that stupid. You just didn't have enough help
And yet to use any other desktop search tool people can just figure it for themselves!@SpectateSwamp said:
So where is the "easy button" in all this then?First off to do a merge. You need a running version of the search. It is a little problematic during the initial started up. Creates control files etc and needs to be "x"'ed or "e"'ed out. Now to the merge. Start the search a 2nd time. at prompt #1 take the default provided as this file doesn't matter for a merge. At prompt #2 enter "merge" The next prompt is for the directory or device to merge files from ie "c:\search\" is the one I want to merge the text files from. The next prompt is for the file type "txt" is the default. The next prompt is for the output file of the merge operation. The default is "merge.txt" the next prompt is for Append or Overwrite. (overwrite is the default; creates a new file) select the O default. The merge/append now starts. When done SSDS displays the folder counts and the files merged. Hit enter returns you to #1 file prompt. Enter "merge.txt" and at prompt #2 enter "y" (y being near the end of the alphabet and for 'Y'esterday notes at the end of the file) and SSDS will read the file twice showing you the final page.
Once I have a big file merged. I made a couple of copies of it naming them temp1.txt temp2.txt temp3.txt then run the merge again. The output file gets bigger. I do 1 final merge with a New file zzz.txt in at the end of the directory. In that file I put a search string that I will use to test the imposters to the Desktop Search throne. I make up a number "2774302836" and a special set of text characters "fred ziffel walked his dog". SSDS checks for numbers faster as; no Ucase command (changing the text to uppercase) needs to be done when searching for numerics. I tested the 4 I listed this way. Those numbers are not guesses. They are tested. I'd check to see that the info was truly there with SSDS. Their files sizes were still very small. How far can SSDS go. I don't know.
@SpectateSwamp said:
So why not just search from youtube itself? Seems a lot less effort using youtube's built in search.I use the search to keep and display my youtube view counts.
first I go into youtube and my account and it displays 75,123 which I select and copy. Then I go into SSDS at promp #1 I select mystuff.txt which is the default. At prompt #2 I select "e" to enter text. I'm entering text "youtube views " (Paste) 75123 enter" 22Jan2010" then enter enter enter and SSDS closes out. I want to see my counts. I select the default file #1 which is mystuff.txt. At prompt #2 I select "s" for single line matching only (no context) and at prompt #3 (search criteria) I enter "youtube views/2010" (usually one of the 20 of previous searches - select by 3 or 4 etc)" and the 22 lines of matches for this year show up. I don't need this damn info but I keep it from day to day. The more I argue the more those counts go up and up.
@SpectateSwamp said:
I seldom ever leave SSDS running. I just close
it down after failing to get it to do anything useful at all quite frankly.
-
Tiny tiny steps will get you to Swamp search
@spenk said:
And yet to use any other desktop search tool people can just figure it for themselves!
That is an example how to merge and test out the competition or lack of. This is taking them tiny tiny steps ahead of what you and your dad can do. And there is more. Don't tell me either that this is too tuff for anybody to follow.
@spenk said:
So where is the "easy button" in all this then?
Right there beside the POWERFUL button. Next you'll learn how to do the Random Random boogie. All with a few easy to understand instructions.
@spenk said:
So why not just search from youtube itself? Seems a lot less effort using youtube's built in search.
Cuz I don't trust the other searches. SSDS gives me all the data in the same order everytime. Nice rows of text. Hilited. Counts, dates. And fast. I'll extract some for here NOW.
youtube views 74466 01Jan2010 Happy New Year
youtube views 74597 02Jan2010
youtube views 74745 03Jan2010
youtube views 74752 04Jan2010
youtube views 74938 05Jan2010
youtube views 75027 06Jan2010
youtube views 75110 07Jan2010
youtube views 75184 08Jan2010
youtube views 75247 09Jan2010 Saturday
youtube views 75305 10Jan2010
youtube views 75394 11Jan2010
youtube views 75454 12Jan2010
youtube views 75539 13Jan2010
youtube views 75621 14Jan2010
youtube views 75682 15Jan2010
youtube views 75756 16Jan2010 Saturday
youtube views 75833 17Jan2010
youtube views 75900 18Jan2010
youtube views 76010 19Jan2010
youtube views 76090 20Jan2010
youtube views 76158 21Jan2010
youtube views 76271 22Jan2010
youtube views 76381 23Jan2010 Saturday
youtube views 76447 24Jan2010
-
Explaining is Knowledge Sharing
@derula said:
Thanks for the explanation SpectateSwamp. Now, where do I get VB5 to be able to compile SSDS?
Don't worry if you don't have VB5 I will build the exe for You. So if any of you Swampies wants to jam SSDS. Make a few changes - activate some prompt / debug boxes and post the text file where I can get it. This is very easy with SSDS and 1 huge program. I'll start making request for code changes and checking them. Giving out gold stars and t-shirts to the brave brave sir swampies that jam and improve SSDS. I know you can DerulaSwamp .Yes and you too SpenkSwamp and SpenkSwampDaddy.Some of the messy parts of the code are because it is messy to have defaults at startup; then have those defaults cleared (a blank reply unloads/stops SSDS at prompt #1; a blank reply at prompt #2 takes you to prompt #1) so with SSDS prompts of: "enter" "y" Will show you the last notes and "enter" "enter" "enter" Removes SSDS completely. You can't see a page full of your most recent notes faster than this. No way can't be done faster. Unless of course we were running Slowed Print. Just for fun.
-
I propose the following change- a new module, call it what you wish. the contents are:
Option Explicit
Sub Main()
End
End Subthen simply change the startup object to be te new module, and TADA! SDSS has been improved one hundred fold, and many people will be spared from brain damage.
-
Random Random Boogie - No other desktop search boogies like Swamp search
@BC_Programmer said:
I propose the following change- a new module, call it what you wish. the contents are:
Option Explicit
Sub Main()
End
End Subthen simply change the startup object to be te new module, and TADA! SDSS has been improved one hundred fold, and many people will be spared from brain damage.
That's a start. A very poor start.
Try this
get the source at
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/source.txtget the executable at
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/search.exeI always run new SSDS in it's brand new folder ie. "c:\search\"
In a couple minutes have SSDS playing RRB music at any party. Don't be Dull. Here is how.
Start SSDS
use the default at prompt #1 for it doesn't matter for the catalog / MetaData populate function.at prompt #2 select "gf" for the "Get Files" / catalog option. The next prompt is for the directory to catalog and mine is "c:\search\" you could use "c:\" for the whole drive. And a few other options (take the defaults) except at "file type / extension" prompt enter "mp3" some more defaults...till "enter file name" prompt there you can change the name if you like or take the default. Then the "overwrite or append" use "o" that's it they are cataloged.hit enter to go to prompt #1. Enter "songs.txt" or what ever name you chose pervious.
At prompt #2 enter "tt15" this sets the play length to 15 seconds
at prompt #2 enter "rand" This sets it to pick a random tune
at prompt #2 enter "randa" This sets it to pick a random start point in the tune
at prompt #2 enter "thumb" This tells SSDS to stop the tune after the preset time
at prompt #2 enter "ww" Screen saver mode where it will play and play and play
at prompt #3 enter "photo" This string "photo" is on every catalog line of data from the "gf" buildYou will boogie to the RRB playback. Hit enter to play the full tune. Change your mind and kill it. The restart will be all defaults so it is super simple and fast. The only thing to remember is after playing RRB stuff to set the prompts at #2 back ie "norand" "noranda" "nothumb" otherwise you get confused fast when searching for text or play video!
This will get you tapping your foot and up & spinning around. Warning you might bust a move.
in 15 minutes or less. (time yourselves) you could be doing Random Random Boogie with the best of them. Go Swampies.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
That is an example how to merge and test out the competition or lack of. This is taking them tiny tiny steps ahead of what you and your dad can do. And there is more. Don't tell me either that this is too tuff for anybody to follow.
I really don't care, I have no desire to use SSDS any more than I already have. It is a truely awful piece of software that has no use for anyone other than yourself.@SpectateSwamp said:
Right there beside the POWERFUL button. Next you'll learn how to do the Random Random boogie. All with a few easy to understand instructions.
I can only see two buttons "OK" and "Cancel" on a fuck ugly InputBox - where is the POWERFUL button then? I am guessing Cancel is the POWERFUL button as it means I can use something other than SSDS.@SpectateSwamp said:Cuz I don't trust the other searches. SSDS gives me all the data in the same order everytime. Nice rows of text. Hilited. Counts, dates. And fast. I'll extract some for here NOW.
Whatever, so you don't trust youtube but you trust things cut and pasted from youtube. I guess that makes sense in a mad person kind of way.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Why would anyone want to have random 15 second snippets from random parts of songs at a party? I pity your poor guests.Start SSDS
use the default at prompt #1 for it doesn't matter for the catalog / MetaData populate function.at prompt #2 select "gf" for the "Get Files" / catalog option. The next prompt is for the directory to catalog and mine is "c:\search\" you could use "c:\" for the whole drive. And a few other options (take the defaults) except at "file type / extension" prompt enter "mp3" some more defaults...till "enter file name" prompt there you can change the name if you like or take the default. Then the "overwrite or append" use "o" that's it they are cataloged.hit enter to go to prompt #1. Enter "songs.txt" or what ever name you chose pervious.
At prompt #2 enter "tt15" this sets the play length to 15 seconds
at prompt #2 enter "rand" This sets it to pick a random tune
at prompt #2 enter "randa" This sets it to pick a random start point in the tune
at prompt #2 enter "thumb" This tells SSDS to stop the tune after the preset time
at prompt #2 enter "ww" Screen saver mode where it will play and play and play
at prompt #3 enter "photo" This string "photo" is on every catalog line of data from the "gf" buildWith something like windows media player I could select a genre or search for artist, album, genre, rating, most played, least played etc and shuffle them in a matter of seconds. Why would I want to spend 15 minutes pissing around with SSDS to get a toss end result?
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Someone lied to you SpenkSwamp. I just created a 2,161,617KB file using the merge function.
Ok, ok, now do a file that's about 4,000,000 KB. I know it's possible. C'mon.
-
RR rock, RR country, RR jazz whatever your heart desires with SSDS
@spenk said:
They never had the opportunity for it till now. Just hit enter and the full tune plays. Then it is back to 15 second clips.At Prompt #3 you can enter the artist or genre or album etc and have it just random with that group of tunes. RR Country, RR Rock and Roll, RR jazz. what ever your RR desires.Why would anyone want to have random 15 second snippets from random parts of songs at a party? I pity your poor guests.
With something like windows media player I could select a genre or search for artist, album, genre, rating, most played, least played etc and shuffle them in a matter of seconds. Why would I want to spend 15 minutes pissing around with SSDS to get a toss end result?
All in far less than 15 minutes. Do it now. Be the first on your block. the slap-chop of music.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
@spenk said:
They never had the opportunity for it till now. Just hit enter and the full tune plays. Then it is back to 15 second clips.At Prompt #3 you can enter the artist or genre or album etc and have it just random with that group of tunes. RR Country, RR Rock and Roll, RR jazz. what ever your RR desires.Why would anyone want to have random 15 second snippets from random parts of songs at a party? I pity your poor guests.
With something like windows media player I could select a genre or search for artist, album, genre, rating, most played, least played etc and shuffle them in a matter of seconds. Why would I want to spend 15 minutes pissing around with SSDS to get a toss end result?
All in far less than 15 minutes. Do it now. Be the first on your block. the slap-chop of music.
Please try to understand nobody fucking wants to listen to music this way, there isn't a single person I know who would chose to listen to music as a series of random length clips from random songs in a random order - this is madness itself.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
All in far less than 15 minutes. Do it now. Be the first on your block. the slap-chop of music.
DJ Steve Porter did that already nearly a year ago with something called Ableton Live. Oh and guess what Swampy, Ableton Live has a SEARCH function. One that doesnt grind your whole machine to a halt while you're playing.
@spenk said:
Please try to understand nobody fucking wants to listen to music this way, there isn't a single person I know who would chose to listen to music as a series of random length clips from random songs in a random order - this is madness itself.
Well... Negativland and The Kleptones do that... but they know about this thing called Mixing.
-
@Nyquist said:
Well... Negativland and The Kleptones do that... but they know about this thing called Mixing.
Not my type of thing, however I fully appreciate the technical skill required to choose compatible songs and match them in terms of bmp etc. especially when dealing with very short samples. SSDS on the other hand is just picking random start points from random songs with no consideration of suitability or smooth transistion etc.
-
My desktop search utility can report
its search results in RandomRainbow sort.
This futurisitic super tech displays
some random text in brightly colored ways
and orders them according to their shade
as I desired when I had it made.
And furthermore for each success it sees
it will eject the tray for DVDs.
My dear poor SpectateSwamp, you must admit
that your poor swampie search cannot match it.
From this, therefore, I'm forcèd to conclude,
Good day, dear sir. Good day. I said, YOU LOSE.
-
Someone lied to you SpenkSwamp. I just created a 2,161,617KB file using the merge function
wow, that's interesting. See, I just created a file that was 2213495808 bytes in size (2,161,617KB).
now this is the fun part! VB refuses to return the file length.
filelen("D:\bigbigfile.txt") returns -2081471488
Also, the following segment:
Dim readstring As Stringreadstring = Space$(32768) Open "D:\bigbigfile.txt" For Binary As #1 Seek #1, 2147483647 Get #1, , readstring Debug.Print Seek(1)Close #1
encounters an error at the "Get" statement. "Bad Record number". You CANNOT perform FILE I/O PAST the 2GB mark of a file in Visual Basic without Direct API calls. So stop lying.
So far any responses to size is from 2GB to 30GB. Both guesses.
30GB was not a guess. I tested it and Windows Search was able to index the file based on it's contents.
the 2GB was not a guess either. Visual Basic uses a 32-bit signed integer to perform file reads,writes, and file size retrievals. Overflowing that 2GB marker results in a error. you cannot access >2GB files with Visual Basic's built in functions. PERIOD.
-
SSDS breaks 2GB barrier - Easily
@BC_Programmer said:
Somebody has lied to you as well. BCProgrammerSwampSomeone lied to you SpenkSwamp. I just created a 2,161,617KB file using the merge function
wow, that's interesting. See, I just created a file that was 2213495808 bytes in size (2,161,617KB).
now this is the fun part! VB refuses to return the file length.
filelen("D:\bigbigfile.txt") returns -2081471488
Also, the following segment:
Dim readstring As Stringreadstring = Space$(32768) Open "D:\bigbigfile.txt" For Binary As #1 Seek #1, 2147483647 Get #1, , readstring Debug.Print Seek(1)Close #1
encounters an error at the "Get" statement. "Bad Record number". You CANNOT perform FILE I/O PAST the 2GB mark of a file in Visual Basic without Direct API calls. So stop lying.
So far any responses to size is from 2GB to 30GB. Both guesses.
30GB was not a guess. I tested it and Windows Search was able to index the file based on it's contents.
the 2GB was not a guess either. Visual Basic uses a 32-bit signed integer to perform file reads,writes, and file size retrievals. Overflowing that 2GB marker results in a error. you cannot access >2GB files with Visual Basic's built in functions. PERIOD.
This is how SSDS reads big files: (as per source.txt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The logic for "y" at prompt #2
' "Y" for yesterday display in text file december 09 2001
' read till end of file then do similar to the "B" option
If ttt = "Y" Then
save_line = "65"
OutFile = FreeFile
Open TheFile For Input As #OutFile
DoEvents 'yield to operating system
dblStart = Timer 'get the start time
line_65:
Line Input #OutFile, aaa
zzz_cnt = zzz_cnt + 1
GoTo line_65
End If
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The error trapping logic below
' '"Y" logic below read till end of file then back off a few lines
' then simulate a "C" and "A" for all search.
If Err.Number = 62 And save_line = "65" Then
Close #OutFile
DoEvents
OutFile = FreeFile
Open TheFile For Input As #OutFile
DoEvents
' tt1 = InputBox("testing only " + TheFile, , , 4400, 4500) 'TESTING ONLY
For bbb = 1 To zzz_cnt - MAX_CNT + 2 '2 TO SEE THE LAST 2 STATS LINES
Line Input #OutFile, aaa
Next bbb
Previous_line = aaa
Line Input #OutFile, aaa
zzz_cnt = bbb
search_prompt = "" 'this keeps the next prompt#3 from being "D"
prompt2 = "C"
SAVE_ttt = "C"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Visual Basic uses a 32-bit signed integer to perform file reads,writes"
phooie SSDS VB5 isn't restricted by any dumb old 32-bit integer for reads. That would be too limiting.
so I "guess" that also puts your 30GB number in jeopardy.
Good going. At least you are not part of LazyForum. You tried and were wrong and learned something today.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
At Prompt #3 you can enter the artist or genre or album etc and have it just random with that group of tunes. RR Country, RR Rock and Roll, RR jazz. what ever your RR desires.
So say I'm a DJ and give a party for Punks. So I say RR Punk. It works pretty well, until SSDS starts playing Daft Punk and the guys with funny hair start beating the crap out of me. Are you willing to pay my hospital bills then?
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
phooie SSDS VB5 isn't restricted by any dumb old 32-bit integer for reads. That would be too limiting.
so I "guess" that also puts your 30GB number in jeopardy.
Good going. At least you are not part of LazyForum. You tried and were wrong and learned something today.
http://bytes.com/topic/visual-basic/answers/15327-vb6-data-filesize-limitation
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/189981
http://www.codeguru.com/vb/controls/vb_file/directory/article.php/c12917/
In order to access files beyond 2GB, you NEED TO USE the Ex Functions, which use 64-bit long integers.
Visual Basic does NOT use these functions.
Visual Basic 6 external imports (acquired via the command dumpbin /imports msvbvm60.dll | find /i "file")
Dump of file msvbvm60.dll
File Type: DLL
77DF8685 8E FlushFileBuffers
77DF24CD 1A6 MoveFileA
77E43660 1A1 LockFile
77E43737 251 UnlockFile
77E358E5 FD GetModuleFileNameW
77E01DA2 217 SetFileAttributesA
77E1FC7F 77 FileTimeToLocalFileTime
77E318E8 78 FileTimeToSystemTime
77E0A7F8 EE GetFileTime
77E08095 21A SetFileTime
77DF3569 1AF OpenFile
77E206F2 82 FindFirstFileA
77E21329 87 FindNextFileA
77E3C906 27B WriteFile
77E07FFC 210 SetEndOfFile
77E1C959 219 SetFilePointer
77E3BCD9 244 SystemTimeToFileTime
77E07D48 10C GetPrivateProfileIntA
77E07C3C 123 GetProfileStringA
77E1FC52 E8 GetFileAttributesA
77E3440D FC GetModuleFileNameA
77E3D305 EF GetFileType
77E43B22 13B GetTempFileNameA
77E07B17 112 GetPrivateProfileStringA
77E3CF71 31 CreateFileA
77E303F8 1D6 ReadFile
77E0C6E4 4E DeleteFileA
77B7A1FA 11 CloseMetaFile
77B79E7E 33 CreateMetaFileA
77B72A2E 45 DeleteMetaFile
77B7D540 127 PlayMetaFile
77B73902 44 DeleteEnhMetaFile
77B7C5A7 125 PlayEnhMetaFile
77B757A8 CE GetEnhMetaFileHeader
77B743A0 F CloseEnhMetaFile
77B7696C 29 CreateEnhMetaFileA
77B92517 17 CopyMetaFileA
77B9B9E8 15 CopyEnhMetaFileA
71F5954E E9 StgCreateDocfileOnILockBytes
71F9C78F AA OleCreateLinkToFile
71F9C7DA A4 OleCreateFromFile
71F5FBB6 5F GetClassFile
71F169E3 E8 StgCreateDocfileSo
knowing you you'll say "VB6 is limited" well the VB5 run-time is no different.
Dump of file msvbvm50.dll
File Type: DLL
77E71AFE 18E MoveFileA
77E78B82 1B8 ReadFile
77E64E2B 189 LockFile
77E64EA0 227 UnlockFile
77E73FF9 83 FlushFileBuffers
77E6AF8F 127 GetTempFileNameA
77E794BF 6E FileTimeToLocalFileTime
77E70396 1F6 SetFileAttributesA
77E7011A 1F9 SetFileTime
77E79424 6F FileTimeToSystemTime
77E73CE2 DB GetFileTime
77E79FC8 EA GetModuleFileNameW
77E75D9E 79 FindFirstFileA
77E75E67 7C FindNextFileA
77E78C81 1F8 SetFilePointer
77E79D8C 24F WriteFile
77E70192 1EF SetEndOfFile
77E77C4C 21B SystemTimeToFileTime
77E6A907 10F GetProfileStringA
77E74CAB D7 GetFileAttributesA
77E7A099 E9 GetModuleFileNameA
77E78406 DC GetFileType
77E7A837 2B CreateFileA
77E73628 45 DeleteFileA
77C83587 11 CloseMetaFile
77C837A1 33 CreateMetaFileA
77C81A4C 45 DeleteMetaFile
77C92220 11A PlayMetaFile
77C86596 44 DeleteEnhMetaFile
77C8903D C3 GetEnhMetaFileHeader
77C89511 118 PlayEnhMetaFile
77C8BC45 F CloseEnhMetaFile
77C8BF75 29 CreateEnhMetaFileA
77C8411A 17 CopyMetaFileA
77CA5715 15 CopyEnhMetaFileA
771FEDD5 86 StgCreateDocfile
772003EC 87 StgCreateDocfileOnILockBytes
7728A851 55 OleCreateLinkToFile
7724C801 39 GetClassFile
7728A895 52 OleCreateFromFileAlso I would prefer not to see the shit you call "Code". It proves nothing but your own ineptitude.
-
Good clean code obliterated by SSDS
@BC_Programmer said:
Also I would prefer not to see the shit you call "Code". It proves nothing but your own ineptitude.
Just like the old video rules. With programming; break every rule you can. Those that won't break keep.So Shit Code obliterates, whips, creams: "Good Clean & Proper Code"
Wooo Hooo SSDS wins again. How far can this Swamp search go? Beyond 30GB? Maybe
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Just like the old video rules. With programming; break every rule you can. Those that won't break keep.
So Shit Code obliterates, whips, creams: "Good Clean & Proper Code"
Wooo Hooo SSDS wins again. How far can this Swamp search go? Beyond 30GB? Maybe
THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU RETARD.
-
Re: SSDS breaks 2GB barrier - very very slowly but only for "y" not for searching.
@BC_Programmer said:
As much as I hate to do this SSDS did manage to read and display the last line of a 4,516,942k file on my pc here - it did however take over 15 minutes with no information whatsoever being display and had a dual core laptop running at 50% utilisation the entire time (in fact the left hand side feels warm as I am typing this). Admittedly doing a Tail-File from powershell took less than a second to return the same results though...In order to access files beyond 2GB, you NEED TO USE the Ex Functions, which use 64-bit long integers.
Visual Basic does NOT use these functions.
I can only assume the Line Input uses SetFilePointer behind the scenes. This does however mean the only way it can read a large file is in a straight sequential order.More worrying is the fact I then said I want to continue and typed in the search term for the very last line and it is now just printing "reading <increasing number here>" over and over again on my screen while again running the cpu at 50% solid. I can feel the laptop getting warmer as I type....
As a more typical behaviour though it did fail dismally on a one line file saved in Unicode though, in fact I could hit enter and the dialog prompted me to hit enter to continue or x / e to exit and if I hit enter I had a blank screen. All I could do was open the same hit enter to continue dialog box or exit....
The really scary thing is the fact he will claim this as a victory now - getting it to read a file so large no sane person would ever use and it taking over 15 minutes to do so despite the fact I could tail it in a fraction of a second. He will also ignore the failure to handle unicode, the failure to display anything other than "not responding" while doing so and so on.
Against my better judgement I am going to leave the search running for longer just to see how long it takes to find the end / physically damage my laptop.
EDIT: That was easy - it ran for a further 15 minutes or so and then stopped producing any output what so ever and has now dropped it's usage to a much more laptop friendly 47% of a dual core.
Based on the line number it failed on it would appear that while reading is not limited searching is limited to just under 2GB as the file was consisting of
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz<crfl>
so at 28 characters per line it hung on line 7669000 giving approx 2,147,320,000 characters
-
Re: SSDS breaks 2GB barrier - Easily
yeah I suppose with text input the pointer is advanced by the "writefile" call, and VB doesn't have to deal with the file pointer at all; but sequentially going through a file of that size line by line is ridiculous anyway.
I don't even use the Visual Basic file access methods; I created my own File library that doesn't have it's limitations and is far more versatile. (read: ANSI or Unicode, as well as path names longer then MAX_PATH (240 chars) which SDSS would certainly fail on.)
I pretty much got sick and tired of the fact that it used a special syntax rather then simply using methods/functions like modern languages. And of course the fact that it is so limited when it comes to unicode; it's some crazy half-breed that sorta pretends to do unicode on the inside but converts everything to ANSI for "backward compatibility".
-
Olympic Torch video - 1 hour ago
Sorry for the late response. I saw the Olympic torch go by and took a backroad to get ahead of it. (on foot) Not really. The video is being uploaded right now.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SpectateSwamp#p/a/u/0/TpWwuDv8mB8
SSDS can read a lot more that 2GB. No excuses. It is not about finding the end of a very big big file. It is about proving that the other Desktop searches can't search very big files at all. To read and search a file of this size is a bit rediculous. A lifetimes reading wouldn't be more than 4 or 5GB. The other searches just can't do what SSDS can do. Finding the last page is not the same as searching through the entire file, now is it.
You have been misinformed very misinformed.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Pity SSDS doesn't search more than 2GB then - see my previous post where I tried it with a file just over 4GB and had it fail.SSDS can read a lot more that 2GB. No excuses. It is not about finding the end of a very big big file. It is about proving that the other Desktop searches can't search very big files at all. To read and search a file of this size is a bit rediculous. A lifetimes reading wouldn't be more than 4 or 5GB. The other searches just can't do what SSDS can do. Finding the last page is not the same as searching through the entire file, now is it.
You have been misinformed very misinformed.
-
@spenk said:
So I didn't have to make my ssds.kill.txt file? Damn.@SpectateSwamp said:
Pity SSDS doesn't search more than 2GB then - see my previous post where I tried it with a file just over 4GB and had it fail.SSDS can read a lot more that 2GB. No excuses. It is not about finding the end of a very big big file. It is about proving that the other Desktop searches can't search very big files at all. To read and search a file of this size is a bit rediculous. A lifetimes reading wouldn't be more than 4 or 5GB. The other searches just can't do what SSDS can do. Finding the last page is not the same as searching through the entire file, now is it.
You have been misinformed very misinformed.
dd if=/dev/urandom bs=$(echo 1024 \* 1024 \* 1024 | bc) count=4 | base64 | gzip > ssds.kill.txt
Right now it's about 2GB compressed.
-
Check out the pretenders - I pass the torch to my swampies
@Lingerance said:
@spenk said:
Pity SSDS doesn't search more than 2GB then - see my previous post where I tried it with a file just over 4GB and had it fail.
So I didn't have to make my ssds.kill.txt file? Damn.dd if=/dev/urandom bs=$(echo 1024 \* 1024 \* 1024 | bc) count=4 | base64 | gzip > ssds.kill.txt
Right now it's about 2GB compressed.
You should know better than to quote SpenkSwamp. Yes it does search much bigger files than 2GB. It seems nobody is trying to prove me wrong on the Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Exlead. Why is that. You all still hoping for a internship at one of these pretenders.
Check out the last 4 videos from the torch relay.
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/olympic_torch.htm
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
You should know better than to quote SpenkSwamp. Yes it does search much bigger files than 2GB.
I have sat down and created a file of size 4,625,349,442 bytes and tried searching it and it fails. In fact it fails at just under the 2GB when doing a search. Doing the y option did read to the end of the file but took about 15 minutes to complete. Searching failed and simply hung search.exe at just under the 2GB mark.This is not made up I actually wasted my time on this and proved it doesn't search past 2GB, it actually stopped about 2,147,320,000 bytes given the line number is hung on and the size of a line - this is actually larger than your test as well so you have no real argument until you have tried it yourself.@SpectateSwamp said:
It seems nobody is trying to prove me wrong on the Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Exlead. Why is that. You all still hoping for a internship at one of these pretenders.
Nobody cares enough, nobody uses files that large anyway, if a file is that large then use a tool like tail or similar to just read the end rather than processing the entire file. The only reason people (well me, I really hope nobody else is pissing their time away on this) are even bothering about size is the fact this is another false argument you are putting forward about SSDS being best. I honestly don't care that SSDS can search up to 2GB because it takes nearly 15 minutes to do so and I have no files that large anyway.
-
5.5GB searched in 7 1/2 minutes. No Search does large files like SSDS
Check this screen capture. Dumb ole SpenkSwamp is wrong again. Soo wrong.
I used the "s" option rather than "c" The Single line matching mode doesn't keep any context like the "c" option. Much faster that way. As well I searched for a numeric value "8845027346" so no translation to upper case was needed to do the search. Again much faster.
http://www.dropshots.com/spectateswamp#date/2010-01-25/15:11:15
@spenk said:
I have sat down and created a file of size 4,625,349,442 bytes and tried searching it and it fails. In fact it fails at just under the 2GB when doing a search. Doing the y option did read to the end of the file but took about 15 minutes to complete. Searching failed and simply hung search.exe at just under the 2GB mark.
How did you create that file? Did you use the windows copy/merge or did you use SSDS? If it failed. Must be something weird with your text file. No search even SSDS can search corrupt text data. My text took a little over 7 minutes to search and find the data in a much larger file (5.5GB)@spenk said:
this is actually larger than your test as well so you have no real argument until you have tried it yourself.
Obviously nobody else is doing any tests. Or there would be a large chorus of Boos for you SpenkSwamp.
@spenk said:
Nobody cares enough, nobody uses files that large anyway, if a file is that large then use a tool like tail or similar to just read the end rather than processing the entire file.
If you want to keep your secret data secure. From everybody even SpenkSwamp. Just store it at the end of a file that is longer than the max of the other searches.
Maximum indexing file size for these search engines is as follows:
(1) Yahoo would not index a 81MB text file
(2) Google would not index a 44MB text file
(2.5) Exalead would not index a 19.78MB text file.
(3) Microsoft would not index a 1.1MB text file
Spectate Swamp has no known text file size limit!!!These limits are a lot smaller that 5.5GB a lot smaller.
Someone mentioned that Grep would search a 83GB file. Some Swampie should check that limit out. SSDS can whip the Grepplers no problem.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
How did you get the information?If you want to keep your secret data secure. From everybody even SpenkSwamp. Just store it at the end of a file that is longer than the max of the other searches.
Maximum indexing file size for these search engines is as follows:
(1) Yahoo would not index a 81MB text file
(2) Google would not index a 44MB text file
(2.5) Exalead would not index a 19.78MB text file.
(3) Microsoft would not index a 1.1MB text file
Spectate Swamp has no known text file size limit!!!These limits are a lot smaller that 5.5GB a lot smaller.
-
Test them all you'll see SSDS is superior on large files. Even quite tiny files.
@Lingerance said:
@SpectateSwamp said:
How did you get the information?If you want to keep your secret data secure. From everybody even SpenkSwamp. Just store it at the end of a file that is longer than the max of the other searches.
Maximum indexing file size for these search engines is as follows:
(1) Yahoo would not index a 81MB text file
(2) Google would not index a 44MB text file
(2.5) Exalead would not index a 19.78MB text file.
(3) Microsoft would not index a 1.1MB text file
Spectate Swamp has no known text file size limit!!!These limits are a lot smaller that 5.5GB a lot smaller.
I tested each of them. I placed my search string at the end of a text file. And kept increasing the size of the file; untill they didn't find the string I had placed at the end. I searched for a text string. Most searches don't do numeric values too well. On the last merge I put the "fred ziffel loves ssds" in a file called zzz.txt. That ensures it gets added to the end of the merge.txt file during the merge operation. These limits might have gone up. We can only hope. Good going LingeranceSwamp
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
I used the "s" option rather than "c" The Single line matching mode doesn't keep any context like the "c" option. Much faster that way. As well I searched for a numeric value "8845027346" so no translation to upper case was needed to do the search. Again much faster.
I am guessing the c option as I had no fucking idea there was an s option - your user interface is fucking terrible.@SpectateSwamp said:
How did you create that file? Did you use the windows copy/merge or did you use SSDS? If it failed. Must be something weird with your text file. No search even SSDS can search corrupt text data. My text took a little over 7 minutes to search and find the data in a much larger file (5.5GB)
I just wrote a 4 or 5 line vb.net program that wrote the same line over and over again and then appended the search term at the end. The file wasn't corrupt so no excuses there.@SpectateSwamp said:Obviously nobody else is doing any tests. Or there would be a large chorus of Boos for you SpenkSwamp.
No other person cares, even I don't really.@SpectateSwamp said:If you want to keep your secret data secure. From everybody even SpenkSwamp. Just store it at the end of a file that is longer than the max of the other searches.
Or call it secret.secret and SSDS won't be able to gf it either.If you honestly think a fucked up reason like that is a good argument you are scrapping the barrel quite frankly.@SpectateSwamp said:
Spectate Swamp has no known text file size limit!!!
15 minutes of using 100% of a cpu is a fucking limit in itself. No sane person would suffer such a piss poor performance. If I wanted to view the end of a file that large (only real reason would be a log file) then I would use tail or from powershell tail-file and it is near instant. I have no single other reason for a 2GB text file.
Out of a certain lack of self worth I am doing a s option and yet again search.exe is 50% of a dual core machine with a UI that is no longer responding, is this supposed to be user friendly or something?
Just to call bs on your claim - search.exe ran for just under 10 minutes and matched nothing. I will even include the screen shot for you to explain away.
see - no matches on the same file that I used before yet I have checked and the search terms are at the end of the file. I have suffered the arse interface, I have endured 'y' and 'c' and now fucking 's' - in fact how on earth is anyone even supposed to know there is a 'c' or 's' option when the prompt is
the only reason it has an S in there is because I have rerun SSDS to take the screen shot.
I have now had SSDS fail to search for files, fail to 'gf' files I wanted to search, fail to 'c' on a large file, fail to 's' on a large file, I may or may not have had it 's' or 'c' on another file but the results made no sense and you ignored the screen shots and failed to explain what they meant. The only time I expressed an interest in the source I had it fail to compile on VB6 as well.
The word 'fail' seems to be a common one really when using SSDS.
I am fully aware your response will involve jam, noodle, RRR, MFD and similar meaningless shit; I know there will be no attempt at a coherent explanation (saying BOOOO SPENKDADSWAMP is not a coherent argument.)
If you really think SSDS is worthwhile then give a single, useful reason for people selecting it as a search tool without also requiring them to store all their source code in one file, spend their time cut and pasting email into a text file, to screen shot web pages and build a manual index to find them again, to flatten folder structures, to export all word, rtf, html, excel, pdf to a single large text file, to lose any textual data that isn't plain ASCII (no Unicode for SSDS), to manually maintain an mp3 index and a video index while still remaining productive. Random music, random video are a nice leisure feature but any media player offers both and so they are not compelling reasons to endure all the manual meta data entry required by SSDS. RRR is total arse however.
On every turn SSDS is a painful, confusing and downright hostile piece of software - it takes the worst of command line utilities and combines them with the worst of Visual Basic UI practices (InputBox for fucks sake) while offering no useful help or instruction. I really do despair for the poor souls you think you have convinced to use this piece of rubbish.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Obviously nobody else is doing any tests. Or there would be a large chorus of Boos for you SpenkSwamp.
But your inebriated posts have shown
if anything it's really you who's prone
(here judging by the muddled words you choose)
to quaff a hefty chorus of the booze.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
If you want to keep your secret data secure. From everybody even SpenkSwamp. Just store it at the end of a file that is longer than the max of the other searches.
Yeah. Fuck encryption.
-
Searches don't do numbers - Why is that - with Swamp search no problem
@derula said:
@SpectateSwamp said:
You can do encryption with SSDS too. Except I call it cript and decript. Once you have stuff messed around. To view it you must have the cript.txt file and at prompt #2 enter "mystuff" see cmd(32) It then uses the translate file cript.txtIf you want to keep your secret data secure. From everybody even SpenkSwamp. Just store it at the end of a file that is longer than the max of the other searches.
Yeah. Fuck encryption.http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/cript.txt
Give it a try you will like it.
And just why don't the other searches do numbers like Swamp search? I want to know why. I got a pretty good idea. Come on somebody should be able to make a good guess.
P.S. you can make your secret secret info more secure by using the "rrr" option to change every " the " to "fred ziffel loves ssds" and a couple more replaces like " and " to "derulaswamp is very smart" etc. Then run the cript. Make sure you reverse those "rrr" values right after. Now how secure is that.
-
hate to break it to you, but that's not encryption. it's no more effective then doing something like:
Sub Crypt(ByRef StrCrypt as String)
Dim Currpos as Long
For Currpos = 1 to Len(StrCrypt)
Mid(strcrypt,currpos,1) = Chr(255-asc(mid$(strcrypt,currpos,1)))
Next Currpos
End SubWhich basically just "inverts" the string. What your doing is not really encryption but more like a basic Cipher.
and the word is encrypt... Where the hell did the i come from...
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
You can do encryption with SSDS too.
SSDS cannot do anything like real encryption. Then again a search tool shouldn't be doing encryption anyway.@SpectateSwamp said:Give it a try you will like it.
No I won't.@SpectateSwamp said:
And just why don't the other searches do numbers like Swamp search? I want to know why. I got a pretty good idea. Come on somebody should be able to make a good guess.
Wtf does "do numbers like Swamp search" actually fucking mean? If numbers are in a supported file type the other searches can find them - that is what search tools do for fuck's sake.@SpectateSwamp said:P.S. you can make your secret secret info more secure by using the "rrr" option to change every " the " to "fred ziffel loves ssds" and a couple more replaces like " and " to "derulaswamp is very smart" etc. Then run the cript. Make sure you reverse those "rrr" values right after. Now how secure is that.
Not very, a simple substitution cypher will easily be broken by anyone with basic knowledge in cryptoanalysis - this is why you should use a real method of encrypting.
-
@spenk said:
Then again a search tool shouldn't be doing encryption anyway.
Exactly. Half the stuff he purports that SDSS can do and all search tools should have are in completely different domains.
A Search tool that simply displays file results and allows using the standard right-click context menu on those results can easily be extended to allow for encryption of those files with absolutely zero effort. (truecrypt I believe adds right-click options pertaining to encryption). Although given Spectates complete lack of regard for anything that is actually useful in a UI (I mean, it's been said before, but for christ's sake, inputboxes?) I highly doubt that old SS has the intestinal fortitude or basic programming knowledge to use any of the following relatively basic UI controls and features- listviews, treeviews, progressbars, statusbars, menus. Hell, his entire UI experience consists of Inputbox and form-based print statements. (or is it a colored textbox? I cannot tell).
My favourite is how he says people use "big tech words" to lord over others and yet doesn't realize that his program doesn't even have documentation that shows what the special switches are for the various inputboxes; and then when he presents a challenge to us all he lords some random switch — that was documented nowhere — over us. Curious.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
You can do encryption with SSDS too.
Your desktop search, misnomered may it be,
can grep the tail of giant text sequentially,
it highlights, plays back random video,
it catches aliens with playback slow,
then random randoms sampling mp3s,
and now we hear it can encrypt with ease?
Oh please provide us with a feature list
of all the neat-o things we may have missed.
Please list them all for us but do not jest.
Dear SpectateSwamp, we love to be impressed!
-
@BC_Programmer said:
Exactly. Half the stuff he purports that SDSS can do and all search tools should have are in completely different domains.
The entire thing is simply a set of functionality that SS finds useful and managed in a way that suits him. If he was happy to leave it at that then everyone would be happy. It is his insistence that SSDS is the bestest thing ever for everyone ever and the entire population of the planet is wrong for disagreeing with him that is annoying.SSDS has nothing to do with searching or desktops but he is insistent it is the be all and end all in this area when in fact it is nothing more than a simple text file search with a few random features he likes / wants bolted on. It is the almost religious belief he posses in the thing and his methods that confuses me, InputBox after InputBox with no useful prompts or description of what is a valid command and he claims it is easier than typing search terms into a text box! His insistence on comparing real search tools but only in ways that no sane person would use them in, insisting on folders being slow, jpegs better that saving the html, video reshoots, adamant about not editing. Repeated request for a showdown and when one is offered he ignores it completely, not even refusing it just simply pretending it was never there; same with any evidence or tricky questions.
All in all he is one of the great wonders of the internet - a constant stream of mildly amusing madness with no concept of what he is doing. Keeps me amused when I should be working anyway...
-
Super Search
@spenk said:
SSDS started out as a text search. That was it. Then we scanned in the family album. It was easy to change the code to search the next line for a picture. I was writting the program so it was easy. It isn't long before I realized it had to have a auto catalog "gf" function for pictures. Which in turned required that I do a directory of an entire drive. Thus there is a "dir" / "directory" function at prompt #2. Maybe that is where it moved from a Search to a Super Search. How many files do you have on your C drive? SSDS will tell you. For those easy to catalog pictures; a screen saver without random just doesn't cut it.. Then came Video. I've been doing that for nearly 7 years. This Super Search does everything I want with video except the "Jerky Jerk backward option/button". And yes there are some options I haven't told you about. The copy picture "cp" at prompt #2; When I had all the family pictures in one folder I needed a copy picture. Just in case somebody wanted only the oldies. or oldies with me and my dog. The random stuff for mp3 was added because it was there for mpg video so why not. This is just the continued evolution of Search & Grepplerism@BC_Programmer said:
Exactly. Half the stuff he purports that SDSS can do and all search tools should have are in completely different domains.
The entire thing is simply a set of functionality that SS finds useful and managed in a way that suits him. If he was happy to leave it at that then everyone would be happy. It is his insistence that SSDS is the bestest thing ever for everyone ever and the entire population of the planet is wrong for disagreeing with him that is annoying.SSDS has nothing to do with searching or desktops but he is insistent it is the be all and end all in this area when in fact it is nothing more than a simple text file search with a few random features he likes / wants bolted on. It is the almost religious belief he posses in the thing and his methods that confuses me, InputBox after InputBox with no useful prompts or description of what is a valid command and he claims it is easier than typing search terms into a text box! His insistence on comparing real search tools but only in ways that no sane person would use them in, insisting on folders being slow, jpegs better that saving the html, video reshoots, adamant about not editing. Repeated request for a showdown and when one is offered he ignores it completely, not even refusing it just simply pretending it was never there; same with any evidence or tricky questions.
All in all he is one of the great wonders of the internet - a constant stream of mildly amusing madness with no concept of what he is doing. Keeps me amused when I should be working anyway...
There is no other program the below average Joe needs. There just isn't.
3 main prompts with defaults in and out. Background capabilities. SSDS don't need no SPLASH screen. It is fast and had to be to run in the background. No fancy stuff to make it hard to go from VB5 to another language. I looked at the modal capabilities. All just so you can click and close sub windows. I didn't even want to touch that. As simple as this search is it should easily move to whatever language you wish.
I will do relinks for who ever is serious.
