Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Have 100GB Free? Host Your Own Copy of Wikipedia, With Images

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the put-it-in-every-router dept.

Wikipedia 151

First time accepted submitter gnosygnu writes "Want your own copy of English Wikipedia with images? Got 100 GB of disk space? Then open-source app XOWA may be of interest to you. The project released torrents yesterday for the 2013-11-04 version of English Wikipedia. There's 100 GB of sqlite databases containing 13.9 million pages, and 3.7 million images — readable from any Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X system. Image downloads for other wikis are building, but you can still use XOWA to read the text-only version for other wikis like Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiquote and 660 more. Next time you find yourself stranded without the internet, you can pull out your own copy of Wikipedia for use."

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Article Ownership (5, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 9 months ago | (#45527247)

It comes with software that automatically reverts your edits and insults you.

Re:Article Ownership (5, Funny)

bradorsomething (527297) | about 9 months ago | (#45527291)

It comes with software that automatically reverts your edits and insults you.

Citation Needed.

Re:Article Ownership (5, Funny)

sjwt (161428) | about 9 months ago | (#45527601)

It comes with software that automatically reverts your edits and insults you.

Citation Needed.

1 http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4488409&cid=45527247 [slashdot.org]

Re:Article Ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530717)

LOL. There are not enough moderation points on /. to thank you!

Re:Article Ownership (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529879)

Citation [wikipedia.org]

Re:Article Ownership (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527295)

Ah yes, I was worried it wouldn't have the full wikipedia experience.
Without the abuse, it just isn't wikipedia man.

Re:Article Ownership (1)

anss123 (985305) | about 9 months ago | (#45527357)

Sure, just give me an account.

Re:Article Ownership (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527417)

It comes with software that automatically reverts your edits and insults you.

A link to the source of that information, please?

Re:Article Ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528635)

Source of information: Russ1642's sense of humour.

Re: Article Ownership (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | about 9 months ago | (#45529735)

What really impresses me is that it downloads the entire Wikipedia, with "no internet connection required!" That's an engineering feat if I've ever heard of one!

Re: Article Ownership (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 9 months ago | (#45529885)

The send it on DVD via station wagon.

Re: Article Ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530023)

Maybe they have it up on a BBS somewhere.

Finally! (4, Funny)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 9 months ago | (#45527253)

Finally I can have my own version of wikipedia so I can correct all those changes I haven't been allowed to enter into the official version!

Re:Finally! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#45528165)

I hear this from a lot of slashdotters. No one bothers to give examples. I find that suspicious. I believe it happens, I just am skeptical that the edits slashdotters are trying to put in shouldn't be rejected.

Re:Finally! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528609)

Fuck off, wikipedia sockpuppet.

Go back to your weird little world and try desperately to enjoy whatever "power" you have been able to accumulate there.

Do you cry yourself to sleep at night?

Re:Finally! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#45529541)

Yes, but only over being slammed on slashdot. I've never actually edited a wikipedia page.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529047)

TIL: Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf is operating from his parents' basement, doing pr for wikipedia.

Re:Finally! (2)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#45530447)

Ah, a Wikieditor/fanboy. Admit it: you will be torrenting this 100GB copy just so you can delete every article, then do it all again.

Re:Finally! (2)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45528215)

You say that and laugh, but wait until someone that manages their own DNS, and with an evil intention gets a good idea...

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528419)

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Finally! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45529061)

You say that and laugh, but wait until someone that manages their own DNS, and with an evil intention gets a good idea...

That reminded me of the Upsidedownternet [ex-parrot.com] . ;-)

Re:Finally! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45529029)

Finally I can have my own version of wikipedia so I can correct all those changes I haven't been allowed to enter into the official version!

Or you could just switch to using Conservapedia.

Re:Finally! (4, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 9 months ago | (#45529197)

That's pretty much impossible to get into now (as a new editor), because you're either banned for being too sane to pass ideological purity, or banned for being so insane you're mistaken for a troll.

Re:Finally! (1)

rosencreuz (1393933) | about 9 months ago | (#45530445)

If you are making changes please make in my version too. I don't want it to get outdated.

No internet connection required! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527305)

XOWA is a free, open-source application that lets you download Wikipedia to your computer. No internet connection required!

How do I download it if I don't have an internet connection? Does this require special hardware?

Re:No internet connection required! (2)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about 9 months ago | (#45527589)

You are right. That's a silly summary they put on. They should say something like 'No Internet connection required while browsing/searching through the wiki' (one of their feature).

Navigate between offline wikis. Click on "Look up this word in Wiktionary" and instantly view the page in Wiktionary.

Re:No internet connection required! (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 months ago | (#45527931)

I prefer ZModem myself.

But if you don't have that you can probably use XModem.

Re:No internet connection required! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530771)

ZModem isn't going to help you download anything if you don't have a connection.

It's that time of year again (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527351)

Does it include the seasonal donation nag banners?

Holidays are coming! Holidays are coming!

Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 9 months ago | (#45527359)

...yet. But I guess most phones won't easily read sqlite databases yet, either. I suppose it won't kill me to lug around a full-sized SD card.

Still looking forward to the library-of-Congress-on-a-card from Rainbows End.

Re:Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527481)

Still looking forward to the library-of-Congress-on-a-card from Rainbows End.
about the same time we can get 10 exabytes onto the size of a sd card...

Re:Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527935)

The LoC is 10 TB (uncompressed) in "volume". Not 10 EB.
Compressing the LoC with efficient algorithms and it fits on any modern HDD.

Re:Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (2)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 9 months ago | (#45528375)

Yeah, I was misremembering the line:

"The British Museum and Library, as digitized and databased by the Chinese Informagical Coalition. The haptics and artifact data are lo-res, to make it all fit on one data card. But the library section is twenty times as big as what Max Huertas sucked out of UCSD. Leaving aside things that never got into a library, that's essentially the record of humanity up through 2000. The whole premodern world."

128PB, 97% in use.

Re:Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (5, Funny)

vux984 (928602) | about 9 months ago | (#45527709)

Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card...

Just exclude the star trek / star wars related entries; that should pare it down. And besides we all have it all committed to memory anyway right? :p

Re:Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527773)

...yet. But I guess most phones won't easily read sqlite databases yet, either. I suppose it won't kill me to lug around a full-sized SD card.

Still looking forward to the library-of-Congress-on-a-card from Rainbows End.

Most phones _won't_? Four out of five smartphones today have sqlite preinstalled and ready for use: http://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/sqlite/package-summary.html

Re:Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530065)

Sqlite is built-in to Android, dumbass.

Google Fiber (0)

RocketChild (1397411) | about 9 months ago | (#45527391)

I live in Austin. When I finally get Google Fiber to my neighborhood, it will be easy to help host this kind of stuff for global knowledge growth and I look forward to helping. But till then...I'm not going to kill my cheap TWC upload speeds or thrash my older HDDs because of the webtraffic. But I'm hopeful for the future.

Re:Google Fiber (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 9 months ago | (#45527501)

Alas, the terms and conditions will forbid you running a server to do this. They'll want you to use one of their cloud servers to do it (that kinda makes more sense to put something like that further upstream).

Re:Google Fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527633)

I suggest a website like say wikipedia.org

Re:Google Fiber (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 9 months ago | (#45529035)

You can put it on a neighbornode [wikipedia.org] without violating any terms of service. Your internet connection would only be needed to download updates.

As a long long time editor... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527471)

I am not even remotely interested:

Want to find out why?

Hit Random article, until you find something you know in depth.

Look at the quality of information.

I read cereal boxes for more accurate information now.

Re:As a long long time editor... (1)

amalcolm (1838434) | about 9 months ago | (#45527697)

Wow .. you must be a walking encyclopedia or have a lot of spare time ... 19 minutes of clicking on 'random' failed to turn up anything I could claim to know about in depth. Respect to you !

Re:As a long long time editor... (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 9 months ago | (#45527833)

And yet you commented only 16 minutes after the AC...

Re:As a long long time editor... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 9 months ago | (#45527963)

Cereal boxes have more accurate information than slashdot too.

Re:As a long long time editor... (2)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 9 months ago | (#45527875)

As a long long time editor...

Look at the quality of information.

I agree, you did a terrible job. Please, quit editing!

LIVE FOREVER (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527477)

Vault a copy today!!

Day after tomorrow... (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 9 months ago | (#45527567)

When the supercold storm blasts through your town, your device will freeze. And I'll still be able to read the pages of my Universalis as I tear them to burn them for heat.

Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (3, Interesting)

caveat (26803) | about 9 months ago | (#45527607)

I'd have put en.wikipedia at at least a couple of terabytes. Not inconceivably large, but with some housecleaning I could actually get 100GB free.

Re:Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 9 months ago | (#45528125)

I'm thinking this must be compressed data. Clicking through, it says that there 20 GB of text data, and 13.9 million articles. This only gives 1.4 KB per article. Which seems extremely small, especially if you're getting all the formatting data. Also remember, I'm pretty sure this doesn't contain all the revision data, only the current version of each article, so the amount of data at Wikipedia would have to be quite a bit larger.

Re:Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 9 months ago | (#45528397)

How many articles are shitty little 100 byte stubs. As far as revision data you are probably correct

Re: Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 9 months ago | (#45528581)

Well, if they were pulling only text content, 1.4kB would actually be pretty close to correct. Using averagr characters/word, 1.4kB would be 350 words of text, which is not far off the estimated 400 words/article as calculated in 2005. I'd expect now it would be 450/article, but still not unreasonable depending on the types of articles added since 2005 (I.e., if every town has their own 1 sentence blurb).

Re:Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about 9 months ago | (#45529169)

yeah, 3.7 million images under 100gb? Do I even want to look at these? I can't imagine how compressed and low res those would have to be.

Re:Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 9 months ago | (#45530161)

Fortunately, you don't have to imagine. The simplest of arithemetic will reveal that's an average of about 20kB per image. If we assume as near-worst-case an uncompressed 16-bit pixmap format, that means 100px x 100 px or so; realistically, most of them are probably jpegs, so search your hard drive...

find / -name '*.jpg' -size -25k -size +15k

And take a look at what you have in that range. Then keep in mind that that's an average -- there'll be some much better and some even smaller/compresseder.

Re:Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about 9 months ago | (#45530731)

that's an average of about 20kB per image. If we assume as near-worst-case an uncompressed 16-bit pixmap format, that means 100px x 100 px or so; realistically, most of them are probably jpegs

Exactly my point. :-)

Re:Quite a bit smaller than I'd have thought. (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 9 months ago | (#45529175)

I downloaded all of the (current revision) text a few years back from some of their public data dumps. Stored in a handful of massive XML files, it ended up only being around 3GB. I'd guess it isn't much bigger now, and that the vast majority of the 100GB is simply due to images.

legitimizing torrents (4, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about 9 months ago | (#45527749)

That's a good thing. The more we use torrents for the distribution of legitimate content, the more such distribution methods will become legitimized.

Re:legitimizing torrents (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45527945)

Let this be heard by everyone in IT management that's trying to sync data between multiple national locations.

Re:legitimizing torrents (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 9 months ago | (#45528481)

It's already legitimate and doesn't need legitimizing.

Of course that doesn't mean that just because your favorite popular zero-day movie/series/albums/ebooks/software site of rather unauthorized nature magically gains "but what about the copy of wikipedia!?"-protection from the likes of MPAA/RIAA/Wiley?/BSA.. at least not in most courts of law.

2013-11-04 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527797)

Is this numbering scheme of 2013-11-04 in what notation system? Is it 4th day of 11th month or 11th day of 4th month?

With the imperial people you never know!

Re:2013-11-04 (1)

deains (1726012) | about 9 months ago | (#45527861)

This is a news-for-nerds site. It’s reasonable to assume dates are in ISO format. :)

Re:2013-11-04 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528041)

This is a news-for-nerds site. It’s reasonable to assume dates are in ISO format. :)

Not quite; on a news-for-nerds site, it's more reasonable to assume dates are in whatever format the poster feels like using that day, complete with links to decades-long internet pissing matches — sorry, "discussions", for a very loose definition of the word — "proving" it's "the only sensible choice". Note that this may include genuinely unparseable new formats the poster came up with while stoned.

All this despite the fact that everyone knows YYYYMMDD is the best because it sorts the easiest. :-)

Re:2013-11-04 (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 9 months ago | (#45527913)

YYYY-MM-DD is the only date scheme where filenames sort ASCIIbetically. Kinda useful if you have a lot of copies of something.

Re:2013-11-04 (5, Informative)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#45527937)

Actually, ISO 8601 dates (YYYY-MM-DD) are unambiguous: far better than the ambiguous AA/BB/YYYY notation, since Americans interpret it as MM/DD/YYYY but in some other countries it's regarded as DD/MM/YYYY.

As an added plus, a lexical sorting of YYYY-MM-DD dates is also a temporal sorting. Not so with either of the other two formats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 [wikipedia.org]

Re:2013-11-04 (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 9 months ago | (#45529001)

Yeah, even worse, the scripting runtime on Windows auto-parses AA/BB/YYYY into Date types, but it defaults to USA regardless of system locale... unless it can't be interpreted as a valid date.

If you enter

12/02/1999

That's the second of December, regardless of actual system locale...

13/02/1999

And that's the 13th of February (possibly just in locales like GB).

Not sure if this has ever been fixed, but it was a royal PITA when I used to do ASP classic pages.

Re:2013-11-04 (1)

ortholattice (175065) | about 9 months ago | (#45530307)

I agree that ISO 8601 is much better, but people will still put the year last in informal usage no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise. Among the countries that I've visited (not an exhaustive list obviously), only the US (usually) uses "/" as the separator. The others usually use "." or "-". And only the US has the month first. So an informal convention that usually works for me when there is ambiguity is to interpret "/" as meaning month first, anything else day first.

Re:2013-11-04 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527949)

On their homepage [sourceforge.net] it has a news section at the top. As there are only 12 months in a year and their first date is 2013-11-25 I can only assume that they follow this date format consistently throughout their website so your date will be November.

Re:2013-11-04 (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 months ago | (#45528009)

year month day, so it can be sorted easy.

Re:2013-11-04 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529079)

Is this numbering scheme of 2013-11-04 in what notation system? Is it 4th day of 11th month or 11th day of 4th month?

With the imperial people you never know!

It amuses me how people think they're clever for having a blanket hatred of all Americans and American culture (and here I thought we Americans were the culture-centric assholes... I guess that'll show ME!), then they say things like that. Anonymous sir or madam, I defy you to come up with a legitimate modern use of a YYYY-DD-MM formatted date by someone who isn't snarking it up to beat the band AND who appears to be in reasonable control of his or her cognitive abilities.

Oh, well. At least this still gives me open license to call the offsides rule in Association Football a non-deterministic clusterfuck of sports administration, because really, who knows what the hell's happening on a field like that?

Wikitaxi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45527819)

How is this different from wikitaxi which has been available for years. http://www.yunqa.de/delphi/doku.php/products/wikitaxi/index

Re:Wikitaxi (1)

emj (15659) | about 9 months ago | (#45528859)

Because all offline wikipedia readers require you to download the wikipedia dump, and the english wiki isn't dumped that often, and this is wiki converted to HTML with downscaled images as far as I can understand.

What? (1)

Kardos (1348077) | about 9 months ago | (#45527947)

> XOWA is a free, open-source application that lets you download Wikipedia to your computer. No internet connection required!

This is supremely impressive; download Wikipedia without an internet connection!

Re:What? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 9 months ago | (#45528077)

Yeah, just drive run a crossover cable to Wikipedia's server room!

Re:What? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 9 months ago | (#45529077)

First, you tie your request to download Wikipedia to this pigeon's leg and let it fly off.

Next, you wait for the reply.

Finally, you load the reply into your computer.

NOTE: Reply will come in printed format - one article per pigeon. A few million pigeons may be required, but don't worry. We send them all at once to keep you from having to wait.

Re:What? (1)

Kardos (1348077) | about 9 months ago | (#45529265)

Sounds good to me, there's certainly no shortage of pigeons. It'll be good to put them to work doing something useful!

What? (1)

operagost (62405) | about 9 months ago | (#45528189)

Be... without internet? *screams*

When was that version copied? (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 9 months ago | (#45528253)

I hope it's when the previous pope (Ben #16) was pictured as Master Yoda in Wikipedia.. missed that :-)

Offline/remote situations (1)

g8oz (144003) | about 9 months ago | (#45528325)

This will be great for offline/remote/low speed situations. Imagine being on a merchant ship or even a cruise ship with a pricey connection package. Scientific expeditions etc.

How about preloading it on OLPC?

What if your high school kid can't do his homework without getting distracted online, but says he needs Wikipedia for research. Bam, here's your air-gapped PC son.

Now this is truly (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 9 months ago | (#45528331)

what I call backup on the cloud

for me 100GB is a bit to large (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528357)

Can I have a slightly smaller copy without the images and references?

Don't Panic (4, Interesting)

Covalent (1001277) | about 9 months ago | (#45528671)

Next year or so 100GB phones will be commonplace...and you will have your Hitchhiker's Guide.

Truly amazing times we live in.

Re:Don't Panic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528747)

mod up (+42, naturally....)

Re:Don't Panic (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 9 months ago | (#45528787)

Next year or so 100GB phones will be commonplace...and you will have your Hitchhiker's Guide.

Pffth. I don't need that. I just need to remember that it's "mostly harmless".

Re:Don't Panic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530361)

You already do. The Guide was networked to the sub-etha network.

Revisions? (3, Interesting)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about 9 months ago | (#45528775)

Presumably the wikipedia is under revision control.
Does this give you the whole thing so that you can forever after sync with the master?
Or just the most recent versions of the articles?
Should there be a bittorrent for syncing huge revision control data bases?

Some apps already do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45528883)

I'm using minipedia. So far no images or formulas and there are some formatting issues, but its a promising start.

already did this ( today, text version only ) (2)

vikingpower (768921) | about 9 months ago | (#45528929)

just pulled the most recent english-language wikipedia dump, and made elasticsearch ( via the wikipedia river plugin ) run over it. 13.9 million entries now on a small server, answering times ~ couple-of-millisecond order. elasticsearch rocks !

Re:already did this ( today, text version only ) (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45529321)

Actually, the two things an offline Wikipedia version would benefit from are semantic search and a better UI. Those haven't been tackled yet.

What's new about this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529041)

I've been mirroring a local copy of Wikipedia for a long time, with images. What's new about this app compared to the dozens of others that already do this?

Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529089)

I was wondering when I could replace my CD of Encarta 96.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529925)

HAHA!! I can't believe that an encyclopedia fit on a CD!! Wow, I haven't hard "Encarta" in so long. It must not have had much content!

But, just think, Wikipedia (English) *can* fit on a single disc too. If there is such thing as a DOUBLE-sided double layer Blu Ray disc, you could just barely fit the site from November 2013 on it!! It's 25GB per layer (50 GB per side) so 100GB total! Cool, eh?

XOWA link... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529203)

... goes to http://xowa.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

An open-source project that still uses SourceForge. How delightfully quaint.

SQLite? (1)

biodata (1981610) | about 9 months ago | (#45529483)

But I thought SQL wasn't webscale wtf?

Not very entertaining (1)

AvderTheTerrible (1960234) | about 9 months ago | (#45529551)

Wikipedia is only so entertaining if you are stranded somewhere with no other way to pass the time.

Now, if they give us a torrent of the complete TVTropes site....

Only 100GB? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45529659)

That's ALL it takes up?? My goodness! Wikipedia can fit on my largest USB drive?? haha.. I expected it to be in the multi-TB range!

Re:Only 100GB? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45530763)

It's text only. Images and videos not included.

Mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530053)

I'm surprised that Jimmy doesn't encourage lots of ppl to be mirrors so he can spread the costs of wikipedia.

POSIX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45530113)

"readable from any POSIX system"

There, fixed it for you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>