SpectateShit:

I think I just improved his source:

DigitalXeron:

Now, before you say "What if someone's writing a book" -- here's what the authors I've seen do: They write each chapter (or even topic) in a file of it's own, and contain the whole book in it's own directory [,,,]

A real-life example with censored filenames =)

It's hard to be a computer geek and a wannabe fantasy author. I end up spending wayyyy too much time on tools facilitating authorship, so my current novel has a puny word count of...

$ perl countwords.pl 
======================================================================
767	xxxxxxx.tex
474	xxxxxxxxxxx.tex
504	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
433	xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
763	xxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
3107	xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
809	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
222	xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
1093	xxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
358	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
418	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
905	xxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
1265	xxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
754	xxxxx.tex
183	xxxxxxxx.tex
533	xxxxxxxxxxxx.tex
======================================================================
12588	TOTAL
======================================================================

I'm not actually working on chapters, I'm working on scenes. It's much more flexible this way: I noticed my initial chapter numbering was very much alive...

Not many words in files, as you can see, and I'm even considering splitting that one 3000-word scene into two =)

The story is progressing slowly indeed, but I have a kick-ass multi-paradigm word count tool with complete annotation support, and an awesome LaTeX-based manuscript revisitation/reworking workflow! Basically, feed the LaTeX source to the processor with the manuscript layout, print it, make corrections by hand, then return to editing the files; other layouts can be easily produced from the exact same source...

DigitalXeron:

 However, due to your single-filed mindedness, SpectateSwamp, I doubt you'll understand/comprehend my post because you refuse to believe/accept anyone can have any more than 2-3 text document files on their computer.

Google Search Sucks. Who can rely on it. The introduction should READ "this search only does small files". How many results, for a certain word do you have? Don't know, you probably never will know for sure. Unless you try SSDS

No wonder everybody is so ClueLess. You poor sods have never ever seen Desktop Search. The Great Search Giant Google is a GOOF. Their DS is so bad compared to what I am used to. I can see why so few use it (MPS) A little more testing and I'll be ready for the next video.

Indexing should start right when I hit the index button. After changing files 30 or 40 times and re-indexing. That 30 seconds - to a minute seems SLOW. Maybe have another button that says "in 30 seconds run the damn indexer"

So my early research indicates GDS is crapware.

SpectateSwamp:

DigitalXeron:

 However, due to your single-filed mindedness, SpectateSwamp, I doubt you'll understand/comprehend my post because you refuse to believe/accept anyone can have any more than 2-3 text document files on their computer.

Google Search Sucks. Who can rely on it. The introduction should READ "this search only does small files". How many results, for a certain word do you have? Don't know, you probably never will know for sure. Unless you try SSDS

No wonder everybody is so ClueLess. You poor sods have never ever seen Desktop Search. The Great Search Giant Google is a GOOF. Their DS is so bad compared to what I am used to. I can see why so few use it (MPS) A little more testing and I'll be ready for the next video.

Indexing should start right when I hit the index button. After changing files 30 or 40 times and re-indexing. That 30 seconds - to a minute seems SLOW. Maybe have another button that says "in 30 seconds run the damn indexer"

So my early research indicates GDS is crapware.

FAIL.

SpectateSwamp:

DigitalXeron:

 However, due to your single-filed mindedness, SpectateSwamp, I doubt you'll understand/comprehend my post because you refuse to believe/accept anyone can have any more than 2-3 text document files on their computer.

Google Search Sucks. Who can rely on it. The introduction should READ "this search only does small files". How many results, for a certain word do you have? Don't know, you probably never will know for sure. Unless you try SSDS

No wonder everybody is so ClueLess. You poor sods have never ever seen Desktop Search. The Great Search Giant Google is a GOOF. Their DS is so bad compared to what I am used to. I can see why so few use it (MPS) A little more testing and I'll be ready for the next video.

Indexing should start right when I hit the index button. After changing files 30 or 40 times and re-indexing. That 30 seconds - to a minute seems SLOW. Maybe have another button that says "in 30 seconds run the damn indexer"

So my early research indicates GDS is crapware.

swamp youre an idiot. you clearly dont evemn understand the IDEA behind GDS, let alone the implementation of it. please do some research and learn about decent software and coding practices.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD 

may i also take time out to thank MPS for his supporting my tag. I bow to you, sir! 

             Verified by SSDS No wonder everybody is
            confused!  Unless you have never will know, for
            the damn indexer So few use it MPS, A folder
            little more testing google search only does
            small files How many results, for the
            introduction Great Search Sucks: taking down
            Google desktop Search Sucks; only does small
            files How many results, for the introduction
            should READ this Search only does small files
            How many results?  Indexing; should READ this
            Search only does small files How many
            results?

SpectateShit:

             Verified by SSDS No wonder everybody is
            confused!  Unless you have never will know, for
            the damn indexer So few use it MPS, A folder
            little more testing google search only does
            small files How many results, for the
            introduction Great Search Sucks: taking down
            Google desktop Search Sucks; only does small
            files How many results, for the introduction
            should READ this Search only does small files
            How many results?  Indexing; should READ this
            Search only does small files How many
            results?

SpectateShit:

Verified by SSDS No wonder everybody is
            confused!  Unless you have never will know, for
            the damn indexer So few use it MPS, A folder
            little more testing google search only does
            small files How many results, for the
            introduction Great Search Sucks: taking down
            Google desktop Search Sucks; only does small
            files How many results, for the introduction
            should READ this Search only does small files
            How many results?  Indexing; should READ this
            Search only does small files How many
            results?

That is fantastic...I wonder if you could use our replies as input, and automatically generate nonsense questions for Swamp. It's not like he'll answer the real questions anyway....

SpectateSwamp:

Google Search Sucks. Who can rely on it. The introduction should READ "this search only does small files". How many results, for a certain word do you have? Don't know, you probably never will know for sure. Unless you try SSDS

No wonder everybody is so ClueLess. You poor sods have never ever seen Desktop Search. The Great Search Giant Google is a GOOF. Their DS is so bad compared to what I am used to. I can see why so few use it (MPS) A little more testing and I'll be ready for the next video.

Indexing should start right when I hit the index button. After changing files 30 or 40 times and re-indexing. That 30 seconds - to a minute seems SLOW. Maybe have another button that says "in 30 seconds run the damn indexer"

So my early research indicates GDS is crapware.

You are totally missing the point of what a Desktop Search actually is, these are tools designed to allow you to find files based on keywords such as filename or content and require minimal input as they run in the background and build their index while you are using your computer to do other things.

Under normal working conditions you edit, delete and create files and the contents get indexed in the background, you are not required or expected to deliberately force an index rebuild after making changes. Either way this has got to be easier than manually creating the fucking index yourself or merging all your files into one big sodding file!

Try editing several files in a tool like notepad, in several different folders and then see how quickly SSDS takes to merge the files into one and then find the correct term, now change one of the original files and how quick does SSDS work when you now have to manually merge all the files again (including the ones that didn't change).

I dare you to try the challenge I posted regarding searching the subversion source tree and compare the times from WDS, GDS and SSDS including indexing or merging in the case of SSDS.

For any sane individual 10,000 words is not a typical file size, this size would only be reached by the kind of moron who stores all of their e-mail in a single text file rather than in a useful place such as an e-mail application.

You must be suffering from some weird delusion by failing to realise that computing has moved on and people expect more from things than SSDS and that Desktop Search is a term in common use that has toss all to do with the myriad of pointless features you seem to think it means.

Just in case you haven't understood yet - Desktop Search mean 'Searching the file system for files, not searching a single sodding file', searching a single file is called 'searching a single file' not 'desktop search'.

spenk:

Under normal working conditions you edit, delete and create files and the contents get indexed in the background, you are not required or expected to deliberately force an index rebuild after making changes. Either way this has got to be easier than manually creating the fucking index yourself or merging all your files into one big sodding file!

 100,000 byte limit. Isn't anybody else checking these stats. Or you just going to sit on your duffs waiting for the next educational video. Well it's comming and soon. Some babble about the directory structure and that is all they need. CRAP 1,000,000 files is still a Million files. They never get printed again. Back them up and Merge them to clean up your directory. How on earth can you visually see or find anything in those huge directories. The merge has defaults and happens very quickly. It is so fast I might have to do a screen re-shoot of the slow-mo playback. At 20,000,000CPS files merge fast. especially those with a 100,000 byte limit. Even a thousand of those files wouldn't take long. But you'll see. You'd be surprised at how poorly GDS finds and displays stuff. Not fast and furious like SSDS. No wonder people keep so little data. There has never been a tool that was worthwhile.

My pal the European Hooded Crow was by this afternoon. I did a short video clip. Want to see?

aleph:

That is fantastic...I wonder if you could use our replies as input, and automatically generate nonsense questions for Swamp. It's not like he'll answer the real questions anyway....

Spectate does have a point (I hate to admit) that some desktop search tools do have limitations on their ability to conduct a full text search of large documents.  I have single text files from 15+ years ago that have 10s of thousands of words in them, so Google Search (for instance) could not properly index them.  But there are tools known as 'Full Text Search' tools that do exactly what Spectate is refering to in his 'Desktop Search.'  They do this quickly and easily

An interesting quote I found on Wikipedia: "When dealing with a small number of documents it is possible for the full-text search engine to directly scan the contents of the documents with each query a strategy called serial scanning. This is what some rudimentary tools, such as grep, do when searching."

From this quote we can see the Spectate has developed a Full Text search tool, a 'rudimentary' and archaic tool to be sure, that cannot properly be compared to most other Desktop Search tools.  

So Spectate you win a battle.  Your Desktop Search can do something that many desktop search tools can't (google desktop search for instance).  But your goal of overcomming this problem with current desktop search tools is too little, too late.  It has already been done.  Better.  Faster.  Stronger.  So ultimately you lose the war.

Dr. Phil

SpectateSwamp:

 100,000 byte limit. Isn't anybody else checking these stats. Or you just going to sit on your duffs waiting for the next educational video. Well it's comming and soon. Some babble about the directory structure and that is all they need. CRAP 1,000,000 files is still a Million files. They never get printed again. Back them up and Merge them to clean up your directory. How on earth can you visually see or find anything in those huge directories. The merge has defaults and happens very quickly. It is so fast I might have to do a screen re-shoot of the slow-mo playback. At 20,000,000CPS files merge fast. especially those with a 100,000 byte limit. Even a thousand of those files wouldn't take long. But you'll see.

The point you seem determined to ignore is I do not want to fucking merge my files into one big fucking file. I want my files as separate files so I can use them as  the were meant to be. How can I maintain my source code if it is merged? Why merge my previous presentations when they are fine as they are? Why merge my expenses when I am happy with them as they are now?

Please, for the love of any god you care to name tell me what the fucking point of merging my files into one big file that is useless to anything other than SSDS.

• I cannot compile source code if it is merged without having two copies - one merged and one not merged. Every edit requires me to re-merge.
• I cannot simply reply to or forward an e-mail without cutting and pasting if they are all merged.
• All my powerpoint files lose the layout and colours if I convert them to text and are useless once merged. 
• All my pdfs lose their graphics and formatting if converted to text and are harder to locate if lumped together in one big file.
• How do I maintain my html, css, js files if they are merged into one?
  
• Why should I bother to 'gf' my mp3s when I can leave them alone and not be required to manually merge these things?

I really do not care how fast you think files merge (and I would love to see where you get figure like 20,000,000 cps from) because I do not want my files merged! If people have a million files (and I've no idea where you got that number from) then let them - why do you get to dictate how other people use their computer and how they store files. An organised directory structure keeps things in control, search tools help you locate things that may not fit easily into this structure - how can one big file be easier to use?

SpectateSwamp:

You'd be surprised at how poorly GDS finds and displays stuff. Not fast and furious like SSDS. No wonder people keep so little data. There has never been a tool that was worthwhile.

I think you will find GDS does an excellent job of searching for files, as does WDS which I tend to use. Fast and furious is another pointless statement, I do not want to hold enter down for 5 minutes watching irrelevant matches fly past, I want to type and get my results filtered as I type and with the possibility of using boolean searching if I need it.

People do not keep so little data - you are the one advocating deleting stuff and putting it on DVD to keep the number of files down - everybody else seems happy to use modern hard drive capacities to the fullest.

I do agree that if SSDS is a tool it certainly isn't worth while...

If you really want to try WDS or GDS properly do as I keep suggesting and try using them to search something like the subversion source code and then do the same with SSDS - then compare the convenience and performance. 

DrPhil:

An interesting quote I found on Wikipedia: "When dealing with a small number of documents it is possible for the full-text search engine to directly scan the contents of the documents with each query a strategy called serial scanning. This is what some rudimentary tools, such as grep, do when searching."

With minor modifications the Swamp Search could do this. A little tweaking of the Merge operation for those Selected files. Instead of putting the text out to the destination file. Treat the data like it came in at the standard file input line. If it is something that will make people happy. Then maybe somebody should add it.

You poor sobs don't cut and paste anything off the net for later. How SAD being limited to such itsy bitsy file sizes

SpectateSwamp:

You poor sobs don't cut and paste anything off the net for later.

Why would I? Bookmarks and del.icio.us are already useful enough.

SpectateSwamp:

How SAD being limited to such itsy bitsy file sizes

As if some MB was "itsy bitsy". Get over it, dammit! Not everybody keeps all their data in a single large file!

AFAIK, with this method you are essentially ignoring the entire purpose of a file system. What next? The SSDSFS (SpectateSwamp Desktop Search File System)?

I just deleted 6,000 e-mails insulting my tiny (package/soldier/schlong/tool/etc) and now you're insulting my itsy bitsy file sizes!

Now I need counseling. I hope you're happy.  

SpectateSwamp:

DrPhil:

An interesting quote I found on Wikipedia: "When dealing with a small number of documents it is possible for the full-text search engine to directly scan the contents of the documents with each query a strategy called serial scanning. This is what some rudimentary tools, such as grep, do when searching."

With minor modifications the Swamp Search could do this. A little tweaking of the Merge operation for those Selected files. Instead of putting the text out to the destination file. Treat the data like it came in at the standard file input line. If it is something that will make people happy. Then maybe somebody should add it.

You poor sobs don't cut and paste anything off the net for later. How SAD being limited to such itsy bitsy file sizes

You just don't get it.  Your tool can only search TEXT files, the other Full Text Search tools can search ALL files.  Until you modify your tool to search ALL files your tool is a useless as a eunuch.  YOU LOSE.

Renan_S2:

AFAIK, with this method you are essentially ignoring the entire purpose of a file system. What next? The SSDSFS (SpectateSwamp Desktop Search File System)?

It's the old 'if you only have a hammer then every problem is a nail' thing.

He has a tool that can only search a single file (not edit or anything else mind) therefore all problems have to be solved by merging files into one. Then because everything is in a single file the tool gets more features designed around single files...

This then becomes habit (madness?) and effectively becomes the only way any problem is approached - note the lack of a vb project for SSDS as it is only a single .txt file and every build requires creating a new project, pasting the source in and then building the .exe.

spenk:

He has a tool that can only search a single file (not edit or anything else mind)

Yep. His "tool" (as it has been said here: as useful as an eunuch) is nothing more than a bloated, crippled GREP. And I think that GREP might feel offended by being compared with his "search"...