Suggestion: search engine

Hi,

I have been using Vibe Streamer for my network. It's awesome to share musics without worry about people trying to copy my mp3 files.

My mp3 folder has a lot of folders. A search engine would be great to find that "lost music" on my collection.

Sorry my bad english

A search engine will be (and already is implemented) in the upcoming version.

In the mean time, you can use the search mod posted here. It does use that awful .NET framework, however

What's so wrong with the .NET framework?

Author Microsoft
Performance Low/Mid
Runtimes > 20 MB
Versions 1.0, 1.1*, 2.0*, 3.0, 3.5* (* = you have to install all of them, latest version does not include older versions)
More reasons to not use .NET too much to list here

^^with him^^

^^ Not With Them ^^

So I'm guessing you are a linux man and have nothing to do with any Microsoft product then. If you are, good for you (except you cant be because vibestreamer is only compatible with windows as far as I know), but as a programmer I personally enjoy uncle bill's work, and it pays the bills well. (pun intended).

As for performance, am I going to get the same performance out of a .net 2.0 HTTPHandler as I would a C++ Isapi filter? No, but it's gonna take one helluva lot less time to make the thing. So ya, if I need to run it on a P1-133 with 128 megs of ram then ya, probably C++ is the way to go, but if I have a brand spanking new server with a P4-Quad Core Xeon that I can write some good multithreading for, and 2-4 gigs of ram... am I more concerned about how long it is going to take me to write it and get it out the door for the client? or the difference in performance that can be made up by hardware?

You are right about the runtimes, but in today's terabyte computing environments, 20 megs is hardly alot of space anymore for the functionality it provides....

I am afraid you are incorrect about the backward compatibility of the framework versions. The latest frameworks include all functions of the older ones, even though some have been made obsolete, they are still there for older programs that need to be upgraded. Sure you can't develop in a specific framework version, but with new functionality added why do you want to?

More reasons to use .Net Too much to list here.

There are many reasons for your selection of programming language, but it all depends on what your development needs are, so there is not necessarily one programming language that is the master of all, and there is not one that is the worst one of all time (except maybe cobol.... Just Kidding!).

^^ Not With Them ^^

So I'm guessing you are a linux man and have nothing to do with any Microsoft product then.[/quote7a3q96fl]
Don't have anything else but Windows XP on my computers. All without .NET
[quote7a3q96fl]As a programmer I personally enjoy uncle bill's work, and it pays the bills well. (pun intended).[/quote7a3q96fl]
.NET is a pure joy for programmers, no doubt about it. It really lets you stick to the functional programming, not everything involved around it. I don't argue with that. Actually, .NET would've been a real nice addition if it was actually implemented as Microsoft presented it the framework was intended to be a replacement for all those .dll's and the problems concerning different versions of those files. The idea was that for the end users one package would relieve one of all the .dll problems. One package. Now what do we have? 1.0, 1.1, 1.1 SP1, 2.0, 2.0 SP2, 3.0, 3.5, and almost all of them are necessary! Even more, whereas .dll's merely became active/loaded into memory when a certain program needed it to be, the .NET framework[b7a3q96fl]s[/b7a3q96fl] have a service and load all kinds of shit when starting a program, making it feel like a sluggish mess that consumes like ten times as much resources as would actually be needed.

As for the ported Linux shizzle GTK and Qt4 on Windows is just the same, so I tend to evade such programs equally.

[quote7a3q96fl]I am afraid you are incorrect about the backward compatibility of the framework versions. The latest frameworks include all functions of the older ones, even though some have been made obsolete, they are still there for older programs that need to be upgraded. Sure you can't develop in a specific framework version, but with new functionality added why do you want to?[/quote7a3q96fl]
If you want to be sure that you can run all .NET based programs, you'll definitely need v1.1 SP1, v2.0 SP1, v3.0 SP1 AND v3.5.

NET is a pure joy for programmers, no doubt about it. It really lets you stick to the functional programming, not everything involved around it. I don't argue with that.[/quote12cgcx4c]
My point exactly... for me it's a wonderful thing that I don't have to sit there and switch compilers based on which processor I am compiling for, nor do I have to worry about which particular language I am compiling in, and wonder whether the client will have the necessary runtimes to execute my program. If they don't, install this framework here. Done.

Actually, .NET would've been a real nice addition if it was actually implemented as Microsoft presented it the framework was intended to be a replacement for all those .dll's and the problems concerning different versions of those files. The idea was that for the end users one package would relieve one of all the .dll problems. One package. Now what do we have? 1.0, 1.1, 1.1 SP1, 2.0, 2.0 SP2, 3.0, 3.5, and almost all of them are necessary![/quote12cgcx4c]
I was not aware that the original purpose of the framework was to remove the use of dll's... in fact how could that even be possible without one giant dll that does everything possible in the known universe... and if that existed then not only would it be even more sluggish and slow to load, but programmers would be out of a job as well.

Even more, whereas .dll's merely became active/loaded into memory when a certain program needed it to be, the .NET frameworks have a service and load all kinds of shit when starting a program, making it feel like a sluggish mess that consumes like ten times as much resources as would actually be needed.[/quote12cgcx4c]
This is going along the same lines as I was talking about with the hardware requirements... the frameworks (especially the later ones) have been designed to run with the latest hardware (hardware is only going to get faster and bigger from here, not suddenly slip back 20 years), not a P1-133 with 16Megs of Ram, and if you are so sure about the way things should/could be then why aren't you writing a bigger better version of the framework that you could sell to the world and be a billionaire and then hire Siit to make your own private Vibe Streamer for you?

If you want to be sure that you can run all .NET based programs, you'll definitely need v1.1 SP1, v2.0 SP1, v3.0 SP1 AND v3.5.[/quote12cgcx4c]
Ok I can kinda see what you're talking about, but that's just about the same thing as saying you have to have all the required c or c++ header files and runtimes in order to execute a particular program.... if you want to run the program you need everything it requires. Not one program out there doesn't have either a) a prerequisite, or b) a bunch of dll's that it has to install to run. Unfortunately all of those installations might take up about 250 megs of space... but when you have a 500gig hard drive, who really cares?