Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #180816 > unrolled thread

Download Manager

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Download Manager Ashok Inder <ashoka.inder.dev@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 20:10 +0200
    Re: Download Manager "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-05-07 20:30 +0200
      RE: Download Manager "Ashok Kumar" <ashoka.inder.dev@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 20:50 +0200
        Re: Download Manager David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-05-08 02:40 +0200
          Re: Download Manager Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 04:30 +0200
    Re: Download Manager Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-05-07 20:50 +0200
      Re: Download Manager "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-05-07 21:00 +0200
    Re: Download Manager Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2017-05-07 21:10 +0200
    Re: Download Manager Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 03:50 +0200
      Re: Download Manager Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 17:50 +0200
    Re: Download Manager Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-05-08 12:40 +0200

#180816 — Download Manager

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

For past 7 years, Linux does not have a single descent Download Manager.
Its totally possible that none of you may have faced this issue ever but
its a somewhat major issue for me...

First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other being
that even with effort when I try to use wget, the file most of the time
downloaded ends up a corrupt file. For eg: I remember back in 2010,
downloading a 5-6mb of a single file (mp3 to be precise), the wget ended
up downloading packet of total size with 11mb and obviously corrupt file
or yesterday downloading a office file of 90 mb were wget downloaded a
total of 105mb file and again a corrupt file. Downloading complex things
from internet via wget is not even my cup of tea. It so much difficult
at my level of technology understanding.

I had this issue in Ubuntu, Mint, Opensuse, Fedora and now on Debian as
well. I had used from mobile internet,  LAN to WiFi and issue remained
the same.

I even wonder why the hell I even face this problem. Given that most of
the web services I use in the background use wget somewhere. Even a
simple browsing on Windows system, the browser's first request is via
wget in the backend. The world runs on wget, my android runs wget
services for all downloading and uploading in the backend and infact I'm
confident that play store apps are updated via wget service only...then
why I face such a weird wget issue which is so successful elsewhere and
for all.

Most GUI download manager (which I call WGET frontend software's) while
eases my download hassle from cli, ends up with same set of problem as
wget. Majority of the time corrupt file are getting downloaded.  And its
not just corrupt download, I don't have much control over the file and
bandwidth that I'm downloading.

I ended up using Free Download Manager on windows to download most of my
file in the end.

Torrent is not an issue, it works even better than windows in Linux with
better security (encrypted and blocking bad ip range which is not that
easy to do in windows).

I'm a heavy downloader. I download a lot of file of miscellaneous
category and nature.

Browser download managers are bad, there resume option is the worst
thing were I have to end-up re-downloading the file and moreover it
blocks my ability to control bandwidth and for many other reason, I
totally dislike browser (with addon) download manager.

This is one area where I have totally failed with Linux.


A point to make, in previous days, Internet in India used to be quite
erratic behaved network, the speed was like a half AC wave cycle, rising
from 0 to X speed and then falling down and going back to 0. Windows and
its download manager used to easily work with such erratic internet, but
in linux it was not. Today its quite well managed internet service in
India the erratic behavior is under acceptable level but still wget
issue for me remains the same.

Regards,
Ashok Kumar

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#180817

Hi,

Ashok Inder wrote:
> First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other being
> that even with effort when I try to use wget, the file most of the time
> downloaded ends up a corrupt file.

wget works for me where a web browser would work too.
I quite often download ISOs with a few hundred MB or a few GB of size.


> I even wonder why the hell I even face this problem.

Maybe too much of negative thoughts towards a shell command line ?


> I don't have much control over the file and
> bandwidth that I'm downloading.

Did you try options --output-document and --limit-rate ?
(See shell command "man wget", use "/bandwidth"<EnterKey> to search for the
 word "bandwidth". The second hit is in the explanation of --limit-rate.)


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180818

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

> wget works for me where a web browser would work too.
As I stated that this issue may not be faced by many.

> Maybe too much of negative thoughts towards a shell command line ?
Not negative thoughts about shell, I'm just not comfortable. It's that I 
cannot memorise/recall so many codes/scripts all the time, I even run down 
track of remembering all the alias.

> Did you try options --output-document and --limit-rate ?
>(See shell command "man wget", use "/bandwidth"<EnterKey> to search for the 
>word "bandwidth". The second hit is in the explanation of --limit-rate.)
This is not with respect to wget in shell, where I agree that multiple control 
to heart content is available but was in reference to GUI frontend of wget i.e 
the download managers in linux. The control over the file being download is 
somewhat limited compared to over wget itself.

Regards,
Ashok Kumar

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Schmitt [mailto:scdbackup@gmx.net]
Sent: 07 May 2017 11:59 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Download Manager

Hi,

Ashok Inder wrote:
> First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other being
> that even with effort when I try to use wget, the file most of the
> time downloaded ends up a corrupt file.

wget works for me where a web browser would work too.
I quite often download ISOs with a few hundred MB or a few GB of size.


> I even wonder why the hell I even face this problem.

Maybe too much of negative thoughts towards a shell command line ?


> I don't have much control over the file and bandwidth that I'm
> downloading.

Did you try options --output-document and --limit-rate ?
(See shell command "man wget", use "/bandwidth"<EnterKey> to search for the 
word "bandwidth". The second hit is in the explanation of --limit-rate.)


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180827

On Mon 08 May 2017 at 00:12:18 (+0530), Ashok Kumar wrote:

> > Maybe too much of negative thoughts towards a shell command line ?
> Not negative thoughts about shell, I'm just not comfortable. It's that I 
> cannot memorise/recall so many codes/scripts all the time, I even run down 
> track of remembering all the alias.

You shouldn't need to memorise them. From your rant, you're obviously
going to remember "wget", so you just start each alias with "wget-"
and the rest of the name explains that alias's features, or which
site it's for, or whatever sort of memory jog you need:
 wget-whichever-sites-it-is-for
 wget-whichever-features-this-one-has
 wget-whatever-else-bla-bla
etc. I assume you're familiar with command completion, so typing
$ wget-<TAB><TAB>   will list all the various aliases (or functions)
that you've written.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180829

On 5/7/17, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon 08 May 2017 at 00:12:18 (+0530), Ashok Kumar wrote:
>
>> > Maybe too much of negative thoughts towards a shell command line ?
>> Not negative thoughts about shell, I'm just not comfortable. It's that I
>> cannot memorise/recall so many codes/scripts all the time, I even run down
>>
>> track of remembering all the alias.
>
> You shouldn't need to memorise them. From your rant, you're obviously
> going to remember "wget", so you just start each alias with "wget-"
> and the rest of the name explains that alias's features, or which
> site it's for, or whatever sort of memory jog you need:
>  wget-whichever-sites-it-is-for
>  wget-whichever-features-this-one-has
>  wget-whatever-else-bla-bla
> etc. I assume you're familiar with command completion, so typing
> $ wget-<TAB><TAB>   will list all the various aliases (or functions)
> that you've written.


I think I've posted before that I arrow up and down in my terminal,
too. It's not 100% reliable because the history kept in memory depends
on the order of how you shut down multiple terminal tabs AND windows.
The recently past history that is presented is specific only to each
logged in user's usage.

A while back I decided I also needed something beyond a text editor
file to keep snippets I simply then copied and pasted into a terminal
window and such(ly). I specifically went looking for "sticky notes".

Several different packages come up for that kind of search. I tried a
few then found xfce4-notes (xfce4-popup-notes) possibly already
installed in my xfce4 desktop environment. I use those A LOT on a
daily basis... :)

There are "clipit" type packages out there, too, that save recently
copied snippets from our "clipboards". I "use" it occasionally, but
the sticky notes dealy fits more in line with what I need..

Cindy :)

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* I comment, therefore I am...... (procrastinating elsewhere). *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180819

On Sun 07 May 2017 at 23:37:53 +0530, Ashok Inder wrote:

> For past 7 years, Linux does not have a single descent Download Manager.
> Its totally possible that none of you may have faced this issue ever but
> its a somewhat major issue for me...

It is indeed totally possible not to have experienced the problems you
have met. Issuing challenges will only get you on a hiding to nothing,
 
> First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other being
> that even with effort when I try to use wget, the file most of the time
> downloaded ends up a corrupt file. For eg: I remember back in 2010,
> downloading a 5-6mb of a single file (mp3 to be precise), the wget ended
> up downloading packet of total size with 11mb and obviously corrupt file
> or yesterday downloading a office file of 90 mb were wget downloaded a
> total of 105mb file and again a corrupt file. Downloading complex things
> from internet via wget is not even my cup of tea. It so much difficult
> at my level of technology understanding.

2010, eh? It was a bad year for not getting uncorrupted files.
Something to do with solar flares.
> 
> I had this issue in Ubuntu, Mint, Opensuse, Fedora and now on Debian as
> well. I had used from mobile internet,  LAN to WiFi and issue remained
> the same.

A plethora of problems after trying so hard.

> I even wonder why the hell I even face this problem. Given that most of
> the web services I use in the background use wget somewhere. Even a
> simple browsing on Windows system, the browser's first request is via
> wget in the backend. The world runs on wget, my android runs wget
> services for all downloading and uploading in the backend and infact I'm
> confident that play store apps are updated via wget service only...then
> why I face such a weird wget issue which is so successful elsewhere and
> for all.

That is the essential question. An example, rather than generalistions,
from you would help. Just one; something that could be tested.
 
> Most GUI download manager (which I call WGET frontend software's) while
> eases my download hassle from cli, ends up with same set of problem as
> wget. Majority of the time corrupt file are getting downloaded.  And its
> not just corrupt download, I don't have much control over the file and
> bandwidth that I'm downloading.

It's a hard life.

> I ended up using Free Download Manager on windows to download most of my
> file in the end.

Stick to it.

> Torrent is not an issue, it works even better than windows in Linux with
> better security (encrypted and blocking bad ip range which is not that
> easy to do in windows).
> 
> I'm a heavy downloader. I download a lot of file of miscellaneous
> category and nature.

Wink, wink.

> Browser download managers are bad, there resume option is the worst
> thing were I have to end-up re-downloading the file and moreover it
> blocks my ability to control bandwidth and for many other reason, I
> totally dislike browser (with addon) download manager.
> 
> This is one area where I have totally failed with Linux.

So it seems. You are alone.

> A point to make, in previous days, Internet in India used to be quite
> erratic behaved network, the speed was like a half AC wave cycle, rising
> from 0 to X speed and then falling down and going back to 0. Windows and
> its download manager used to easily work with such erratic internet, but
> in linux it was not. Today its quite well managed internet service in
> India the erratic behavior is under acceptable level but still wget
> issue for me remains the same.

Thank you for the history.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180820

Hi,

Ashok Kumar wrote:
> This is not with respect to wget in shell, where I agree that multiple
> control to heart content is available but was in reference to GUI frontend
> of wget

Then consider to create one or more shell scripts for your various
use cases and to trigger them by desktop icons.
If this is not enough, consider to use some GUI builder kit and create
a graphical frontend to wget (or your scripts) that fulfills your wishes.

Whatever, problems with the correctness of wget's downloads should be
investigated independently of frontend programs or scripts.
Especially it would have to be tested whether other download facilities
on the same system yield better results.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180821

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Sun, 7 May 2017 23:37:53 +0530
Ashok Inder <ashoka.inder.dev@gmail.com> wrote:

>For past 7 years, Linux does not have a single descent Download Manager.
>Its totally possible that none of you may have faced this issue ever but
>its a somewhat major issue for me...
>
>First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other being
>that even with effort when I try to use wget, the file most of the time
>downloaded ends up a corrupt file. For eg: I remember back in 2010,
>downloading a 5-6mb of a single file (mp3 to be precise), the wget ended
>up downloading packet of total size with 11mb and obviously corrupt file
>or yesterday downloading a office file of 90 mb were wget downloaded a
>total of 105mb file and again a corrupt file. Downloading complex things
>from internet via wget is not even my cup of tea. It so much difficult
>at my level of technology understanding.
>
>I had this issue in Ubuntu, Mint, Opensuse, Fedora and now on Debian as
>well. I had used from mobile internet,  LAN to WiFi and issue remained
>the same.
>
>I even wonder why the hell I even face this problem. Given that most of
>the web services I use in the background use wget somewhere. Even a
>simple browsing on Windows system, the browser's first request is via
>wget in the backend. The world runs on wget, my android runs wget
>services for all downloading and uploading in the backend and infact I'm
>confident that play store apps are updated via wget service only...then
>why I face such a weird wget issue which is so successful elsewhere and
>for all.
>
>Most GUI download manager (which I call WGET frontend software's) while
>eases my download hassle from cli, ends up with same set of problem as
>wget. Majority of the time corrupt file are getting downloaded.  And its
>not just corrupt download, I don't have much control over the file and
>bandwidth that I'm downloading.
>
>I ended up using Free Download Manager on windows to download most of my
>file in the end.
>
>Torrent is not an issue, it works even better than windows in Linux with
>better security (encrypted and blocking bad ip range which is not that
>easy to do in windows).
>
>I'm a heavy downloader. I download a lot of file of miscellaneous
>category and nature.
>
>Browser download managers are bad, there resume option is the worst
>thing were I have to end-up re-downloading the file and moreover it
>blocks my ability to control bandwidth and for many other reason, I
>totally dislike browser (with addon) download manager.
>
>This is one area where I have totally failed with Linux.
>
>
>A point to make, in previous days, Internet in India used to be quite
>erratic behaved network, the speed was like a half AC wave cycle, rising
>from 0 to X speed and then falling down and going back to 0. Windows and
>its download manager used to easily work with such erratic internet, but
>in linux it was not. Today its quite well managed internet service in
>India the erratic behavior is under acceptable level but still wget
>issue for me remains the same.
>
>Regards,
>Ashok Kumar
>

I find Download Manager extension in Firefox works very well for me.

- -- 
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914
[http://linuxcounter.net/user/425914.html]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEG5QK93YKrQMH22ZTiq6LjqbJ0IAFAlkPaOEACgkQiq6LjqbJ
0IBhmwf9EiI57EcQWwh38Hd/oKk9FbN6yRLYfC3deBeVi5EQWHSrek4vNKFP0KyO
5d/CTk3bs915UmkYueniTQlmISVkWdgzGjyZrp6hTOxxtZWkQSHCuwd8yYXiGwiN
fxb6GfBnE8PiAREusjrAeULWf1N/mdb7iPlZ6xuFsYzAs3EVI3K+BpyDzMLWFukM
mJGsVmjFs2efWUn3tLBRDQYCyj2tY/VHPrsb5O71J1XoxEViXnl1x74ehsFsh+Pa
bR5MIup/kMkjcB/FrcECYLYDwpKGiXb6aODjyH4M2Rn5tV9xqTc58KBLSUAe00CT
iLY0l3/g91NjuQsvvFWgWiEKhW5o8A==
=Hqr0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180828

On Sun, 7 May 2017 23:37:53 +0530 Ashok Inder
<ashoka.inder.dev@gmail.com> wrote:

> For past 7 years, Linux does not have a single descent Download
> Manager. Its totally possible that none of you may have faced this
> issue ever but its a somewhat major issue for me...
> 
> First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other being
> [big rant snipped]

I guess, it depends on what you mean by "decent."  Take a look at
uget.  It's GUI-based and besides its other features, has Mozilla
Firefox integration.  Or load synaptic and do some searches.  No
commandline knowledge needed.

B  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180853

On Mon, 8 May 2017 13:20:18 +0530 Ashok Inder
<ashoka.inder.dev@gmail.com> wrote:

> :With Uget
> Have a look at the attachments, Randomly downloaded a file, 87mb file
> turned out to be 91mb file.

As you've discovered from the other responses, that size difference is
just a matter of the size units used.  What's important: Does uget
satisfy your definition of a "decent' download manager?  Does it do
what you need it to do?

B

> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Patrick Bartek <mailto:nemommxiv@gmail.com>
> *Sent:*  Monday, May 08, 2017 7:15AM
> *To:* Debian-user <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Download Manager
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On Sun, 7 May 2017 23:37:53 +0530 Ashok Inder
> <ashoka.inder.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > For past 7 years, Linux does not have a single descent Download
> > Manager. Its totally possible that none of you may have faced this
> > issue ever but its a somewhat major issue for me...
> > 
> > First with WGET, I'm not at all comfortable with cli, the other
> > being [big rant snipped]
> 
> I guess, it depends on what you mean by "decent."  Take a look at
> uget.  It's GUI-based and besides its other features, has Mozilla
> Firefox integration.  Or load synaptic and do some searches.  No
> commandline knowledge needed.
> 
> B
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180838

On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 11:37:53PM +0530, Ashok Inder wrote:
> For past 7 years, Linux does not have a single descent Download Manager.

Have you tried JDownloader? (http://jdownloader.org)

> For eg: I remember back in 2010, downloading a 5-6mb of a single file (mp3 to
> be precise), the wget ended up downloading packet of total size with 11mb and
> obviously corrupt file or yesterday downloading a office file of 90 mb were
> wget downloaded a total of 105mb file and again a corrupt file.

Have you verified that these files are corrupt using known checksums? As others
have pointed out in some replies, the discrepancies you are seeing are
consistent with comparing a MB (SI unit) with a MiB (base 2, e.g. 1KiB =
1024B)), which suggests you have downloaded them successfully after all.


-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web