Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 July 6

Computing desk
< July 5	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 7 >

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.

July 6

picture transfer from cellular phone to PC...

i have a friend who is trying to send a picture from their phone to my pc. their phone does not seem to allow sending to email, but they say they can send pictures in a text message. However, i am talking to them using Yahoo Messenger, so i think when they send the picture to my number its useless, since yahoo isnt set up to recieve and display it. Are there any good programs that would allow me to receieve a photo from that method?

Thanks! 63.26.225.40 (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of ways to do this without extra programs. If the phone stores the photo on a memory card (SD card, Memory stick, etc.) the card can be removed and put into a PC's card reader. Alternatively: many phones come with a USB data cable (or one can be bought as an accessory); some PC's particularly laptops have built-in bluetooth, like many phones do (if not a bluetooth USB dongle can be bought); old phones and old laptops used infra-red, but I've not seen one of those for quite a few years. Astronaut (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought text was limited to 160 characters (or multiple thereof with multiple text messages). How can you send a picture in a text? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Multimedia Messaging Service -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The entire point and context of this post is that there is no usb (the cable was lost) or memory card etc. they can ONLY send pictures to a PHONE NUMBER and not an email. Like i said, any programs that will recieve this? Or any other tips?

thanks again in advance! 63.26.227.89 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Photobucket is an image hosting service that can be set up to accept mobile uploads, though if the phone has neither a good web browser (to browse to the site to fill out the upload form; smartphones such as the iPhone have this) nor the ability to send an MMS message to an e-mail address (none of the various services use "numbers"), that would not work. Some phones can send files via Bluetooth to other phones; if that is possible, you might be able then to upload to Photobucket from a phone that MMS e-mails can be sent from. PleaseStand ^(talk) 03:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought MMS was a way to send images to other phones in the same way that text messages are sent to other phones - ie. not to an email address or a Yahoo ID. The trouble is, I've always viewed MMS as being quite expensive. In this case however, it might be the only way to get the image onto a phone with more capabilities (such as bluetooth, a memory card, a data cable that isn't lost, email, etc.) Once on the other phone, it should be easier to get the image off that and onto a PC. Astronaut (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From my experience most phones can send MMS to e-mail addresses, although it will depend on provider support I guess. Depending on your provider MMS, may not be that expensive compared to the outrageous per kb cost of SMS and casual rate if you don't have a data plan. In any case, if your phone really doesn't allow you to send MMS to e-mail addresses (what phone is it?) you could see if your provider has a number you can send MMS to where you can get them online. I've never heard of any IM that can receive MMS but never really looked. Most people probably don't need it since it's more convenient to send it to via email. I would be surprised if a phone without removable memory that isn't a Kin or iPhone would have Bluetooth but who knows. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Email program with external (Excel) contact list?

For our fund-raising organisation I maintain a membership list in Excel. It works fantastically well with the bulk SMS program we use, which links to the Excel sheet and allows me to send SMSes to all members in one shot. Any updates to phone numbers or addition of members is taken care of in the Excel membership list only. The program seamlessly updates its externally linked contacts (i.e. from the Excel list) on startup. At no point do I have to touch the SMS program itself to update contacts.

I'm looking for an email program to reproduce this EXACT functionality. I don't want to manage contacts from within the program as this becomes double work. I just want it to reference the email addies from the appropriate column in our membership list. I've tried searching to no avail, the search terms bring up the wrong type of results. Any help? p.s. Mail merge does not suffice for all our needs. Zunaid 11:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s. Windows XP or compatible please, ANY email program will do. I will just install it for this one use for our organisation. Thanks. Zunaid 11:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How many people in the list? I do something similar and on occasion send them in batches of 40 from Thunderbird by just highlighting 40 names from a column in excel and pasting them into a BCC field. If I do more than 40 at a time, something (Thunderbird? ISP?) thinks I might be spamming and doesn't send. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can and do do the copy paste method as mentioned in Outlook Express already. I'm trying to avoid it. I just want an email program to which I can link our membership list as an "external" contact list. "Set and forget" basically. It's not many addies (<40 definitely) but it's more for the ease of use. Zunaid 22:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jailbreaking on iPod Touch 3G with iOS 4.0

Is it possible to jailbreak it, or must I downgrade to 3.1.2 then jailbreak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.20.24.67 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't own an iPhone, but looking at the article it appears that it's possible, however it does not yet work on all devices. : IOS_jailbreaking#Current_.284.0.29 APL (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Web server

I'm looking for a small web server that can display html pages and php. All the ones I've tried so far have additional functions like mysql, but I have no need for mysql so having that running and consuming 100mb of ram seems pointless. Thanks for your help! :) 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All the web servers listed as supporting CGI in Comparison of web server software will support PHP scripts via CGI. Some like lighttpd have optimisations specifically to improve PHP performance. Others, like Apache, have plugin modules (like Apache's modphp) which give PHP more access to web server internals and aim to improve its performance. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've have no trouble finding servers that support php. I just can't find one that only supports php and doesn't have mysql and perl and a load of other things I don't need but take up space on my computer. I want a small server than just has html and php 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't told us what you've tried installing, or even what OS you're running, but it sounds like you're installing something like a LAMP stack (or WAMP or whatever) instead of just a web server. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can and Will are two different things. For example, Apache can run MySQL. If you download and install Apache, it will not run MySQL. You have to add that capability (usually as something like a PHP module). Further, Apache can run PHP. If you download and install APache, it will not run PHP. You must add that capability by downloading and installing PHP. As for PHP, it can use MySQL. If you simply download and install PHP, it will not use MySQL. You have to add that capability. So, it is hard to tell if you are worried that something can use MySQL or if you are worried that something will run MySQL. -- kainaw™ 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on Windows. I've tried installing various servers like Apache and when it starts up it loads mysqld.exe which takes 100mb of RAM 82.43.90.93 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the listed servers "has myql and perl". Web servers are just that, and nothing more. You're downloading some package of stuff from goodness knows where. Don't do that. Download and install the servers from their own websites and you'll get nothing else. There is no requirement for Lightttpd or Apache to have either perl or mysql installed, and the official installers from their creators do not include either. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm so confused :( Thank you everyone anyway, obviously I made a mistake with what I downloaded 82.43.90.93 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When you "installed apache", you apparently did not get it from http://apache.org - which is where you should download it from if that is all you want. Then, download PHP from http://php.net (not from some other website). -- kainaw™ 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IIS (which is included with Windows) supports PHP. Databases are installed separately. If you want to add IIS, you just go to the Control Panel, then Add or Remove Programs (called Programs and Features in Vista and 7), and then Add/Remove Windows Components.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Vista comes with IIS (Internet Information Services), but Windows 7 doesn't (Microsoft removed it). Also, as Finlay McWalter is trying to explain above, the Apache HTTP server (what most people call a "web server"), the PHP script interpreter, and the MySQL database software are three separate software programs, each of which can be obtained from their own web sites (although PHP is often integrated with Apache using a configuration known as mod_php, and PHP programs often do use the MySQL database software for backend storage). EasyPHP and others are bundles of those three programs' Windows versions. If you don't want MySQL running, either download and install Apache and PHP separately — you may want to refer to http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.windows.apache2.php for information on how to set up PHP. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My installation of Windows 7 Professional lists IIS in that menu. I prefer IIS because all the configuration is done through a GUI, whereas most of the configuration of PHP is done by editing the php.ini file. But, aside from that, there is not much difference.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong in that Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate do include IIS, but the home version will definitely not have that feature. PHP should work on either web server though. PleaseStand ^(talk) 03:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft's Installing IIS 7.5 on Windows 7 Home Premium, Home Basic, or Home Starter says that the IIS component can be installed on Windows 7 using the method Best Dog Ever described, and Available Web Server (IIS) Role Services in IIS 7.5 lists which features you do, or don't, get in the various Windows 7 versions. I don't see PHP listed in the table, but if it's considered part of the CGI package, you're good with Home Premium or better. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to wait a little bit, the recently announced IIS Express may be what you are looking for. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

dwg verses shp file formats

What is the difference between autodesk's .dwg and ESRI's .shp file formats ? Why are not they made compatible with each other, although their functions are similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.184.78 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See .dwg and shapefile. They are two very different formats for similar but distinctly different purposes. -- kainaw™ 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resetting Mac OS X permissions back to default state

So I let someone borrow my laptop and they accidentally overrode the permissions for the entire disk to make all folders read/write/execute. How can I set them back to normal? (And I can't use Disk Utility Repair Permissions... it times out after a couple hours) --70.167.58.6 (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

wow. just wow. first of all, no one can accidentally override the permissions for an entire disk. Even if you are silly enough to give someone access to an administrative account and give him the password to that account, it still takes a good bit of effort to change permissions system wide. this person was trying to screw you up, just so you know.

now, the best thing to do would be to fire up Time Machine and reset your computer to a state prior to this moment of good-hearted foolishness. If you don't have Time Machine set up, then what you should do is start up from the install CD and run disk utility from there. that will be more stable and reliable than trying to run it from the internal hard drive. However, this will only fix the permissions on standard OSX software, files and folders; it won't fix the permissions on your own personal files, third party applications, unix executables you'e installed yourself, and etc. depending on exactly what he did, this may be a bigger or a smaller problem. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'all folders' for the 'entire disk' do you mean all folders in your users folder? all folders in all users folders? all folders in the system area? does this include special folders (like application package folders) or just regular folders?

In the future if you want to loan your computer to someone, use the accounts preference pane to make a new account for them (standard user, without administrative privileges). it takes all of a minute and a half to do this, and it will protect your computer (and all of your files and personal information) from any dumb thing they may try to do and save you from more instances of the fairly major headache you're dealing with now. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"no one can accidentally override the permissions for an entire disk." - What's so implausible about chmod -R ugo+x . when you think you are in /Users/waldubar/tmp/collections/p0rnviewers but actually are in /? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is implausible about it, except that

1. you would have to be using terminal, which for Mac OS X users is a bit unusual (there are no common tasks that require terminal on OS X)
2. chmod and chown are common commands, but not frequently used, implying the user had at least some basic unix competence
3. chmod and chown are commands specifically designed for changing permissions, and changing permissions on a machine that doesn't belong to you is tres sketchy
4. you would certainly have to use sudo to change permissions on the entire disk, which speaks to even greater unix competence.

If I were to loan my computer to someone and find him/her using terminal in the first place (without some darned good reason), I would be suspicious. If I were to find him/her in terminal trying to change permissions on files and folders (using pseudo, for heaven's sake, with my administrator password), I wouldn't be suspicious in the least; I would know that they were up to something no good. Now if you like you can give that person the benefit of the doubt and believe that they were just trying to play some sort of practical joke by goofing with the system (there's a certain mindset which finds that kind of thing funny). But what happened here was too complex to easily fit in the 'stupid accident' model. It's a bit like finding some guy standing naked in your wife's bedroom who says he lost his clothes in a poker game and was just looking for someplace to sit while he waited for a cab. yeaunhhunh...--Ludwigs2 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 1-3 correspond to my experience at all. I'll grant you 4, but I've seen weirder things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I once made almost exactly that error on a Prism machine. I hit CTRL-C once I realized it was taking too long, but by then it was far too late.

Unfortunately that doesn't prepare me to answer the question. The solution involved spending hours on the phone with SGI support, and trying various recovery disks that had come with the system. APL (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case it depends on how much damage the "friend" did. if it's just localized to folders in a particular user space, it might be resolved fairly quickly. most folders and files in a particular user are set at 700, so "chmod -R 700 /Users/username" should do the trick. that would still muck up the permissions on the Public folder (which should be 777) and the Sites folder (which should be 755) and any app-specific folders (heaven knows what they want). plus, it wouldn't fix chown changes if there are any, but it would be better. really, my easiest-safest approach to this would be to do an archive-and-install of the system entirely and then reinstall third-party apps from DMGs and recover files and preferences from the stored archives. it's a few hours work, but when you're done you know that the system isn't compromised. mostly I jumped on the IP to make sure s/he understood that computer security is no joke, and that even a well-intentioned friend (if stupid enough and given enough access), can cause you a world (and I literally mean a world) of grief. As the old saying goes: good fences make good neighbors, and that applies trebly with respect to computers. separate accounts are easy, recovery is hard, and I won't even give the love of my life access to my computer as an admin (and yes, she gets pissed about that, but there are some things a man has to do). capice? --Ludwigs2 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. So is there a guide online that shows the default permissions of major folders (/Apps, /Library, /Users, ~/Library, ~/Documents, ~/Photos, etc) --70.167.58.6 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

GFDL Picture

Does character that Wikipedia uses to represent the GFDL () have a name? If so, what is it? 98.227.232.84 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the logo of the GNU project in general, and seems just to be called "the gnu". I don't believe it has a proper name (that is, it's not "Geoffrey the gnu" or something like that). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

... and it's meant to depict the head of a wildebeest (with a strangely spaced-out expression). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On the gnu website, it is referred to as the "gnu head". -- kainaw™ 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This one in particular is an SVG adaptation of the original GNU Head. Indeterminate (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)