Page 1 of 1
x_(hu4jnn) newer than x_(n0vm93) ?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:23 pm
by Rozek
Hello!
I just visited the PureBasic site to see if there would be a new version available for download - and was quite surprised that the current version for MacOSX had a smaller build "number" than the one I got in january (namely (hu4jnn) instead of (n0vm93)).
The Windows version has a larger build number (as one would expect)
Does anybody know what this discrepancy means? Did Fantaisie Software had to go back to an older version for MacOSX? Or are build numbers pure phantasy
?
Thanks in advance for any response!
Kind regards,
A.Rozek
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:26 pm
by Rings
this name in the downloadfile had nothing to do with versionnumber
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:32 pm
by Rozek
Wow, that was fast!
Thanks for the immediate response!
Thus, these "numbers" are completely random? That makes it a bit more difficult to hold several versions of PureBasic in the same folder (when sorted by name - which is my default), but, well...I will survive!
Thanks anyway for the immediate response!
Kind regards,
A.Rozek
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:28 pm
by SFSxOI
sort them by date maybe ?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:25 pm
by Mistrel
If the download is an arbitrary stream and not a direct link I don't see why random information needs to be added to the filename. Regardless, if the user is required to be logged in to access the download then the whole idea is completely redundant anyways.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:06 pm
by Little John
Rozek wrote:Thus, these "numbers" are completely random? That makes it a bit more difficult to hold several versions of PureBasic in the same folder (when sorted by name - which is my default), but, well...I will survive!
After downloading, I always give the files meaningful names such as
PureBasic_4_30_Win_x86.exe
PureBasic_4_30_Lnx.tgz
Regards, Little John
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:21 pm
by rsts
Mistrel wrote:If the download is an arbitrary stream and not a direct link I don't see why random information needs to be added to the filename. Regardless, if the user is required to be logged in to access the download then the whole idea is completely redundant anyways.
However. if it's not arbitrary, it may not be redundant.
cheers
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:11 pm
by Mistrel
If the file is passed to the user as a stream with an unknown location then it's not possible to link to it or to know where it's coming from. If the folder the file is located in is locked down using .htaccess then it will be impossible for the user to access it outside of the stream. If the stream is only accessible when the user is logged in.. then there's no point in using any further obsfucation.
My point is that if it originates as a stream then adding random letters to the filename is already redundant, unless the file being linked to has the same name, which wouldn't be an issue if .htaccess is used to block access.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:26 pm
by rsts
But if the letters are not random, it may provide some level of traceability, should the file show up somewhere else.
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:37 am
by Mistrel
rsts wrote:But if the letters are not random, it may provide some level of traceability, should the file show up somewhere else.
You do have a point there.
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:21 am
by Trond
The current solution was probably chosen because of its ease of implementation, not its technical merits.
Using a htaccess file for all the registered users would probably kill performance.
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:20 pm
by Mistrel
I don't think a simple
Code: Select all
<Files /files/PureBasic.exe>
order allow,deny
deny from all
</Files>
Would kill performance.
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:40 pm
by idle
Probably just a session Identifier being tacked on to the file name from a DB query after looking up the user. You can name your stream whatever you want.
Something like this in PHP
Code: Select all
$content_len=@filesize("SecretPathToTheFile/ItsName.exe");
Header("Content-type: application/exe");
Header("Content-type: octet-stream");
Header('Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WhatEverName.exe"');
if($content_len!=FALSE)
{
Header("Content-length: $content_len");
}
readfile("SecretPathToTheFile/ItsName.exe");
//do logging to db ...
exit;
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:11 pm
by Trond
Mistrel wrote:I don't think a simple
Code: Select all
<Files /files/PureBasic.exe>
order allow,deny
deny from all
</Files>
Would kill performance.
It wouldn't, but then no one could get the file...