Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Can you recommend a good SSH file sync utility for Windows? For example, I have some C++ sources that I need to compile remotely. I need this utility to be simple and most of all responsive, so I can compile my sources instantly after saving, without having to wait for the sync to be triggered.
WinSCP supports synchronization from both gui and command line.
Use rsync. See this. There is even an instruction to set automatic backup.
for source-code, you could use something like git or subversion, paired with an ssh-connection using port-forwarding.
in all cases you would need to trigger the sync yourself except you have a tool that watches the directory you're working on.
try this, SSHSync for windows
http://code.google.com/p/sshsync/
A command line applications that allows intelligent Secure FTP transmissions. SshSync only support pull type transfers, but it allows use of a Private Key to ensure that authentication is secure. A text file that contains a list of files always processed is used to check that only 'new' files are retrieved.
Sounds like a job for a Continuous Integration tool.
install cygwin and use rsync over ssh.
It seems to me that one way to solve your problem would be to simply use a network drive. Edit your files from the network drive, and whenever you save, any other systems connected to that drive can also access your changes, including your build server. That's what we do at my office — everyone's home directories are on NFS/CIFS shares, so we edit on our local computers, but run a script to trigger a build on any of several build servers, even multiple platforms at once. We don't have to sync anything before being allowed to compile our latest changes.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
i have search a lot to find out How to detect unnecessary Windows\Installer file !
I am sure lot of you have faced this issue previously and solve it somehow.
Now when i look at my ---
C:\Windows\Installer
directory on Windows Server 2008 R2 i can see it took already 42 GB out if total 126 GB.
Now what i would like to know can i just delete all the files from that Installer directory or i have to detect which file can be removed !
Do anyone knows any solution for this issue !
How do you define unnecessary?
Specialized system case: You want the minimum footprint and are willing to sacrifice functionality that you don't expect to use.
If all is well, each the files in C:\Windows\Installer are a local cache of an installed Windows Installer package, patch, transform, etc. They are necessary for uninstallation, auto-repair or on-demand installation to succeed. If you will never need any of those things on these machines (i.e. if you are bringing them up on demand as VMs, and would rebuild them rather than uninstall something), then unless the app itself invokes Windows Installer APIs itself, it may be relatively safe to remove files from C:\Windows\Installer. In addition, you could call the Windows Installer API MsiSourceListEnum to find other caches of files that are used for these same purposes. It may be similarly safe (or unsafe) to remove those files.
More usual case: You'd rather not rebuild the system
If you suspect there are unreferenced files in that folder left over from prior upgrades or uninstallations, you can try to use Windows Intstaller API calls to verify this. At a very low level, you can call MsiEnumProducts (or possibly MsiEnumProductsEx) to find the product codes of all installed products, and MsiGetProductInfo/Ex(szProduct, INSTALLPROPERTY_LOCALPACKAGE, ...) to find its cached .msi file and INSTALLPROPERTY_TRANSFORMS for a list of its transforms. Then MsiEnumPatches/Ex to find all patch codes and MsiGetPatchInfo/Ex (again with INSTALLPROPERTY_LOCALPACKAGE and/or INSTALLPROPERTY_TRANSFORMS) to list the .msp and .mst files it references. In theory, the full set of all files referenced here should match up with the full set of files in C:\Windows\Installer. (Or there are more references to look for...)
(Before you write anything to do this, consider that there are probably apps out there that automate this, or are even smarter about it, such as the one referenced in another answer.)
You could not delete them all.
There is a good answer about your problem, I test in my lab. It works for me.
Notes: If possible, you had better copy this folder to anther disk (such as E:)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there alternative to hoo-wintail (costs $49.95) for Windows, which can color specific lines according to pattern in monitored file.
Thanks
I found two options:
BareTail
Tail for Win32
Neither of them uses Cygwin. BareTail apparently has an annoying startup screen. Tail for Win32 is completely free, and open source.
multitail acts like tail -f on multiple files at a time, and it will color lines according to the file type. It's available in Windows as part of Cygwin, which will cost you $0.
Text utilities from gnuwin32 contains tail.
This distribution is a zip file, you can only use tail.exe from this zip.
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/coreutils.htm
It has a dependency. (dep is dependency,bin is actual distribution) Download both of them,extract. Copy
libiconv2.dll
libintl3.dll
from dep to same directory as tail.exe
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuwin32/files/coreutils/5.3.0/coreutils-5.3.0-dep.zip/download
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuwin32/files/coreutils/5.3.0/coreutils-5.3.0-bin.zip/download
Then tail.exe works normally. But as you say in comments it gives error for "tail -f filename"
Interesting thing is: If you install using their setup package
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/downlinks/coreutils.php.
This error does not exist. But I saw same error when I was trying to use from zip distribution only.
Have you tried this?
"A Windows version of the UNIX 'tail' command. Includes features such as pager or SMTP notification of specific items found within the files being monitored"
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tailforwin32/
HTH
I can recommend LogExpert an other alternatives
Free version of Kiwi Syslog Viewer will do the job.
It has a tail function, and will open very large files quickly and easily.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to programmatically test a file for viruses.
I'm aware of this thread, which didn't get a satisfactory answer in my opinion, but I'm not looking for an API here. Any kind of workaround to make it possible to test a file would be fine.
Of course, an API would probably be the best solution (I'm using .net on a Windows platform), but maybe it's possible to drop the file in the folder, and to then check whether I can still open it or if it's been quarantined by the antivirus software.
Has someone run into the same sort of situation?
Assuming you wish to integrate with whatever antivirus is already present on the system rather than bundling your own, you should check out the way Firefox 3 does this.
Bugs 103487
and 408153
- Inform anti-virus software when Firefox downloads an executable (using
the Windows "IOfficeAntiVirus" and
"IAttachmentExecute" APIs).
(of course if you wish to bundle your own, check out ClamAV/ClamWin, but then you must deal with updates, etc, and you should probably first check there is not a fully updated solution on the target system for politeness)
Windows? No problem. Check out ClamWin. It is based on ClamAV.
Platform?
Most Windows anti-virus provide shell integration (right click on a file in explorer to scan that file), which will either mean running an executable, DDE or COM. All of which provide an entry point to another program to call the same mechanism.
Check out ClamAV.
Clam AntiVirus is an open source (GPL) anti-virus toolkit for UNIX, designed especially for e-mail scanning on mail gateways.
Maybe you could use this web service, assuming the file is less than 1MB:
http://www.kaspersky.com/scanforvirus
If you discover a suspicious file on
your machine, or suspect that a
program you downloaded from the
Internet might be malicious, you can
check the files here.
Indicate the file to be checked; it
will automatically be uploaded from
your computer to a dedicated server,
where it will be scanned using
Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Multiple
independent tests and publications
acknowledge the solution to have
exceptional detection rates. Updates
every three hours ensure that even the
very newest viruses can be detected.
Only one file of up to 1 MB can be
checked at any one time. If the file
is too large, a window with an error
message will be displayed. Type the
name of the file in the window at the
top of this page, or find the file
using 'Browse'. Then click on
'Submit'.
You can use a Debugger or a Disassembler
It really depends on which AV program you're going to use. Read the documentation for whatever solution you choose and you'll probably find a command-line interface or some other API you can call. There's no "generic" way of doing this (across AVs).
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
If one were to use TiddlyWiki as a personal database for notes and code snippets, how would you go about keeping it in sync between multiple machines. Would a svn/cvs etc work. How would you handle merges?
One option is the up-and-comer DropBox. A free filesharing service that gives you 2GB free, and no limit to the number of computers you share on.
Define a shared folder, put your tiddlywiki files in there, and then point the local editing to the shared drive. Any changes are automatically reflected.
Note: I have no connections to DropBox other than the fact that I've been reading lots about it, and am trialing it for my personal use.
Use TiddlySpot, its online all the time and private
Tiddlywiki is well suited for version control (since it is a single text file).
Just put it on a personal SVN or Git repository accessible from the web, and you can keep it in sync with many places (office, home, laptop, etc.).
I use this method, and it works pretty well. You can even have several versions of your notes and resolve conflicts using diff tools. And obviously with revision control, you can work "offline" and sync later.
I just created a new Tiddlywiki at TiddlySpot. It allows you to keep a local copy of the Tiddlywiki and also sync it up with the server.
These options are all good, but I would just put it on a USB key.
If you have your own web server (and don't want to use TiddlySpot), try this code to enable saving to your own server.
I have a MonkeyGTD wiki that is on http://TiddlySpot.com. I have a local copy of it on my work PC and do my work during the day on it, and periodically upload to TiddlSpot during the day and at the end of the day. If I need to access it or update it after work I will make changes to the online version and then the next morning I do an Import back into my local file.
It's true that if I forget to do an update or do them in the wrong order I will lose information, but it's "good enough".
There is probably a way to use the Sync functionality to prevent this, but I haven't researched this option yet.
If you might want to edit your wiki on several computers at the same time, you would definitely want a server-based solution that syncs at a finer level than the file. Giewiki (http://giewiki.appspot.com) is a server-based TiddlyWiki solution based on Google's App Engine, which does just that. And unlike any other hosted TiddlyWikis that I know of, you can create several pages in any hierachy and navigate them through an auto-generated sitemap. You can try it out by creating a subdomain site at giewiki.appspot.com, or you can download the source and install it into a free appspot site of your own. And you can make it as personal or public as you like.
Try FolderShare.
I store my TiddlyWiki files on a USB flash drive that I keep with me no matter what computer I might be using. No need to bother synchronizing across other computers. It gets backed up regularly when I back up the flash drive itself on my primary workstation.
Yet another option: Use a different personal wiki called Luminotes, which you can either access online from different computers or download and run on your own computer (yes, even a USB drive). Luminotes has definitely got some similarities to TiddlyWiki, but in many ways it's simpler to learn and use.
You mentioned SVN, but if you don't mind using git, Github's Gollum is a great solution. Edit locally or from the github remote repo.
Why not just setup something like DokuWiki on a webserver? You do have your own web server, right? You can get a virtual hosted solution for $19/mo these days.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 8 years ago.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Improve this question
While I grew up using MSWindows, I transitioned to my much-loved Mac years ago. I don't want to start a flame war here on operating systems. I do, however, want a terminal a litle closer to what I'm used to.
I'm not asking for full POSIX support - I don't have the patience to install Cygwin - but I miss tabbed terminals, being able to easily cut and paste, and my good friends ls, mkdir, rm, et al. (For these last ones, I could always put .bat files on my path, but that's going to get old fast.)
Anybody have a terminal application for MSWindows XP ?
I'm using powershell, its awesome to keep you from going crazy, and it has rm and mkdir and ls.
Tabbed terminals is still not in powershell, and copy paste is similar to cmd, but its way better than cmd.exe.
Some more options:
MSYS: a Minimal SYStem providing a POSIX compatible Bourne shell environment, with a small collection of UNIX command line tools. Primarily developed as a means to execute the configure scripts and Makefiles used to build Open Source software, but also useful as a general purpose command line interface to replace Windows cmd.exe.
GNU utilities for Win32: ports of common GNU utilities to native Win32. In this context, native means the executables do only depend on the Microsoft C-runtime (msvcrt.dll) and not an emulation layer like that provided by Cygwin tools.
PowerCmd is great, with a ton of features including tabs, cut/copy/past, etc.
Console is also a great replacement and is a bit more stripped down than PowerCmd (which can sometimes be a little too feature rich.
Also, with both of these, if you have powershell installed, it is possible to run powershell from withing either.
If you are a bit of a Pythonista then iPython is tough to beat. It has some of the more common shell commands coded in (i.e. ls, pwd, cd etc.), can also run any other shell command by prefixing with '!' (i.e. !latex file.tex) but also is a full Python shell with history, tab-complete, multiline editor support, logging etc. etc.
Moreover, you can install iPython back on your UNIX boxes as well as Windows meaning your environment can follow wherever you go.
There is a new-ish open source Console Emulator called cmder. It looks really nice and has some advanced features that make it nicer to use. You can also use powershell with it. Best of all, it's portable!
I've never found anything I like more than Cygwin.
I also went ahead and installed Cygwin/X w/ Openbox so I can get something like this:
It's got multiple workspaces inside the main Openbox window so I can easily have up to 20 non-overlapping xterms that I can easily cycle through.
I know you said you don't want to install anything, but I strongly suggest you give Services For Unix a shot:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigration/bb380242.aspx
I use Console with unxutils
Console for the tabs and easier to manage select/copy/paste
unxutils for ls, rm, grep, uniq, sort ... and other goodness.
PowerShell is amazing, however for anything other than the most basic commands there is a learning curve when switching from bash etc.
I went back to using cygwin.
PowerShell is worth looking into.