Copy protected HD ITV movie

[Black Hole]

But the point is that the documentation remained valid so hasn't been amended. For my money, the best bet would be to keep PuTTY instructions on the wiki Telnet page but include Windows Telnet (and whatever support there may be for native Telnet in Linux and OSX)

 

[Owen Smith]

But the point is that the documentation remained valid so hasn't been amended. For my money, the best bet would be to keep PuTTY instructions on the wiki Telnet page but include Windows Telnet (and whatever support there may be for native Telnet in Linux and OSX)

The documentation remained technically valid, but became utterly irrelevant and highly confusing. What earthly value is there in keeping it now, years after the CF was changed to not need this messing around?

 

[Trev]

But the messing around started by a simple request on how to clear a password in post #9 (although not directly). The answer given by raydon in post #16 was of course absolutely correct, but after some investigation into Telnet the OP said it went over his head. Subsequently, no one offered help other than to point at something that enabled him to install PuTTY, but not how to do the simple thing and issue the command in in a Windows Telnet client session. So I had a go, and got slagged off for doing so (even though it immediately solved the OP's problem without more ado).
What perhaps does need doing by someone who understands the stuff, is to write an idiot's guide (all in one place without cross links) on how to do simple tasks such as resetting passwords.
And what the hell is all this stuff about line endings or whatever anyway? Rhetorical, and irrelevant.

 

[Black Hole]

the OP said it went over his head.

That's the bit that wound me up. So many people want spoon-feeding when actually the information is perfectly understandable but they can't be bothered to work through it. You forget the amount of effort that has gone into making the information available - similar in magnitude to what has gone into developing the code. You also forget that the CF is something these people have had to "be bothered" to install in the first place, they didn't have to.

(I'm not getting at the OP in particular here, these are general observations)

Yes, the information could be better and needs to change as things develop, but that's where the effort should go rather than spoon-feeding each and every "I can't be arsed to look stuff up, just tell me how..." (I've been guilty at times, but at least I offer an excuse and apologise - and I would be perfectly happy to be pointed at the relevant information).

As for line endings: Windows uses CR-LF to terminate line, Linux/UNIX uses just CR. The Windows Telnet client used to be a pain to use, until the CF Telnet server was tweaked. Somebody mentioned the WebIF command shell - obviously that would be no use in a situation like this. I use the Windows Telnet client, but I still think it's a poor choice for the uninitiated because it provides very little user guidance. It's fine if you just want to spoon-feed: "type 'o 192.168...'...", not so good if you want to guide and explain so that the user actually learns something.

And no, I wasn't slagging you off, just responding to your claim that the info wasn't available elsewhere.

 

[Owen Smith]

The specific info on how to clear the password was not available elsewhere, at least not that anyone has linked to yet.

Line endings are one of life's pains that normal users shouldn't need to know about. They don't care it's a Windows vs. Unix thing, and given that the CF telnet server copes with either there should be no mention of line endings anywhere in the wiki.

 

[Owen Smith]

As for "went over the OP's head" my dad wouldn't have a clue. His HDR Fox T2 has custom firmware that I installed (largely to stop the noise of high speed fan) and my dad has occasionally used the web EPG to find programmes since it's quite easy to use. But if he needed to use telnet to recover something I'd either have to VPN into his PC (I have that set up) to fix it myself or I'd have to spoon feed it to him.

For normal users telnet is an order of magnitude more complex than doing things in the web interface. They're used to web pages and know how to drive browsers. But using the command line is alien to most users, and a telnet command line compounds that. They've never heard of this strange "telnet" thing.

It's a sign of the success of the CF that it is so simple to use that non technical people are giving it a go. But we shouldn't be surprised when words like "telnet" and "command line" scare them.

 

[prpr]

Windows uses CR-LF to terminate line, Linux/UNIX uses just CR.

Actually, the latter is just LF.

 

[Owen Smith]

Actually, the latter is just LF.

I was thinking that myself but wasn't sure without checking.

 

[Trev]

And obviously it was so important (not) that you couldn't be bothered to do so.
It does not come anywhere near enough to pass the 'so what' test to spend time checking

And no, I wasn't slagging you off, just responding to your claim that the info wasn't available elsewhere.

Oh, for Christ sake, to quote yourself. It isn't. If it is, and easily understandable by a complete novice, then link to it please and I will duly grovel.
You also don't seem to accept the fact that some people don't want to learn stuff, but just want to know how to do a simple task without having to obtain an honours degree in the subject.

 

[Owen Smith]

And obviously it was so important (not) that you couldn't be bothered to do so.
It does not come anywhere near enough to pass the 'so what' test to spend time checking

It was gone midnight (when BlackHole posted the incorrect info and I saw it) and I was posting from an iPad. How do you propose I could have checked what Unix telnet line endings are? I don't keep source code on my iPad. I'd have had to trust someone else's documentation, which can be merely repeating incorrect information.

 

[Trev]

I didn't propose that you checked. My post was meant to imply that it wasn't worth checking, as it's now totally relevant, and as such, does not pass the 'so what' test. (apart from the fact that the info was wrong and still has not been corrected.

 

[Owen Smith]

I didn't propose that you checked. My post was meant to imply that it wasn't worth checking, as it's now totally relevant, and as such, does not pass the 'so what' test. (apart from the fact that the info was wrong and still has not been corrected.

Ah right, sorry, I misunderstood your post. We're agreeing.

 

[Trev]

Made a mistake in my last post. Should have said "totally irrelevant, and as such, does not pass the 'so what' test."

 

[raydon]

You forget the amount of effort that has gone into making the information available - similar in magnitude to what has gone into developing the code

Similar in magnitude ?? Your efforts are to be applauded but they are lacking any of the original thoughts and ideas of the coders. They are the ones who give you something to write about. You are simply standing on the shoulders of giants.