Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 September 16

= September 16 =

Windows 7 logbook?
If you wnated to know what program run in W7 and when, is there a logbook somewhere installed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W7q (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the event viewer, but I don't think that shows what programs are currently running, only if they have errors. For programs currently running you can use the task manager. Sounds like you want to know program history though, not currently running programs so I'm not sure that is much of a help. Chevy  monte  carlo  16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I want to know what happened when, but not right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W7q (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

buying internet
Just moved into a new house and I want to connect to the internet but no idea how. The last people had some virgin media thing, there's some internet cable sockets under the stairs and a black box with light on wired up to them somehow. So who do I contact to get things organised so I can get internet to my computer, and how do I do so?

82.132.244.35 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd stay away from Virgin Media if I were you, nothing but problems. Put your details into this to see which services are available to you in your area, then call up whichever provider you feel is offering the best service and ask them to install it. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of balance, I've had Virgin Media cable broadband dating back when they were still NTL, and have had very few problems with it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they were good in the past, but this year however has been awful. Just went down yet again for 2 hours. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd stay away from BT if I were you, nothing but problems... Seriously though, it might be worth asking around (a chance to meet your new neighbours?) to see what the local situation is as far as internet service providers goes. You may find that locally one is much better than another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you might already have a router in place although I can't imagine if someone was moving out they'd just leave the router there and still switched on. Chevy  monte  carlo  16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do a scan and see if there are wlan available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W7q (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Uk electricity
having fitted two mini powerline adaptors,in order to link my PC Router to my Tv(in another room)and to discover that it does not work... I refer to an instruction page which informs me that the non -connection may be due to the possibility that I am operating within "different phases of a four-wire three -phase system" How can I confirm this ,is there a way around it176.24.143.105 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is in a residence, your electrical power supply probably is a single-phase supply, not a three phase supply, although because I live outside the UK, I have no clue what they do for such cases as apartment buildings. Check that the adapters are not plugged into power strips or surge protectors because some power strips contain filters that could interfere with the signal. See Power line communication. PleaseStand (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some houses in the UK have two different phases supplied, but this is usually only if they have off-peak electrical heating installed. If you can see the incoming supply, count the wires: two wires means one phase and three wires means two phases.  As PleaseStand mentions above, apartment buildings (blocks of flats) will often have three phases in the building, but only one phase should be supplied to any one flat.  The problem is more likely to be interference from nearby "noisy" electrical appliances.  You could test out your adaptors by plugging them both into one extension, or by running a temporary extension lead (with care) from one room to the next.  If they work in different rooms when plugged into the same socket (via extension), but not when fed from different sockets, then there might be a phase problem, but in that case you should inform an electrician and never use an extension because different phases should never be brought close together.  I assume that you have configured the adaptors correctly, so the remaining possibility is that they are faulty.  Are you able to try them out with different equipment in a different house?    D b f i r s   07:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Android, Linux and Windows security
I have the impression that there are some Android security problems out there, comparable to the Windows problems. But if Android is a kind of Linux, shouldn't it be so secure as Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W7q (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a balance between user-friendliness and security. An operating system that goes right ahead and updates whatever your current app says needs updating is the most user-friendly, as you don't have to worry about all those ugly details.  However, this is bad for security, as an app may steer you towards an update you really don't want.  You can make a Linux variant behave like Windows, in this respect, but you will then also suffer the consequences. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Linux is not inherently any more or less secure than Windows. The system software on both platforms allows a skilled operator to secure their machine and the data it holds from unauthorized access.  However, unskilled operators (or skilled malicious operators with a certain minimum level of access) can make any computer system insecure.  Linux World News, a reputable Linux news site, provides an archive of recent Linux security news.  Microsoft provides a web-page overview of security for end-users.  And, here's Google's technical overview of security on Android, geared mostly towards Android programmers.  With due respect, it's possible that your impression of security may differ from actual facts about security.  This is actually one of the greatest sources of insecurity in modern computer systems: exploitation of people's incorrect information.  Nimur (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But how many people are trying to exploit debilities in each system and how many are trying to improve it?
 * And, if you are running Linux, when all others around you are running Windows, would you be more secure due to incompatibilities of virus, malware?
 * And what if you are running Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer (which is not necessary, but often the case), are you still equally secure?
 * And does Linux have something as the regarded insecure Windows' Remote procedure call?
 * That doesn't make Linux 'as such' more secure, but having Linux implies you are more secure. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To proceed meaningfully, we need to define "secure." In fact, most computer security issues I am currently aware of are attributable to user-error: misplaced trust.  This type of security hole is technology- and platform-agnostic.   For example, consider the popular Mint.com service.  Few people consider this to be a "virus" or "malware" of any kind.  Yet, the operational principle of the service is that you intentionally authorize a third-party to have access to your bank account.  This is terrifically insecure, if by secure, we mean "nobody else may access our bank account."  Yet, if "secure" means something else - say, the inability for an unauthorized user to change the system clock (which can impact the ability to authenticate Kerberos tickets), then the use of Mint.com has no impact to computer security.  If you don't use Kerberos, you may wonder why administrator privileges are required to set the time: it seems trivial and moot and irrelevant with respect to "security."  Yet, by guaranteeing my kerberos tickets are valid, I can assert with confidence that my connection to my financial institution remains secure.  If I were to naively trust one of my programmer-friends to reset my system clock, or to otherwise gain certain administrative access to my machine, my confidence in that secure connection would diminish.   Nimur (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What you're missing is that while Android is a Linux distro in that it uses the Linux kernel, it is not a GNU/Linux system, which is what the vast majority of distributions known as "Linux" are. Additionally most "Linux" distributions are managed by hundreds to thousands of committed volunteers, whereas Android is managed almost entirely by Google directly. Even if it were the exact same software, the management of a code base is going to be more important than the code base itself. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Playing DVDs on Fedora 17 Linux
I have the entire run of the TV show Monty Python's Flying Circus on box of DVDs that I bought from Amazon.com. I tried to play a DVD on Xine on Fedora 17 Linux, but it reported that it couldn't find a plugin for. After googling I found out that I had to create a symlink at  pointing to. This worked, but Xine stopped after the introductory track, claiming it was trying to make an unauthorised access to a scrambled sector. After googling, I found out that I had to install  from Livna.org. This worked and allowed me to view the entire DVD. Surely the symlink will now stay in place even if I don't have a DVD disk mounted? It does seem a bit silly that I need to install  to view content that I bought fully legally and paid real money for.

After viewing the DVD, I shut down Xine and physically ejected the DVD by pressing the eject button on the DVD drive. However, this left  mounted to a directory under , and that directory was inaccessible. (Of course, since the DVD had been ejected.) I ran  which also removed this directory. Was ejecting the DVD by pressing the eject button without unmounting the filesystem or using the  command fully safe? I can't imagine the contents of the DVD being messed up, because I'm only reading from it, not writing to it. J I P &#124; Talk 18:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You only have to create a symlink if your program is too dumb to be configured to use ; I don't know xine well but I assume it can be configured to use it (not that linking the two isn't fine). It is silly that many legislative entities feel the right to own something and the right to actually utilize it are two separate things, but as Fedora is tied to an entity that has something to lose and doesn't want to be sued, they separate out the distribution of the decryption software. It does sound like something isn't working perfectly on your system, but things that are automatically mounted with  in their path are meant to be inserted and removed without oversight. It's been some time, but if you had manually mounted the disc, you might not have even been allowed to have ejected it manually. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you can get all these Linux questions answered so much faster at irc.freenode.net. :p
 * All this looks otherwise all OK, but when I rebooted the system, the symlink from  to   had disappeared. Is there any way I could make it stay there? I could always write a command in   or something to automatically create it when I open a shell but there's the problem that writing to   requires root privileges and I would have to type the root password every time I open a shell. Is there some kind of "execute this script every time the system boots up" script on Linux?  J I P  &#124; Talk 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (or ), move it elsewhere  and reboot. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That didn't work.  didn't output anything, and   only gave lots of errors about not being able to access some subdirectories of   (I ran it as a normal user).  J I P  &#124; Talk 17:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then you need to get on IRC and talk to people using your same distro, who are familiar with where things are and how they're done. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

MS-DOS Browsers
Are there any DOS browsers capable of being used for things like editing Wikipedia, chatting on Facebook, banking online, checking email, and playing Flash games and videos? If not, could one be made? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite following you. By DOS browser, do you mean a text-based browser, like Gopher (protocol), which, by definition, couldn't play Flash games ?  It might be able to do some of those other things, although in a simplified form.


 * Or perhaps you mean any browser running on Windows ? In that case, they pretty much all support those things. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * IBM PC compatible computers from the MS-DOS days, predating Windows, could very well use graphics. We used such computers in our elementary school to play games such as the Space Quest series. So it's entirely possible that an MS-DOS browser could play Flash games and videos. However, as I understand it, MS-DOS is largely obsolete these days, and coding such a browser in MS-DOS (without Windows) would be such a great deal of a job that almost no one would be willing to do it. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the lines of doing this when Windows XP becomes obsolete, since a lot of computers from the early 2000s don't work well with Windows Vista or Windows 7. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 18:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been using obsolete O/S's for a long time (Windows 98). They aren't as bad as you might think.  The lack of constant updates actually makes them more stable.  You might as well stick with Windows XP.  I plan to, on my XP machine.  I would generally only risk a new O/S on an entirely new PC. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've put XP on a lot of 98 computers. The first one I did that with XP actually worked a lot better with because XP would increase the size of the page file when it would run out of memory whereas 98 would just give me error messages. But 98s okay, lots of memories with it. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 18:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So what would be the most someone could do with already existing DOS browsers? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By "browser", do you mean "Internet browser" ? It looks like JIP was only talking about running things directly on that PC, not over the Internet. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression you were under the impression that "MS-DOS" inherently meant "text only", which I demonstrated to be false. MS-DOS can both connect to the Internet and display graphics. However, creating a graphical WWW browser doesn't inherently follow from this. Someone has to code it, and as far as I understand, no such browser for MS-DOS only (not Windows) exists. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't talking about inherent limitation of MS-DOS, but rather those of an Internet browser running on it. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What inherent limitations would those be? As far as I am aware, no graphical WWW browser for MS-DOS, at least one supporting Flash media, exists, but that wouldn't stop someone from creating one, as long as TCP/IP connectivity is available. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not an inherent limitation, but one of availability, assuming the OP isn't going to write his own browser. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand what you mean. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm talking about an internet browser. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Notoriously, MS-DOS never supplied a TCP/IP API. So by the strictest definition, you could not use "the internet" on a DOS computer - at least, not out of the box.  Applications that ran on DOS could provide their own device-drivers for a specific internet connectivity device, and could implement a TCP/IP stack in software (or implement a different networking communication protocol, like the infamous IPX).  But, by the time the Internet and the protocols it used became commonplace, Microsoft Windows had supplanted DOS.  Here is a (somewhat stale) page from CalTech on programming TCP on DOS.  Using modern software, it would be possible to compile, for example, cURL or Lynx for DOS.  Lynx is available for OS/2; if you are a skilled programmer, you can grab the Lynx source-code, compile for OS/2, and then attempt to port to a DOS TCP API.  Nimur (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you can do that, and program graphics output on MS-DOS, you're on your way to creating a graphical WWW browser on MS-DOS. After all, the only difference between a graphical browser and a text-only browser is that a graphical browser can interpret the image files and graphical layout definitions it already received over the Internet via a graphics output device. However, this has to be coded in software, and it's going to be a good deal of work, and interpreting Flash media is going to be even more work. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Gopher_%28protocol%29 gives you some idea. Web searches, displaying HTML pages or pics, playing audio, etc.  At least some email systems, like Gmail, ought to work. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What about wi-fi, what would that require? Also, my biggest fear with XP is that because they have that product key thing in it I won't be able to do a fresh XP install after it becomes obsolete. Although I do have a Win 95 CD somewhere, so that might be a better option than DOS, but wouldn't there be more security issues with 95 than DOS (since nobody writes DOS viruses anymore)?


 * Well, my point is that you won't need a fresh install, unless the hard disk fails, since you won't be constantly updating the XP system and thus getting into trouble. Also, I don't think they can prevent a new install from CDs, although they might very well stop supplying the O/S online.


 * (ec with Mr.98) Something else you might want to consider is a Linux install. Those are basically designed for people who don't want to be tied to Microsoft.  They have browsers that can already do what you want.  One downside is that they are often more work to install initially. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If your goal is to use old hardware for a very long time, but still want to do modern things, you'd probably be better off switching to some Linux variety. They will combine the no-frills approach that is necessary for old hardware, but will actually have things like modern browsers written for them, updated regularly, and things of that nature. MS-DOS is a particularly lousy place to try and draw one's line in the sand — it's too old for the stuff you want to do. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup: if you have ancient hardware that won't run Windows beyond XP, why not install Linux of some sort instead? Ubuntu for instance will work well enough for web browsing on some fairly old hardware - I've go 10-year-old Compaq Evo which even though it is technically under-spec for Ubuntu manages to run it, and there are Linux distro's expressly designed to run on low-spec systems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Linux is an intriguing idea, and that was actually going to be my next question. I know absolutely nothing about Linux, as I've always been a user of Microsoft OSes, but it's sounding interesting. Would it be possible to have a boot menu where you can choose between Linux and Windows at boot (so I could get used to Linux)? And what are the system requirements for Linux, I read somewhere that it can boot from floppy disks, does this mean you could go back as far as the old IBMs and Tandys from the 80s with Linux? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Early PCs from IBM used Intel processors prior to the Intel 386. Current main line versions of the Linux kernel do not work on earlier x86 processors such as the 8086 or the 286 in the IBM PS/2 series.  Tandy (like the TRS 80 and other Z80 processors are similarly unsupported.  This means that the basic functionality of Linux - its kernel - has not been ported to these platforms in any serious fashion.  You may find List of Linux supported architectures worth reading.  Of course, any Turing-complete computer can run Linux, in a hacked-up software-emulation fashion (for example, emulating a kernel entirely in user mode).  But, though Linux has been ported to many systems, certain hardware features are important for realistic performance: memory protection; hardware-assisted preemption; virtual memory.  Linux can be modified and compiled without these features, but then we enter into a ship of Theseus-style conundrum: at what point does the code which used to be Linux, but sufficiently modified to provide basic scheduling and device operation for the TRS-80, cease to be Linux, and simply become CP/M, or the Tandy BASIC environment, or whatever else you expect to run on that machine?  Nimur (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Linux required a 386 from the start (see Linus's original announcement). To my amazement, there is apparently an 8086 port (ELKS Linux), but I'm not sure how much it has in common with official Linux. -- BenRG (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's entirely possible to have a boot menu where you can choose between Linux and Windows at boot. You should do this when installing Linux - installing Windows will probably only create a bootloader for Windows. System requirements for Linux vary widely. For example, the system requirements for Fedora 17 (which I use), at least when using the GNOME graphical desktop, are almost as high as for Windows 7. But there are other distributions with much lower system requirements. Particularly, if you don't install a graphical desktop, but only use Linux in text-only mode, you could basically do it in late-1980s or early-1990s hardware. I think you're still best off using a hard disk though, I don't think even the smallest Linux distributions can fully fit on a floppy disk. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A dual boot system allows you to boot into either. An alternative is to boot from CD or flash drive (if your computer can boot from flash drive), so you get Linux when the CD or flash drive is in place, but Windows when it's absent.  Any Linux system which could boot from floppy disks is probably too bare bones to do what you want. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Arachne (web browser). Well, I don't know if it can do all those things, but it is at least a graphical web browser, for DOS. Card Zero  (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some non-Linux systems which may be of interest include ReactOS (the Windows substitute), Syllable Desktop (operating system) (The formerly Amiga ... thing), and FreeDOS if you like DOS. Just because it doesn't have to be about Linux all the time. Though really you want whatever's got all the drivers. Card Zero  (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, all quite pointless except to the most masochistic hobbyist. Why would anyone want to do anything internet related with vanilla DOS when there are many other OS's with drivers that work with old computers? For linux - what about Raspberry Pi? This is an example of what can be done. Sandman30s (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)