And you'll probably have to do this again- I bet
yahoo expires the session cookies!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Donald Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After surprisingly little struggle, I got Plan B working -- logged into
yahoo with wget, saved the cookies, including session cookies, and
...
At the release of Wget 1.11, it is my intention to try to attract as
much developer interest as possible. At the moment, and despite Wget's
pervasive presence, it has virtually no user or developer community.
Given the amount of work that needs to be done, this is not good. The
On Nov 29, 2007 3:48 PM, Alan Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter
will not be controversial. :)
Troll ;-)
On Nov 29, 2007 4:02 PM, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Thomas wrote:
What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter
will not be controversial. :)
Java is not likely. The most likely language is probably
Single quotes will work when a URL includes a dollar sign. Double quotes
won't.
On Nov 5, 2007 12:07 PM, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Alles, Kris wrote:
I tried wrapping the url with double quotes instead of single quotes and
it
sounds like a shell issue. assuming you are on a nix, try 'pass' (so
shell passed the weird chars literally. If you are on Windows, it's
another story.
On 11/10/07, Uma Shankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
I've been struggling to download data from a protected site. The man pages
intruct me
On 10/31/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
Perhaps the little wget could be called wg
On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
Perhaps the little wget could be called wg. A quick google and
wikipedia search shows no real namespace collisions.
To reduce confusion/upgrade problems, I would think
On 10/26/07, Josh Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, of course, when I say there would be two Wgets, what I really
mean by that is that the more exotic-featured one would be something
else entirely than a Wget, and would have a separate
On 10/29/07, Dražen Kačar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Micah Cowan wrote:
AFAIK, _no_ system supports POSIX 100%,
AIX and Solaris have certified POSIX support. That's for the latest,
IEEE Std 1003.1-2001. More systems have certified POSIX support for the
older POSIX release.
OTOH, all POSIX
On 10/19/07, Matthew Woehlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Micah Cowan wrote:
Also: does the current proposed patch deal properly with situations such
as where the first 15 seconds haven't been taken up by part of a single
download, but rather several very small ones? I'm not very familiar yet
On 10/18/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
On 10/17/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall
On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
About the parser... I'm thinking I can hack the parser that now
handles the K, M, etc. suffixes so it works as it did before but also
sees a '%' suffix as valid
On 10/17/07, Matthias Vill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Godshall wrote:
If it was me, I'd have it default to backing off to 95% by default and
have options for more aggressive behavior, like the multiple
connections, etc.
I don't like a default back-off rule. I often encounter downloads
... Perhaps it should be one of those things that one can do
oneself if one must but is generally frowned upon (like making a
version of wget that ignores robots.txt).
Damn. I was only joking about ignoring robots.txt, but now I'm
thinking[1] there may be good reasons to do so... maybe it
Tony Godshall wrote:
... Perhaps it should be one of those things that one can do
oneself if one must but is generally frowned upon (like making a
version of wget that ignores robots.txt).
Damn. I was only joking about ignoring robots.txt, but now I'm
thinking[1] there may be good
On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Oleg Ace wrote:
Greetings,
Was the feature being discussed here
http://www.mail-archive.com/wget@sunsite.dk/msg05546.html
and here
On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
Well, I'm don't have much to say about about the other points but one
certainly does not need to keep an array for something like this- with
the classic pseudorandom
On 10/17/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
Well, I'm don't have much to say about about the other points but one
certainly does not need to keep an array
On 10/17/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/17/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
Well, I'm don't have much to say about about the other
On 10/15/07, Matthias Vill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Micah Cowan schrieb:
Matthias Vill wrote:
I would appreciate having a --limit-rate N% option.
So now about those broken cases. You could do some least of both
policy (which would of course still need the time to do measuring and
can
On 10/13/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/13/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so let's go back to basics for a moment.
wget's default behavior is to use all available bandwidth.
Is this the right thing
On 10/13/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, I've removed the PATCHES file. Not because I don't think it's
useful, but because the information needed updating (now that
On 10/13/07, Josh Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you may have such problems but you are very much reaching in
thinking that my --linux-percent has anything to do with any failing
in linux.
It's about dealing with unfair
On 10/14/07, Hrvoje Niksic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, so let's go back to basics for a moment.
wget's default behavior is to use all available bandwidth.
And so is the default behavior of curl, Firefox, Opera, and so on.
The expected behavior
OK, so let's go back to basics for a moment.
wget's default behavior is to use all available bandwidth.
Is this the right thing to do?
Or is it better to back off a little after a bit?
Tony
On 10/12/07, Hrvoje Niksic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point remains that the maximum initial rate (however you define
initial in a protocol as unreliable as TCP/IP) can and will be
wrong in a large number of cases, especially on shared connections
On 10/13/07, Josh Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so let's go back to basics for a moment.
wget's default behavior is to use all available bandwidth.
Is this the right thing to do?
Or is it better to back off a little after
On 10/13/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/13/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so let's go back to basics for a moment.
wget's default behavior is to use all available bandwidth.
Is this the right thing
On 10/12/07, Hrvoje Niksic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
available bandwidth and adjusts to that. The usefullness is in
trying to be unobtrusive to other users.
The problem is that Wget simply doesn't have enough information to be
unobtrusive
On 10/12/07, Josh Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, I do not claim to be unobtrusive. Merely to reduce
obtrusiveness. I do not and cannot claim to be making wget *nice*,
just nicER.
You can't deny that dialing back is nicer
...
I guess I'd like to see compile-time options so people could make a
tiny version for their embedded system, with most options and all
documentation stripped out, and a huge kitchen-sink all-the-bells
version and complete documentation for the power user version. I
don't think you
On 10/10/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
The scenario I was picturing was where you'd want to make sure some
bandwidth was left available so that unfair routers wouldn't screw
your net-neighbors. I really
On 10/11/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
On 10/10/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My current impression is that this is a useful addition for some limited
scenarios, but not particularly more useful
...
I have, yes. And yes, it's a very small patch. The issue isn't so much
about the extra code or code maintenance; it's more about extra
documentation, and avoiding too much clutter of documentation and lists
of options/rc-commands. I'm not very picky about adding little
improvements to
On 10/11/07, Tony Godshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I have, yes. And yes, it's a very small patch. The issue isn't so much
about the extra code or code maintenance; it's more about extra
documentation, and avoiding too much clutter of documentation and lists
of options/rc-commands
- --limit-rate will find your version handy, but I want to hear from
them. :)
I would appreciate and have use for such an option. We often access
instruments in remote locations (think a tiny island in the Aleutians)
where we share bandwidth with other organizations.
A
... I worry that that might be more harmful to those sharing channel in cases
like Hvroje's ...
Sorry, Hvroje, Jim, I meant Jim's case.
Tony
Jim Wright wrote:
I think there is still a case for attempting percent limiting. I agree
with your point that we can not discover the full bandwidth of the
link and adjust to that. The approach discovers the current available
bandwidth and adjusts to that. The usefullness is in trying
On 10/10/07, Tony Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Measuring initial bandwidth is simply insufficient to decide what
bandwidth is really appropriate for Wget; only the user can know
that, and that's what --limit-rate does.
The user might be able to make a reasonable
Indeed.
On 10/10/07, Hrvoje Niksic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think there is still a case for attempting percent limiting. I
agree with your point that we can not discover the full bandwidth of
the link and adjust to that. The approach discovers the
I think there is still a case for attempting percent limiting. I
agree with your point that we can not discover the full bandwidth of
the link and adjust to that. The approach discovers the current
available bandwidth and adjusts to that. The usefullness is in
trying to be unobtrusive
[private response to limit list clutter]
or not. oops.
...
Note though that my patch *does* dominate the bandwidth for about 15 seconds
to measure the available bandwidth before it falls back. On my
network, it seemed
to take a few seconds before enough bytes were transferred to get a
Please find attached...
The quick test:
If you run wget with --limit-percent 50, you should see it run at full
blast for 15 seconds and then back off till it's downloading at 50%
the rate it acheived in the first 15 seconds.
This is only the initial Works For Me version of the patch. Comments
44 matches
Mail list logo
