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, an
...
> 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
> announ
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 i
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 ;-)
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
>
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
> intruc
On 11/2/07, Tony Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> > Keeping a single Wget and using runtime libraries (which we were terming
> > "plugins") was actually the original concept (there's mention of this in
> > the first post of this thread, actually); the issue is that there ar
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
> &g
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.
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,
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
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 famili
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:
> &
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
> > >
> >
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 a
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, 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
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/wget@sun
> 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 ignor
> ... 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
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
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 befor
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'
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 m
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 up
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
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
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'
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
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
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
...
> > 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 thi
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.
&g
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.
> >>
> >&
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
...
> 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, 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 f
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
> >> 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
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 disc
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 re
> 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
> ... 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
> > >> - --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 organization
> [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
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
w
45 matches
Mail list logo
