Computing desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

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.

August 26

Surface web, Deep web and Dark web

The surface web is where billions of internet users upload their stuff, much of which is copied and re-uploaded many times, while few people can even access the deep web, let alone upload things there -- and what is uploaded there is presumably something really important/disturbing/dangerous/etc., not just random stuff. This implies that the surface web must be the much larger than the deep web. Yet, this video claims the deep web makes up 96% of the internet, and later, somewhat self-contradictorily, says the deep web is "over 500 times greater than its surface web counterpart" (meaning it makes up 99.8% of the internet). How come? --Qnowledge (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deep web has all that stuff you can only access by logging on or doing the right query in the data entry box. Most of facebook for example is like that. But only little of Wikipedia is, as anons can see most pages here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be logging in or doing the right query that's the limit. Search engines tend to respect robots.txt and noindex flags. Most of wikipedia is accessible to anyone but user pages and user talk pages for example are generally no indexed. So too are BLP article talk pages. XfDs too. Since wikipedia content is under CC (and generally GFDL), various sites to duplicate it sometimes including this content so it may sometimes still appear in search engines. There's also the question of whether content which search engines can access but can't index properly is really the surface web. For example, Flash content. Some excessively complicated scripting. Some sites, particularly Chinese sellers still use a lot of images including for text. In some languages it's also still common to use images rather than text. These may nominally be indexed, but you can't search their content etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you claim that few can upload to the deep web? It tells me that you have a misunderstanding of the definition of deep web. Of course, the definition of deep web and dark web tend to change based on the speaker's needs. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep web is just stuff not indexed by mainstream search engines.

Dark web: web that requires specific software, configurations or authorization to access. A small part of the deep web, BTW.

That's according to the articles you linked to. Don't conflate both concepts.

I don't know if the deep web is truly 96%, It's difficult to estimate. Google is expanding its indexing, but more users are generating content. Some stuff is just noise. So, who knows? Hofhof (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of what counts as one item. If I configure my web server so that hitting a page that doesn't exist brings up a page of random content, does that count as one resource or does it count as million of resources since each page is unique and there is no reasonable limit to how many unique URLs and unique content resources you can get? In other words, dynamic content makes the task of counting how many things are on the web very difficult. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any cellphone os that works similar to a computer?

I have an cellphone with windows phone, and to use/install programs you must have to use a specific program (windows store) and have internet.
WTF. Trying to imagine not being able to use cd/pendrive/floppy with the installer to install the program (or with a exe to use it), also not being able to receive an installer file or exe by email or from the website..... AND having to use a ultra specific program to get the programs avaliable on the program database with internet.
Is there any cellphone os without this crazy bullshit?177.92.128.26 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you want to research about jailbreaking.--Hofhof (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a portable computer with an open OS, but do not need actual cell phone service, you might take a look at the Pocket CHIP [1], based on the fully open source and open hardware CHIP_(computer). It runs a fairly vanilla Linux, and hence should be able to run most Linux applications. Wi-Fi will be the easiest way to load new content on to it, but I don't think that's strictly required. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that they are expected to start shipping only in October. I just updated the article to reflect this fact (the article said July).

But Kickstarter projects are a hit or miss thing, so maybe the OP wants to take a look at other Single-board computers like Raspberry Pi or Arduino. Hofhof (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PocketCHIP has already shipped to backers - I like mine as a toy, but the keyboard is less than ideal if you plan on doing a lot of typing. WegianWarrior (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but unlike almost anything else in that size range, it uses a standard desktop OS, meaning that there will be very few limitations on what apps it can use (well, aside from the fact that it's Linux). Glad to know you like it, I would not want to type a novel on but I think it looks very useful for basic console programs, ssh, office suite, etc. Also it is extremely inexpensive for what you get in my opinion. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the above assumptions are about not wanting a phone. But anyway, sideloading apps on Android is relatively easy with most phones, you just have to enable the setting. You can even use alternative stores like Amazon's one if you want. Sideloading apps is I think possible on Windows 10 Phone but a little more complicated and restrictive in how you can do so [2]. Note that in either case should you need to jailbreak your phone. Sideloading is a lot more limited on iOS without jailbroken devices.

Of course enabling sideloading is one thing. You still have to find a source for the apps. For Android certain open sources and places like Humble may have APKs available. However the vast majority of apps are not available like that. Third parties may make popular ones available and despite what another contributor has said before, this isn't actually that dangerous if you take a little care and know what you are doing but this is probably a classic case of if you have to ask, you probably don't. Ultimately for better or worse even on Android outside a few odd places like China, the Play store is where the vast majority of apps are found. Even something like the Amazon store is dwarfed in comparison, although even that is still generally better than if you are finding from other places.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having to need to jailbrak is a no. Also, I want a phone. More, the fact that people are assuming I want something else, kind of show/tell that people people assume this bullshit is ok, and if I dont want it, it means I want something else.201.79.62.253 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but as I said, there's no need to jailbreak Android phones, or even Windows phones although it does appear your installation options are still fairly limited with Windows phones (but you don't need to use the store).

Of course you also have to consider what you're aiming to achieve. As I also said, with most Android phones, it's not that hard to let yourself sideload apps sent by email, on USB keys, downloaded from the web, from other app stores, copied via MTP, on a SD card you add to the phone, maybe even on CD or floppy disk if you can somehow get those working on the phone etc etc, you still need to actually find the apps and many are not available elsewhere. This doesn't mean using another OS is a magic solution. Especially since you've affirmed you want a phone. I've read of people running Windows 7 or other desktop Windows on a VM on phones [3]. Nominally it might even be possibly to install some desktop Windows on the phone (although I'm not sure about drivers) although the fact I don't think I've read anyone doing it suggests it's not easy (and Intel has abandoned phones for now). There are also various levels of Linux availability on phones from running it on VMs to more sophisticated options. There are those odd Ubuntu Touch phones like the Meizu Pro 5 (although from my brief read, I'm still a bit confused about whet you can actually do with normal desktop apps with such devices [4]). Other things I can't remember too. Some of these may or may not require jail breaking. (And incidentally, why is jail breaking a no? Is there some reason something which is unsupported but easy to do which can appply to jail breaking is worse than something which is unsupported and hard to do, which can apply you using weird OSes on phones.)

You can do all those, and sure then you may be able to install weird random stuff with few limitations other than RAM, CPU speed, storage space and GPUs for games. But have you actually considered the implications of trying to use weird random apps not at all designed for a touch screen with a touch screen phone? Actually you probably don't have to imagine. If you have a Windows computer Remote Desktop. If you have Linux, VNC. In many cases, your experience there is not going to be that different from trying to use random apps designed with a completely different UI in mind. Really the dominance of Android and iOS and the fact that Android is the only one of those 2 with some decent level of easily usable means that even despite the low level of apps officially or legally distributed as APKs on websites etc, you'll still often have a far better selection of usable apps on your phone then you would just using desktop Linux or Windows or whatever else that you're thinking of as a traditional system. Unless you plan to use a keyboard, mouse and additional monitor, then the question because why do you need a phone.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I read through this discussion, I was trying to pinpoint exactly which trait of a computer system our OP is looking for.

I think what our OP is looking for is a small computer that contains a wireless network interface that has a promiscuous operating system. The OP wants to casually install anything on their device, without interference from the device's built-in security protection system.

This is a rare feature in modern computer systems. It's an exceptionally rare feature in mass-market consumer-devices that are sold directly to end-users. The features you are looking for - question-free execution of untrusted software - are categorically equivalent to a networked-computer that is intentionally operating with massive information-security vulnerabilities. This is a "bad idea" if you intend to use this device as a mobile telephone with access to public networks like the Internet.

Perhaps your best chance to find such a device is to look into development boards sold by major mobile-device electronics manufacturing companies. For example, you can buy the Qualcomm MDP-820, pre-packaged in a nice plastic box that looks darned similar to a "smart-phone"; and if you like, you can install a version of Android (...or Qualcomm's weird versions of Linux) on any of the many of the computers that come inside that tiny plastic box. A full kit of hardware will cost somewhere between $1000 and $5000, depending on how you configure your boards and how many features you need. That's right around the price-point of a high-end modern development workstation; but it's a lot more expensive than even one of the best consumer-telephones that are on sale these days.

What this kind of kit won't give you is a fun, friendly, easy-to-use user-experience. It won't protect your device, or your data, from permanent loss or damage. It won't protect you - the user - from accidentally doing something that is irreversible and expensive. It won't prevent the mobile telephony- and data- network - from automatically halting network-service to your device because they perceive it to be a hazard to their system. But you can still buy this kind of gear, and you can do what you like with it - if you have the time and effort and expertise.

Hopefully, this explanation gives you a little better idea about why it is so hard to find what you are looking for.

Nimur (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salvaging SQL Server database

Hi there. Long time ago I had an MSDN subscription with Microsoft. As part of this privilege I downloaded and install SQL Server, the data and log files were in separate external hard drives. It was a regular edition, not Express, perhaps 2008, and eventually I built a large database in it. Then my desktop's internal hard drive crashed and I purchased another computer, this time HP All in One, and I want to install SQL Server Express which is free, and try to read databases.

A lot of things changed in MS. Now installation of the Express is a nightmare. Still it seems I did it. I cannot read my databases though. Anybody can give me an advices how to handle it all?

Thanks, - --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess You have a problem. Did You use export to create a backup dump? If not it might become difficult. You need the SQLExpress management console also called SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS). --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have a problem. Yesterday I downloaded and installed some additional SQL Server related software: Management Console and the Tools. In every occasion the system told me that I already had them in my registry, so I went for "Modify." When I opened the Management Console, it looked rather familiar. I worked with older edition quite a bit but I still cannot figure out how to hook up my old databases. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to read them with SQL Server 2008, or one of the newer versions? I've had trouble accessing 2008 databases with SSMS 2014, which is unfortunate, because SSMS 2008 is a royal pain to install on a new Windows system. My best advice is to install 2008 on an older system, then try and read the databases (we had to do this at work in order to read our SSIS packages).OldTimeNESter (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OldTimeNESter, thank you. Honestly I am not really sure what I installed, Microsoft is to confusing. But it seems I installed the latest version of SQL Server Express. Thank you for your advice. It is worth to look into it. I think SSMS 2008 is free of charge if I am not mistaken. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]