Nobody shares knowledge better than this



  •  @SpectateSwamp said:

    SSDS is better way better. It can play random segments of songs and video. Hit enter to play the full file

     Why would anybody sane want to do that? Usually, when I listen to music or watch videos, I want to watch them completely, not to listen to segments.

     

     @SpectateSwamp said:

    With SSDS you can take your files with you
    on a USB drive. Show them off to your family, friends etc

     Why  can't I do that without SSDS? I have directories for a good reason.

     

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Everything must be cataloged in one form or another. I bet 1/3 of your
    songs doesn't have any metadata. With SSDS the catalog function uses
    the metadata if there along with the file name and folder info.

    All my songs are tagged. Thank you. And pretty much any audio player can search through metadata, so SSDS is not useful at all.

     @SpectateSwamp said:

    Life without random would be prison. Computers without lots and lots of random would be the same.

     OK, let me apply random to your bank account. Did you enjoy it?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    If there is something SSDS does that you don't like. Make the fix and pass it on to me. I'll jam it through VB5 and send the exe back to you.

    I hate everything about SSDS. Get over it.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's why old spectate sits here and grows old waiting for any of the other Desktop search engines to take up the challenge.
     

    In the last thread we proposed challenges, did real testing with real software, benchmarked and put up one scenario for SSDS to go through after the other. You either failed to stick to the rules, downright denied to take part in the challenge or just gave us some random bullshit (pun intended). So go play somewhere else.



  • Alien video shared 11Nov2009

     

    30 second mpg video clip with shiny object at end shared. 

    http://www.archive.org/details/SpectateSwamp11Nov2009

     

     

     

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    SSDS is better way better. It can play random segments of songs and video. Hit enter to play the full file

    I don't want to play random segments of videos and songs though - this is a pointless feature indeed. Playing videos or songs in a random order is a good thing but windows gives me tools that do this already - SSDS offers no benefit.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Kill SSDS at any time and the defaults remain. Then do a: start enter enter and you are back playing another random song in under 2 seconds.

    Why even bother running a tool that offers me no benefits though? Windows just works without needing defaults or enter, enter, ff, tt rubbish to be typed each time.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    With pics SSDS has the option to display the captions containing picture info: names, locations etc.

    So can the built in tools.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    With SSDS pictures the shuffle speed can be set to near zero. See what your computer will do.

    Pointless crap as a feature goes though - I have no desire to watch my pictures flicker past that fast.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    With SSDS you can take your files with you on a USB drive. Show them off to your family, friends etc

    I can do that without SSDS as well though so this isn't a feature of SSDS in the slightest. Copy photos to a USB and plug it into another machine - windows will even offer to run them as a slideshow automatically.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Everything must be cataloged in one form or another. I bet 1/3 of your songs doesn't have any metadata. With SSDS the catalog function uses the metadata if there along with the file name and folder info.
    Then go in and add to the information to improve the search catalog info.
    And do it with notepad. Adding metadata to pictures songs and video isn't this easy.

    Nope - all my mp3s etc have full metadata and even if they didn't I could still search based on file name, why should I need to copy this metadata from the mp3 to a textfile via notepad myself. The fact the information must be catalogued is not the point - WDS does that part for me automatically, SSDS requires me to do it all by hand.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I can understand why some of you have trouble with the code. You have never seen a spaghetti artist before. I'll get around to doing a nice flowchart. That will make it easier for everybody. Even me.

    Just to clarify a point here - spaghetti code is a derogatory term and not a recognised coding style. There is no art involved, it simply means the code is a tangled mess of interconnected dependencies with no obvious structure or design. This is a very bad thing and not something to be proud of. The fact you have tried to make this seem a good thing shows you failure to grasp good coding practices.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Source tree? SSDS can do a directory of a drive to an output file called directory.txt Then search that for anything that has todays date using the "d" option as a search string. Fast easy.

    Why would I want to turn my source code into a single file just to search it? When I find a match it will be in this new merged file and not the original file I was actually wanting to find - you are completely missing the point of searching files here.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Life without random would be prison. Computers without lots and lots of random would be the same.

    Random is useful / entertaining in certain situations - random music playback for example; it is not how I want search results to work though - when I search I want consistency and not confusion.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Find a file. Either the (directory function) and search for the name. or the (merge function) and search the contents. The matches show the original file name displayed in the border.
    I find that; other than for source code, file names don't mean that much. I just merge em and jam that.

    But why should I manually merge my files to search to then have to go locate the file by hand?With WDS I can just search and get results with no effort on my part. You really have no idea what searching for a file actually means do you? Please give me step by step instructions from a clean install of SSDS of what I would need to do to search my source code tree (d:\source) for all files that contain the word IDisposable and I will happily put this to the test and compare it to the built in tools. I will even video both attempts for you to save you the time and trouble.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    If there is something SSDS does that you don't like. Make the fix and pass it on to me. I'll jam it through VB5 and send the exe back to you.

    Nobody can understand the source enough todo anything with it, you yourself have stopped maintaining it so why would anyone bother. There is nothing it does that anyone else is even remotely interested in nevermind passionate enough to care about fixing.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's why old spectate sits here and grows old waiting for any of the other Desktop search engines to take up the challenge. 3 or 4 Swampies and me could put on quite a show.

    There is no challenge - every time anyone offers a valid challenge you ignore it and then claim superiority, SSDS is not a desktop search tool as it cannot search for files and that is the end of the argument. There are no swampies outside of your head and the show would be laughable at best.



  • @spenk said:

    [bunched-up panties]
     

    Are you being serious are just having fun with posting in an internet board?



  • @dhromed said:

    @spenk said:

    [bunched-up panties]
     

    Are you being serious are just having fun with posting in an internet board?

     

    I am doing this on work time, I get a sense of satisfaction from actually earning money while doing this. 



  • I envy your happiness.



  • @dhromed said:

    I envy your happiness.

    Although I would like to get a sane response from him just once, then I will be happy. A response without the words 'Jam', 'noodle' or 'make the changes yourself' would be a really good start IMHO.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Very very powerful this bad code.

    I know for a fact that someone pumped the SSDS source through that printer that had its admin page open to the internet.  Do you think your code is powerful enough to jam a printer?



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Very very powerful this bad code.
    I know for a fact that someone pumped the SSDS source through that printer that had its admin page open to the internet.

    You're damn right I did.  Repeatedly.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Very very powerful this bad code.
    I know for a fact that someone pumped the SSDS source through that printer that had its admin page open to the internet.  Do you think your code is powerful enough to jam a printer?

     

     

    Sufficient noodles can jam anything. Ask Alan Cox about the power of noodle welding.



  • @bstorer said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Very very powerful this bad code.
    I know for a fact that someone pumped the SSDS source through that printer that had its admin page open to the internet.

    You're damn right I did.  Repeatedly.
     




  • No No Spenk your wrong so wrong

    (Spenk)
    "I don't want to play random segments of videos and songs"

    In the big showdown we will focus on this capability. It will blow them away.

    (Spenk)
    "Why even bother running a tool that offers me no benefits though"

    I can be in and check the format I use to catalog this threads screen captures. Then catalog a
    new one by typing a couple of lines into the text file and I'm done. Right on top of everything
    everywhere and easy. Notes are even faster. The "e" option at prompt #2 and type away. It has
    an optional date and time stamp. Those Screen captures will be around a lot longer than this forum.

    (we'll hilite all the benefits with SSDS)

    (Spenk)
    "so can the built in tools"

    Going head to head in display and caption features would be an easy whip for SSDS

    (Spenk)
    "Pointless crap as a feature goes though - I have no desire to watch my pictures flicker past that fast."

    If you want slow or go, SSDS can do both. This is not really a feature but the lack of a limitation on SSDS

    (Spenk)
    "I can do that without SSDS as well though so this isn't a feature of SSDS in the slightest. Copy photos to
    a USB and plug it into another machine - windows will even offer to run them as a slideshow automatically."

    SSDS doen't need to index the files. Where windows does. We'll hilite the areas where windows is weak and
    that is anywhere there is indexing.

    (Spenk)
    "The fact the information must be catalogued is not the point - WDS does that part for me automatically,
    SSDS requires me to do it all by hand."

    SSDS uses what available metadata there is. The catalog option "gf" allows for the appending of the file
    path to the search string. Ie file name and metadata in the catalog string. It is far easier to use notepad
    to add to this info than changing the metadata in jpg, mp3, mpg, wmv... We'll hilite the permanent catalog
    capailites and how simple they are compared to knowing how to change metadata for these main file types.

    (Spenk)
    "The fact you have tried to make this seem a good thing shows you failure to grasp good coding practices."

    Spaghetti code is still a valid coding standard. I'll make a point of showing off the source.txt If any techie
    were able of recreating SSDS and all it's capabilities (Using proper coding practices). The source would
    be nowhere as simple as this. I can stop/pause and restart SSDS quickly, all interrupts are trapped within 1
    program.  I can put SSDS code out there and the average person can have a look and understand what's going on.
    Few of us here would have a clue when looking and the windows or google version.

    (Spenk)
    "Why would I want to turn my source code into a single file just to search it? When I find a match it will be
    in this new merged file and not the original file I was actually wanting to find - you are completely missing
    the point of searching files here."

    The point of the initial search is to see where and how many references there is to a given element. 2 or 100
    Once you have decided the best way to solve or do the change, then you become interested in the individual file.
    If there are a number of file extensions that need to be (merged/appended) and in VB with .frm and .cls then
    do them in 2 steps. using the append instead of new/overwrite. Check the source for "merge" I'd do this merge
    to start and right before the changes were being made. Just to check the code hasn't changed. The display of
    the initial search could be exported and printed using the "xxx" option at prompt #2. Use this hardcopy list
    if there are lots of changes to be made.

    (Spenk)
    "Random is useful / entertaining in certain situations - random music playback for example; it is not how I want
    search results to work though - when I search I want consistency and not confusion."

    When running sequential. Match counts display. Total matches are important when looking at code changes.
    we'll show off this feature and ask for a comparison from the other loosers.

    (Spenk)
    "what I would need to do to search my source code tree (d:\source) for all files that contain the word IDisposable
    and I will happily put this to the test and compare it to the built in tools. I will even video both attempts for
    you to save you the time and trouble."

    That's very good of you Brave Brave Spenk
    Just try starting the program and entering x (for exit) at every opportunity on initial startup.
    Then on the second time everything should be ok.
    At prompt #1 select one of the files listed or select 1 (this info is meaningless in a merge operation)
    at prompt #2 enter "merge" then go thru the prompts to merge/append the various file types in a directory
                 and all sub-directories.
    This all happens very fast. Text files arn't all that big. Even for massive system.

    (Spenk)
    "There is nothing it does that anyone else is even remotely interested in nevermind passionate enough to care about fixing."

    That's why I keep looking for a showdown and taking on any post that talks about Desktop Search. When people
    see their favs Google, Microsoft.. humiliated by SSDS. Then the Swampies will come out of the woodwork. 

     

    Note. I have not tried this on Vista or Windows 7 Everything else upto XP

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    "I can do that without SSDS as well though so this isn't a feature of SSDS in the slightest. Copy photos to
    a USB and plug it into another machine - windows will even offer to run them as a slideshow automatically."

    SSDS doen't need to index the files. Where windows does.

     

    Windows does not. Copy files to USB stick, plug into other machine, launch preview. No indexing whatsoever. If you're talking about Windows features, you should be sure to know about them.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    SSDS uses what available metadata there is.

    Liar. It uses the "metadata" that one needs to enter manually. As for my songs - my MP3s are automatically tagged correctly with ALL information without any keystroke on my side. I can geotag my photos by just pointing on a map at the location the foto was taken. Any capable foto viewer can then open a map and show me. How do you do that?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    It is far easier to use notepad to add to this info than changing the metadata in jpg, mp3, mpg, wmv

    No, it is not.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Spaghetti code is still a valid coding standard.

    It has never been, is not and will never be a coding standard. Even in the VB5 days it was the worst you could do. Stop calling something a standard only because you're not capable of doing things the right way.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I can put SSDS code out there and the average person can have a look and understand what's going on.

    I've been developing software for nearly 20 years now. I do not understand your source code. The average person does not know what's going on when you turn on the computer - how can you seriously expect anybody who has no clue of computers to understand any of your VB5 gibberish if even people with years and year of experience turn away from it in disgust?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    The point of the initial search is to see where and how many references there is to a given element.

    Wrong. The point of an initial search is to know where the references are. That means: in which files. SSDS can not do that.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    If there are a number of file extensions that need to be (merged/appended) and in VB with .frm and .cls then
    do them in 2 steps.

    WE. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. MERGE. FILES!

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Just try starting the program and entering x (for exit) at every opportunity on initial startup.
    Then on the second time everything should be ok.

    Oh great. I completely forgot that SSDS does not even start up properly.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    At prompt #1 select one of the files listed or select 1 (this info is meaningless in a merge operation) at prompt #2 enter "merge" then go thru the prompts to merge/append the various file types in a directory and all sub-directories. This all happens very fast. Text files arn't all that big. Even for massive system.

    Hm. I just open up a search box, select the folder to search, enter the search term and hit a button. As a result I get a list of all the files containing my search text. I can open each file individually - directly jumping to the match. This, again, is Notepad++. This takes me about 10 seconds. How long does it take SSDS to do the same?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    When people see their favs Google, Microsoft.. humiliated is SSDS.

    FTFY.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Then the Swampies will come out of the woodwork.

    Now that we know where they live, I'd rather have that they stay where they are...



  • Re: No No Spectate you're wrong so wrong

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    (Spenk)
    "I don't want to play random segments of videos and songs"

    In the big showdown we will focus on this capability. It will blow them away.

    So your proposed showdown will focus on features nobody wants! Great way to show off your skills.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    SSDS doen't need to index the files. Where windows does. We'll hilite the areas where windows is weak and
    that is anywhere there is indexing.

    Neither does windows - I cancopy files to a USB stick and they will still be viewable and windows can still do a slideshow, SSDS would need it's control file (i.e. index) built for this to work however.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    SSDS uses what available metadata there is. The catalog option "gf" allows for the appending of the file
    path to the search string. Ie file name and metadata in the catalog string. It is far easier to use notepad
    to add to this info than changing the metadata in jpg, mp3, mpg, wmv... We'll hilite the permanent catalog
    capailites and how simple they are compared to knowing how to change metadata for these main file types.

    Windows just uses the metadata as well though, however it just works in WDS and I don't need to type gf, tt or any other nonsense. WDS just works without any extra effort on my part. Windows itself will let me edit the metadata in place with no problems or effort either.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Spaghetti code is still a valid coding standard. I'll make a point of showing off the source.txt If any techie
    were able of recreating SSDS and all it's capabilities (Using proper coding practices). The source would
    be nowhere as simple as this. I can stop/pause and restart SSDS quickly, all interrupts are trapped within 1
    program.  I can put SSDS code out there and the average person can have a look and understand what's going on.
    Few of us here would have a clue when looking and the windows or google version.

    It is not a standard it is an insult - the term means the code is unreadable / unmaintainable crap. We have all seen the source.txt and virtually nobody can figure out how any of it works or what any of the variable names mean. It is an awful, awful mess. An average person would have no chance in figuring it out as even experienced developers cannot follow the logic properly.

    How quick you can start or stop an application is not a reflection of the quality of the code behind it though.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    The point of the initial search is to see where and how many references there is to a given element. 2 or 100
    Once you have decided the best way to solve or do the change, then you become interested in the individual file.
    If there are a number of file extensions that need to be (merged/appended) and in VB with .frm and .cls then
    do them in 2 steps. using the append instead of new/overwrite. Check the source for "merge" I'd do this merge
    to start and right before the changes were being made. Just to check the code hasn't changed. The display of
    the initial search could be exported and printed using the "xxx" option at prompt #2. Use this hardcopy list
    if there are lots of changes to be made.

    My point is I can find the number of files etc using WDS without having to merge files or similar shit. With WDS I can just search the files as they are without manually creating indexes and attempting to keep them in sync. How can doing all this merging crap be easier than just typing the search terms?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    When running sequential. Match counts display. Total matches are important when looking at code changes.
    we'll show off this feature and ask for a comparison from the other loosers.

    That makes no sense at all!

     @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's very good of you Brave Brave Spenk
    Just try starting the program and entering x (for exit) at every opportunity on initial startup.
    Then on the second time everything should be ok.
    At prompt #1 select one of the files listed or select 1 (this info is meaningless in a merge operation)
    at prompt #2 enter "merge" then go thru the prompts to merge/append the various file types in a directory
                 and all sub-directories.
    This all happens very fast. Text files arn't all that big. Even for massive system.

    If you are willing then I will attempt this on my windows 7 install with a fairly large source tree, I will then do the same search with WDS and as part of the video I will include all steps required (unless you have any excuses I will use  http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 as the source tree) - that ok by you? In the spirit of fairness I would be happy for you to perform the search using SSDS for a given term from those source files and I will duplicate the search on my own system.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's why I keep looking for a showdown and taking on any post that talks about Desktop Search. When people
    see their favs Google, Microsoft.. humiliated by SSDS. Then the Swampies will come out of the woodwork. 

    Nobody wants the alleged features offered by SSDS, people want a desktop search to search for files and nothing much else.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's very good of you Brave Brave Spenk
    Just try starting the program and entering x (for exit) at every opportunity on initial startup.
    Then on the second time everything should be ok.
    At prompt #1 select one of the files listed or select 1 (this info is meaningless in a merge operation)
    at prompt #2 enter "merge" then go thru the prompts to merge/append the various file types in a directory
                 and all sub-directories.
    This all happens very fast. Text files arn't all that big. Even for massive system.

    How do I then search for a file! This just tells me how to merge all my files into one and then search this one big file, how do I then find the original file though? I asked for steps on how to search for a file and you have told me how to merge them together - can I use this to then locate the original file?



  • @spenk said:

    How do I then search for a file! This just tells me how to merge all my files into one and then search this one big file, how do I then find the original file though?

    Silly.  You can always tell by context what file a particular selection is in.  Just remember.  Use your brain!



  • Code search knowledge shared

    @spenk said:

     How do I then search for a file! This just tells me how to merge all my files into one and then search this one big file, how do I then find the original file though? I asked for steps on how to search for a file and you have told me how to merge them together - can I use this to then locate the original file?

     

    When a match is found; the stored file name from the last line that had "append start" in it contains the original file name, put there at merge time. The name is displayed in the form caption. Searching one huge file and not having the original file name when doing source code changes would be useless.  Check out "show_files_yn" in source.txt to see some of the details.

     

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @spenk said:

     How do I then search for a file! This just tells me how to merge all my files into one and then search this one big file, how do I then find the original file though? I asked for steps on how to search for a file and you have told me how to merge them together - can I use this to then locate the original file?

     

    When a match is found; the stored file name from the last line that had "append start" in it contains the original file name, put there at merge time. The name is displayed in the form caption. Searching one huge file and not having the original file name when doing source code changes would be useless.  Check out "show_files_yn" in source.txt to see some of the details.

     

    So could you please give me a step by step series of instructions on how I would search a folder containing sub-folders, with files of different extensions for a term. I need to know exactly what to type in which dialog box. Ideally if you could try this on the link I gave previously and note down all the steps - then I can reproduce them here. Your previous instructions didn't make clear how to merge files when there are several different extensions in use (in fact I may not even know all the extensions in use without having to look myself).

    I have looked at the lines containing show_files_yn and quite frankly they didn't help me to understand how to search for a file! Please give me the step by step instructions - assume I have no idea how SSDS works and need a complete step by step guide.



  • Merge faster than indexing - by a whole bunch

    @spenk said:

    I have looked at the lines containing show_files_yn and quite frankly they didn't help me to understand how to search for a file! Please give me the step by step instructions - assume I have no idea how SSDS works and need a complete step by step guide.

     Check out control.txt at line 78. ie cmd(78) it has a list of the valid file extensions for merging. Add any new type of extension here. As an afterthought I probably could do without the check. Just let it crap out if a merge is tried on an invalid file type. Probably less confusing that way.

    The merge command at prompt #2 then give it the directory ie "c:" then enter the "frm" or "cls" or "htm" etc and do an overwrite on the first pass. On the second pass enter "txt" or whatever else you want to put into the merge.txt file and use the "a" for append rather than overwrite. The merge happens fast. Much faster than indexing. The indexing is what pissed off most people with Vista.

    I'm not all that sure that the merge will work for windows 7. I had to make a change to skip the "favorites" directory. Somehow its a little different.

    Good going Spenk

     



  • No no tdittmar you're wrong so wrong

    @tdittmar said:

    Wrong. The point of an initial search is to know where the references are. That means: in which files. SSDS can not do that.

    Most times code is searched to see what other elements are associated with an item. Anyone new to a system should use search to examine the code and become familiar with the logic.  

    Only 20 years. I've been coding for 40 years and seen a lots of code.



  •  

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    @spenk said:

    I have looked at the lines containing show_files_yn and quite
    frankly they didn't help me to understand how to search for a file!
    Please give me the step by step instructions - assume I have no idea how
    SSDS works and need a complete step by step guide.

     Check out control.txt at line 78. ie cmd(78) it has a list of the valid file extensions for merging. Add any new type of extension here. As an afterthought I probably could do without the check. Just let it crap out if a merge is tried on an invalid file type. Probably less confusing that way.

    The merge command at prompt #2 then give it the directory ie "c:" then enter the "frm" or "cls" or "htm" etc and do an overwrite on the first pass. On the second pass enter "txt" or whatever else you want to put into the merge.txt file and use the "a" for append rather than overwrite. The merge happens fast. Much faster than indexing. The indexing is what pissed off most people with Vista.

    I'm not all that sure that the merge will work for windows 7. I had to make a change to skip the "favorites" directory. Somehow its a little different.

    Good going Spenk

     

    Perhaps I am being thick but I have no fucking idea what is going on when I try to follow these instructions. On a first run I get a prompt that already has the file merge.txt entered - do I ignore this?

    Going to prompt 2 merge isn't listed as an option but appears to work (go figure), I then enter the path and it prompts me for a file extension with 'TXT' being already entered, hitting enter then asks for a filename so I enter one and then at the next prompt I enter a and it then spends several seconds doing 'stuff' before bringing up another input box with a title that starts with ;session counts' - am I supposed to type something here or what? Regardless of hitting ok or cancel I go back to prompt 1 and notes.txt is already entered - do I ignore this again?

    Going to prompt 2 and typing merge and then re-entering the folder path as it has reset to 'c:' asks me for a file extension again if I enter C it just resets itself to TXT and I seem to be stuck....

    Trying your instructions above I open the control.txt and edit the line HTM, FRM, CLS, so it now reads HTM, FRM, CLS, C, and try to do the search again - it will not however let me use C as a file extension. This leaves me pretty much stuck with no way to actually even build the index in the first place. 

    Am I correct in assuming I would need to go through this merge process for every single file extension that is present in the folder tree? This is supposed to be user friendly, intuitive and obvious? 

    I then tried searching the results of merging the text files so in prompt 1 I enter the name of the merge file at prompt 2 I have no idea what any of the listed options mean so type help and after hitting the keyboard a few times it turns out 's' was the option despite it not being listed. I then enter a search term 'delete', I notice a couple of lines are 'too long' according to the status flashing in the title bar - what is too long for SSDS? When I get results I have no idea how to interpret them in the slightest so I have included a screen shot - could you please explain what the fuck is going on in it? How do I know which files contained the search term?

    I have no idea what this means

    Being honest I had every intention of attempting this as a trial run before actually creating a video, however I have no idea how to get it to merge files with a .C extension so I cannot even start making the video. Please give me simple step by simple step instructions as I cannot make this do the most basic things. Could you do this on your pc and create a video just to show me what I would need to do to create a video myself as a valid comparison. I would love to actually show your SSDS performing badly against WDS however it isn't even working well enough for me to show it failing to perform a simple search.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @tdittmar said:

    Wrong. The point of an initial search is to know where the references are. That means: in which files. SSDS can not do that.

    Most times code is searched to see what other elements are associated with an item. Anyone new to a system should use search to examine the code and become familiar with the logic.  

    Only 20 years. I've been coding for 40 years and seen a lots of code.

    Nope - searching is done to find things, end of story. If I wanted to find references etc. in source code then I would use the features of the IDE to navigate. All I want to do is know how to find a single fucking file from a folder structure based on the possible content.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    The indexing is what pissed off most people with Vista.

    And again, once more, you're wrong. The thing that pissed off people with Vista was not indexing, but a general performance loss compared to Windows XP and UAC asking permission very often.  If people had been pissed off with indexing, they wouldn't be happy with Windows 7 either, because Windows 7 contains mostly the same indexing mechanisms that Vista contained, too. Windows XP contained indexing, too - people were not equally pissed off with XP as they were with Vista.

    You should - really! - learn that indexing in general is not your enemy, but a very good thing. Most people do neither have time nor energy nor will to manually create the index as you have to do with SSDS. They want things convenient - and that's what background indexing provides.

    One thing, by the way, that was people's favourite function in Vista was that instead of going through the Start Menu to look for the program they wanted to run, they could just type the beginning of the name into the search bar and press enter. Guess what's behind that function: Indexing!

    @spenk said:

    Nope - searching is done to find things, end of story. If I wanted to find references etc. in source code then I would use the features of the IDE to navigate. All I want to do is know how to find a single fucking file from a folder structure based on the possible content.
     

    See Swamp? That's what we want!

    @spenk said:

    Only 20 years. I've been coding for 40 years and seen a lots of code.

    Sad to see that you haven't learnt anything from the lots of code you've seen... I've looked at your source code and I can proudly say (probably most people here on the forum could) that I wrote better code after 3 years of self-tought programming.

    I'm amazed that after 40 years of coding you do not realize how shitty your SSDS is and how its source code is an unmaintainable piece of junk, when even I, the "unexperienced newbie", only needs one glance at the source code to realize that.

    If I were you I'd stop right at this point and accept the fact that while SSDS may be exactly the right tool for everything to you, it is the worst tool for anything to everybody outside your small world. Also, I'd try to accept the fact that while you've been stuck with the same shit for 40 years, the world around you has moved on. There are now tools that anybody can use easily, which perform exactly the tasks the user needs. If even experienced people like spenk are not able to use SSDS, how good and useful can it be?

    Go back to your cave Swamp, enjoy SSDS on your own, but leave the rest of the world (especially the competent among us) alone. The only thing that makes me very sad is knowing that you've betrayed so many of your friends and family telling them that SSDS is THE way to use their computers. How productive could they be, how much fun could they have if they didn't have to use SSDS...

     



  • tdittmar plays dumb - real dumb

    @tdittmar said:

     

    Go back to your cave Swamp, enjoy SSDS on your own, but leave the rest of the world (especially the competent among us) alone. The only thing that makes me very sad is knowing that you've betrayed so many of your friends and family telling them that SSDS is THE way to use their computers. How productive could they be, how much fun could they have if they didn't have to use SSDS...

     

    In a live search showdown SSDS would make your way look stupid and too complex. SSDS isn't that difficult. You are just playing dumb.

    In a showdown I'd show them the first 5 seconds of all the video clips in a folder. Windows and Google can't do that.

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    In a live search showdown SSDS would make your way look stupid and too complex. SSDS isn't that difficult. You are just playing dumb.

    In a showdown I'd show them the first 5 seconds of all the video clips in a folder. Windows and Google can't do that.

    In that case could you reply to my post and explain the screenshot and what the hell I was supposed to be doing to get SSDS to index the .c files.



  • Spenk is my Fav

    @spenk said:

    In that case could you reply to my post and explain the screenshot and what the hell I was supposed to be doing to get SSDS to index the .c files.

     

    To merge .txt files and then append some .htm files to them.

     

    Prompt #1 (hit enter) taking the default file name. For a merge this prompt is meaningless

    Prompt #2 enter "merge" - this will combine all the .txt files into a single file

    Next enter "c:\search\" OR some other directory

    Next enter "txt" to select all to merge all the text file types

    Next (hit enter) as the default here is merge.txt (the output file / results file) or some other .txt file name

    Next (hit enter) for the default of (overwrite)

    -------------------------------- Give it a minute or two to complete - you'll see some progress details to let you know it is working.

     

    Then when that finishes and you need to add the "htm" files for searching to merge.txt

    Instead of "txt" enter "htm" for the (file type to merge)

    instead of the "o" for overwrite enter "a" for append.

    -------------------------------give it a minute to complete

     

    then at prompt #1 enter merge.txt

    then prompt #2 enter "c" for context search

    then at prompt #3 enter your search strings (up to 6) seperated by a "/"

    hit enter enter enter to see the various matches hilited and in context.

    Or at prompt #2 enter "s" to only display the line the match was on.

     

    Spenk - I still don't know if the directory stuff works on Windows 7 or Vista

    let me know if any of it works. Thanks

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    To merge .txt files and then append some .htm files to them.

    Great, how do I merge .c, .h, .cpp and similar files though - the instructions you gave previously didn't let me use C as an extension at prompt 4. Please tell me how to merge file types other than the ones supported out of the box.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Then when that finishes and you need to add the "htm" files for searching to merge.txt

    Instead of "txt" enter "htm" for the (file type to merge)

    instead of the "o" for overwrite enter "a" for append.

    If I wanted to search multiple file types would I be expected to go through this process for every single file extension? What about files that have no extension?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    then prompt #2 enter "c" for context search

    then at prompt #3 enter your search strings (up to 6) seperated by a "/"

    hit enter enter enter to see the various matches hilited and in context.

    Trying this on just some merged text files gives me


    which doesn't seem to highlight the search term 'delete' anywhere. The only way I can tell which files contain the search term is to page through looking for the file names being displayed and making a note - am I missing something obvious here?

    Also could you explain the results in my previous post as the screen shot in that one does have terms highlighted but still makes little to no sense.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Spenk - I still don't know if the directory stuff works on Windows 7 or Vista

    let me know if any of it works. Thanks

    Windows 7 has directories and SSDS appears to be able to read them so I guess that works.

    On the other hand I would like you to explain how the two screen shots of SSDS are better than  the following shot of WDS showing matching files

    I really fail to see why you think I should use WDS when I can't even get it to create a merged file of the original sources to then search, when creating a small merge file based on just .txt I have no idea what the results mean either. There doesn't appear an easy way to just list the matching files, or even open the original files without having to navigate to the original location manually either. SSDS's window seems immovable when displaying results so I can't even drag it to one side while using explorer on the other side of my monitor. 

    The more I attempt to use SSDS the more I find it awkward, confusing, disorganised and fundamentally at odds with how I would expect any windows based piece of software to behave. Even if I could make the merge work I would need to go through the process after any source file changes (at a minimum I would be looking at merging .txt, .h, .c, .cpp, .java, .sql and .sh every time), once the merge file exists it offers less useful functionality than windows explorer any way. It is a search tool that seems unable to simply locate a file on my hard drive, supports a very limited number of file extensions (and seems unable to be extended to support more), produces results that are incomprehensible and doesn't even work properly on a first run. I am at a total loss as to what benefit this is supposed to offer.

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    In a live search showdown SSDS would make your way look stupid and too complex.

    Hm, let me think - we don't even need to do it live. You gave Spenk a step-by-step manual on how to merge files. The merge process needs to be done for every single file I want to search in, right? So for a folder full of source code as mine at work, which contains more than 5000 source code files, how long would that take? Give a rough number in minutes. I can tell you already: There's no work required on my part - indexing runs automatically for me. Assuming that indexing needs as long as SSDS to read the file, I save lots of time, because I do not need to do the manual process of merging over and over if I make changes to one of the merged files.

    Then, you say that there's a limit of 6 search terms in SSDS - no limits with WDS.

    With SSDS I have to go through a series of undocumented, cryptic and easy to mix-up commands that I have to enter manually. In WDS I simply enter the search terms (no limit here) and press enter.

    With SSDS I get a total mess of content of the merge.txt file, while WDS - as Spenk illustrated alread - I get a neat and clean list of files that contain my search words. I can open them directly. SSDS can not do that - I have to write down the file name and then click through my folder tree to find the file and open it.

    So, you are telling me that WDS is too complex? Maybe it's not my way that's stupid but you, who's stupid for not admitting (or even realizing) that SSDS makes things over-complex, lacking basic and required functionality!

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    You are just playing dumb.


    No, I'm not playing dumb. After all your postings I have a pretty good idea how I'd have to "work" with SSDS without having tried it once. I just consider it stupid, unnecessary and restricting to use a tool that is so much worse than even the most basic Windows functionality.

    Why would I want to download the source code for and compile a program, which requires me to spend about 50% of my day feeding in the information it needs to do the most basic work, when I can just rely on what's already there, which - as outlined above - works so much smoother and faster?

    You said that the average user can not only understand SSDS, but can also understand its inner workings just by looking at the source code. How can it be that Spenk is not even able to create the merge file required to search? All in all he's been trying it for two days or what, you've not been able to support him properly. He asked a question you did not answer, he's not been able to perform the search he was trying to perform.

    In that time, he'd been able to open each file in notepad and search it!! So how much of an advantage does he gain from SSDS? And don't come me with that "play video and audio" shit again. He's simply trying to perform a text search and SSDS can't do that easily.



  • Spenk is right but I'll fix that

    @spenk said:

    Going to prompt 2 and typing merge and then re-entering the folder path as it has reset to 'c:' asks me for a file extension again if I enter C it just resets itself to TXT and I seem to be stuck....

    Spenk. I'll fix that asap. In the source.txt search for "19 november 2006" A line of code needs to be entered so that file types other than those 2,3 and 4 long can be entered. I never used C or had anything on my computer with a 1 character file extension.

    I'll put a "thank you spenk" right beside the change.

    I'm glad to see that the directory stuff in Windows 7 works.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I'll put a "thank you spenk" right beside the change.

    Congratz spenk!

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I'm glad to see that the directory stuff in Windows 7 works.

    Directories worked in DOS, too. Just because you don't use a feature doesn't mean it doesn't work.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Spenk. I'll fix that asap. In the source.txt search for "19 november 2006" A line of code needs to be entered so that file types other than those 2,3 and 4 long can be entered. I never used C or had anything on my computer with a 1 character file extension.

    How about no extension at all? How about longer than 4? How about multiple extensions? How about addressing my other concerns or answering any of my questions?



  • Very few users code in C maybe .01 of a percent or less

    @spenk said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Spenk. I'll fix that asap. In the source.txt search for "19 november 2006" A line of code needs to be entered so that file types other than those 2,3 and 4 long can be entered. I never used C or had anything on my computer with a 1 character file extension.
    How about no extension at all? How about longer than 4? How about multiple extensions? How about addressing my other concerns or answering any of my questions?

    longer than 4 and none. 99% of users never ever need extensions like this. I never did. That's called feature creep.

    Windows can't play a few seconds from each video. or song. Believe me it's very handy if you have video files. It's best to know early if any of them won't play and it's a great way to refresh yourself on your own content. Flashing through your pictures is way better than looking at thumbnails, expecially for us older techies.

    Windows and the rest have a file size limit. and no match counts. These are important too.

    For those who worry about source files changing. Don't. Most places book out program for changes. Everybody should do a final check when making their changes.

    When explaining the search to people their eyes don't glaze over like they would if you tried to explain indexing.

     

     



  • Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    longer than 4 and none. 99% of users never ever need extensions like this. I never did. That's called feature creep.

    But they do exist- your call though as only you use the thing.I am not even going to argue with the figure 99% as this is so obviously made up it isn't worth the effort. I suppose one could also make a joke about the fact we can hide our secret information in a file called secret.stuff and SSDS will not see it - just as useful an argument as your argument about file sizes and indexed based tools was really.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Windows can't play a few seconds from each video. or song. Believe me it's very handy if you have video files. It's best to know early if any of them won't play and it's a great way to refresh yourself on your own content. Flashing through your pictures is way better than looking at thumbnails, expecially for us older techies.

    Toss all to do with searching though - this is what a media player is for. Media players do allow you to do these kind of things though.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Windows and the rest have a file size limit. and no match counts. These are important too.

    This is meaningless as no sane person uses massive files but chooses to keep the files as separate files not as one big merged file. Then again it has been proven SSDS fails on large files - you choose to ignore this fact. What is a match count anyway? If you mean the number of files that match then windows offers this in explorer anyway.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    For those who worry about source files changing. Don't. Most places book out program for changes. Everybody should do a final check when making their changes.

    Source files change, it is a fact of life. I may want to search my source without the rigmarole of merging. If I get the latest version from the central code repository I want to be able to search without merging. I would like to search the word, excel, pdf, one note, text, htm, html files I may have as well - all without this merge and remerge fiasco SSDS entails. I was only using source code as an example anyway, I have many documents in many formats of which source code is only part. I may be looking for a technical term and wish to search all of these documents in one go. Merging will be nothing but a chore and eat into the time I would rather be doing something useful with, WDS would have just quietly and unobtrusively indexed the whole lot in the background and let me search directly.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    When explaining the search to people their eyes don't glaze over like they would if you tried to explain indexing.

    You don't need to explain indexing to a user - the indexing happens behind the scenes automatically. They can just type search terms directly into the start menu or explorer and get the results. To use SSDS they need to know about merging (i.e. creating an index by hand) as well as a myriad of meaningless poorly documented prompts with utter meaningless results being generated. How is that easier than typing a word and it just working?

    Again you have failed to explain the two screen shots and what the hell I was supposed to have found in them. You have again failed to comprehend what indexing means. Again you have spouted crap about video playback as if it excused all the deficiencies in SSDS when it comes to searching. 

    If you can't answer direct questions with an decent and direct answer or admit the fact SSDS may not be the best tool for that job at least have the decency to not spout shit about video / random / flashing / jam as if that was a suitable response.



  • @spenk said:

    Again you have failed to explain the two screen shots and what the hell I was supposed to have found in them. You have again failed to comprehend what indexing means. Again you have spouted crap about video playback as if it excused all the deficiencies in SSDS when it comes to searching. 

    But SSDS can show the first 5 seconds of each video! Windows can't do that!



  • @derula said:

    But SSDS can show the first 5 seconds of each video! Windows can't do that!

    I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently.



  • @spenk said:

    I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently.

     

    Wait.

    All this time you were being serious in debating with that cartoon character and his ragtag bunch of code?



  • @spenk said:

    @derula said:

    But SSDS can show the first 5 seconds of each video! Windows can't do that!
    I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently.

    Ah, sounds like you've moved to stage 4 of SSDS grief.  For the record, they are:

    1. Denial: "Nobody can be this stupid!  This is a hoax." 
    2. Anger: "THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE, YOU RETARD!"
    3. Bargaining: "Can you at least agree that Google is fast?  Surely you can admit that Windows does some of this stuff without SSDS?"
    4. Depression: "I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently."
    5. Acceptance: "What other crazy theories do you have?  Do you have any videos of them?"



  • @dhromed said:

    Wait.

    All this time you were being serious in debating with that cartoon character and his ragtag bunch of code?

    More of a morbid fascination really, the sheer consistency of Spectate's madness is amazing to behold.



  •  There's a sixth stage, pity, which is the stage in which you realize
    you're making fun of a certified nutcase and start feeling bad for him.



  • 99% of users aren't programmers

    @RHuckster said:

     There's a sixth stage, pity, which is the stage in which you realize you're making fun of a certified nutcase and start feeling bad for him.

    Funny. I'm feeling badly for you poor sods. Stuck in your old complex ways. We badly need a showdown. Just so you all can see how wrong your search knowledge is. Pick on the code if you like. When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as Stups, DumDums and Know-nothings. Criticizing what is probably the greatest program of all time. Extremely useful, fast and simple.

    Unlike the other Desktop Search engines, SSDS will just get faster and faster in step with the processor speeds.

    .



  •  The greatest program of all time will be the one that can bring me chips and beer to the couch and change the tv channels for me.



  • Re: 99% of users aren't programmers but SSDS is no good for them either

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Funny. I'm feeling badly for you poor sods. Stuck in your old complex ways. We badly need a showdown. Just so you all can see how wrong your search knowledge is. Pick on the code if you like. When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as Stups, DumDums and Know-nothings. Criticizing what is probably the greatest program of all time. Extremely useful, fast and simple.

    There never will be a show down as you cannot even get SSDS to perform simple tasks tasks like searching .files and you have been unable to explain the results I posted in the two screen shots; SSDS is just plain useless to everyone but yourself.

    The code is a mess and unmaintainable while the application itself is confusing and useless. It is neither fast nor simple or even vaguely useful. It is merely a random collection of pointless functions that you seem to be basing your computer usage around but nobody else is willing to change their practices to suit your bizarre way of working.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Unlike the other Desktop Search engines, SSDS will just get faster and faster in step with the processor speeds.

    Merging files is not going to be cpu bound but rather limited by disk i/o and memory speed. Any search engine will benefit from increased performance if the disks get faster so this is just another meaningless statement in a long list of meaningless statements you love to spout. Grow up and move on, the world has changed for the better - please keep up.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @bob171123 said:

     The greatest program of all time will be the one that can bring me chips and beer to the couch and change the tv channels for me.

    Isn't that called a MOTAS? Works for me....



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    We badly need a showdown.

    We had a showdown... this is like the 5th time we've told you in this thread. Your showdown failed because you failed to even come close to what was required in the terms of the showdown. YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY, SIR.

    Honestly, you keep touting a showdown like it's actually difficult to organize one. If you want a rematch, just DO IT, dammit.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Funny. I'm feeling badly for myself. Stuck inside all day because of the daystar. I badly need a blowjob.  Just so I can see how it feels, once. ... When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS
    detractors will be seen as right all along.
    Criticizing what is probably the most worthless program of all time.
    Extremely convoluted, slow and complicated.

    FTFY



  •  @SpectateSwamp said:

    Funny. I'm feeling badly for you poor sods. Stuck in your old complex ways. We badly need a showdown. Just so you all can see how wrong your search knowledge is. Pick on the code if you like. When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as Stups, DumDums and Know-nothings. Criticizing what is probably the greatest program of all time. Extremely useful, fast and simple.

    Unlike the other Desktop Search engines, SSDS will just get faster and faster in step with the processor speeds.

    .

     

    I'm not a programmer (I have a very loose grasp on some styles of coding) and I don't understand how SSDS works

    Your instructions suck balls. I would much rather use WDS. Even though I'm a Mac user now.




  • @belgariontheking said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Stuck inside all day because of the daystar.

    Damn that daystar. I can't wait until we pump so much smog into the atmosphere that we can't see it anymore, and the robots then use goons like SpectateSwamp to power their virtual worlds.




  • @RHuckster said:

     There's a sixth stage, pity, which is the stage in which you realize
    you're making fun of a certified nutcase and start feeling bad for him.

    Isn't that somewhere between steps 4 and 5?



  • As those drug commercials say, your results may vary. Generally, I think as soon as stage 6 arrives, they start to lose interest in the thread and move on. For me, though, it's not coming soon enough.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.