Computing desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 16[edit]

Wikipedia Tours by DailyLit[edit]

I have just found the following resource.

DailyLit Read Wikipedia Tours Books Online by Popular Authors

Are the tours based on Wikipedia:Books?
—Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. All they're doing is having what amounts to a blog where they show the first paragraph of a given article, its contents, and a link to the en.wikipedia page for that article. Then they syndicate the blog by email or rss. The programme they follow seems to be their own (they have, for example, a Grand Tour tour, and I can't find a Wikibook that delivers the same articles). As their syndication mechanism is a bit clumsy I've not looked through a feed long enough to figure out how it's made - it may be that they've curated it themselves, or it may simply be an iteration over a mediawiki:category. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu ftp server problem[edit]

Hi,How could I restrict user1 into /var/www/user1 directory and user2 could use /var/www and all of it´s subdirectories. I´m using ProFTPd. --Olli (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does gmail ever ask about your birthday before you're allowed to log in?[edit]

A couple of weeks ago, when logging in to my gmail account (or possibly Google docs, not 100% sure), I was asked about my birthday. At the time, I thought it actually was Google who were asking, but I've begun to worry if my PC is infested with malware that somehow intercepted the browser, and asked this question for whatever reason (identity theft comes to mind...). There was no way to opt out of supplying a birthday, so I entered a fake one. This occurred when I was using an XP machine, with automatic Windows updates and Microsoft security essentials. Firefox, most recent version at the time (automatic updates).

Now, after having become suspicious, I checked out my Google account, "Show data that are stored for this account" (translated from Norwegian, the English wording may be slightly different). No trace of any birthday.

I've done a web search for similar incidents, and came accross this page, which shows exactly the screen that I was presented with. By searching for the wording in the screenshot, I found this thread, and that's all I've been able to find about this problem.

What's going on here? --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this kind of thing is you put in a fake DoB then later Google ask you to verify your identity for some reason or other and you can't remember your fake birthday. Perhaps good if you're 14 years old and are looking for porn (Google claim it is so they can provide age-relevant content); but it's not so good if you're a security conscious adult and they lock you out of your GMail account. Frankly, your date of birth shouldn't be any of Google's concern. FWIW, I told my new ISP I was 150 years old when they asked the same thing :-) Astronaut (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I chose a DoB that I'll remember). After some more searching for Google and birthday's, I see that Google now require that you provide your DoB when opening a Google account, and that they do not permit you to change it afterwards. I'm pretty sure that was not the case when I opened my account. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody yet has answered the question in the title, I assume that those who have given the question some thought, are uncertain about whether it is Google or a scammer who presented me and the blogger that I linked to with this screen. Taking Google's birthday policy into account [1], I find that the most likely answer to my question, is that it actually is Google who are doing this. Your opinions about the likelihood of this being a scam would be most welcome. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well a quick search for 'google ask date of birth' finds [2] which suggests they do ask for the DOB sometimes. [3] suggests it's for COPPA compliance. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If it is Google, I find it pretty arrogant to suddenly pop this screen out of the blue, apparently at a subset of their users. The screen is impassable to people who for moral reasons do not want to lie, and who are serious about their privacy, and consequently decline to give a date of birth. Such persons will from then be in a blackmail situasjon being forced to chose between lying, complying, or saying goodbye to their email archive. Do no evil, my arse! The second link was interesting, as it is similar to my situation, in that the persons who were asked had coworkers who had not been asked. My wife uses gmail, and has not been asked the question. I assume that some of the WP:RD/C regulars also use gmail, and would have told us here in this thread if they had experienced similar situations.

So, if this is google then (which I suspect), they are presenting only a tiny subset of their users with this question. Why would they be enforcing their birthday policy in such a way? --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I just opened a GMail account today, and had to provide my birthday. —99.99.216.248 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portable browser for linux[edit]

What is Linux equivalent of those portable browsers (like USB Opera or Portable Firefox? I need something that can be used from my Live-USB and that can be dragged to the HDD (and used from there, obviously) without WINE. 88.11.244.183 (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a bit unclear, because you refer to your "Live-USB", which suggests you are using a bootable usb-stick on which you have installed Linux, and that you use to boot the PC's you are using. If that is the case, you could just install your browser of choice to the Linux live usb-stick, and have it available whenever you booted from the usb-stick. Then you write that you want to drag the portable browser to the hard disk of the host computer. This suggests that you are using more than one PC which boot into Linux, and that you are using the usb stick passively, as a transport medium for the software, and want a browser that will run without installation on the Linux PC's you use. Could you please clarify:

Do you want to boot from the usb-device or do you want to boot the native OS'es of the PCs?
If you want to boot the native OS'es of the PC's please specify what OS'es these are.
If neither of the above describe the situation, please try to explain in a little more detail what you want to achieve.

With some more info, it will be easier for us to answer your question. --NorwegianBlue^talk 15:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so far. So, here the answers: I want to boot from a usb-device. Yes, I know that I could install any browser on it, but then this browser would be the same for all users: same bookmarks, same cookies, etc. And the usb is read only. So, users are able to use to boot their PC, go online, but not to leave any trace on the live usb. Just imagine it were a live CD, but you wanted to give people the possibility of using a browser and customizing said browser. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The scenario you describe is not directly comparable to a portable application under Windows, since a Windows portable application runs from the host OS, whereas you want an application that runs from the OS that is installed on your read-only usb device. I think your requirements for saving bookmarks, etc, would be met if you created persistent home directories on the hard disks of the PCs that you boot with your usb-device. I believe such settings would be stored in "hidden" (i.e. beginning with a dot) folders under your home directory, like ~/.YourFavoriteBrowser/. From the host OS, the persistent home directory, with its contents and sub-folders, would be just a file. I don't have much experience with this, but I remember trying it out with Puppy linux a couple of years ago. Which distro are you using? Have you checked if it supports persistent home directories? --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on this one, but that makes my situation easier, I think. I am trying it with Puppy linux too. I check this things of persistent directories. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

x86 and x64 virtualization efficiency[edit]

Does the following statement have any truth in it? I can't seem to find any source confirming or rejecting the statement.

… 32-bit OSes run much, much more efficiently in virtual environments. (Microsoft told me it was able to literally double the density of VMs on Hyper-V by switching from x64 to x86 versions of Windows.)
— Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows, http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/mailbag-windows-8-developer-preview-140659

Please elaborate with sources if possible. 180.254.71.106 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this doesn't answer the question but unless the site has some further evidence for their statement, I would suggest they're drawing a conclusion with insufficient evidence. It claims "32-bit OSes run much, much more efficiently in virtual environment" but the only evidence it seems to suggest for this from your quote is "Microsoft told me it was able to literally double the density of VMs on Hyper-V by switching from x64 to x86 versions of Windows". There is at least one possible (edit:)obvious explaination for why the second statement is true but not the first, i.e. Windows x64 is designed in some way that makes it perform poorly on Hyper-Vs (or to put it more succintly perhaps Windows x64 is just a POS). BTW in case there are any complaints, I'm not trying to turn this in to a 'Windows is crap' thread, in fact I use Windows x64 all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Nil. My guess is at most it's true of Windows only (or they've only checked with Windows only, why would they have for anything else, they're Microsoft). It's true there are still lots of computers out there with only 32-bit processors, and lots without virtualization extensions, and for these virtualizing a 64-bit guest will definitely be less efficient than doing so with a 64-bit proc/with virt extensions. Hopefully they aren't daft enough to be lumping that in with this statement, however. I'm also pretty sure the percentage of programs on an average 64-bit Windows system that are actually 64-bit is also going to be much lower than on an average 64-bit Unix system (which is likely to have [conservatively] over 90% purely 64-bit software). ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ready boost by using USB Flash drive[edit]

I am using USB flash drive (1 GB) to get additional memory in my system. While using ready boost feature windows recommend me to use 869 MB. If I reduce the size shall I get more speed? Thanks--180.234.74.133 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. A larger cache won't slow down your system. Our article on this is ReadyBoost, which has lots of detail you might like to read. Note that ReadyBoost does not give you "additional memory in your system" — it uses your USB flash drive to store a "disk cache", which speeds up many file operations, because your USB flash drive is much faster than your hard disk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that many cheap flash drives are slower than common hard drives, so they may actually cause the system to slow down if used with ReadyBoost. —99.99.216.248 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

typeface identification[edit]

Hello computing reference people! Can anyone identify the typeface used in this book? It seems to be commonly used in computer science and linguistics. Lesgles (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Modern. It's basically a sign that says, "this was typeset using LaTex," which is common in the sciences. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick answer! Lesgles (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]