Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'khedron'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • terminal-window viewer for tab-delimited files in *nix?

    - by khedron
    I work with a lot of tab-delimited data files, with varying columns of uncertain length. Typically, the way people view these files is to bring them down from the server to their Windows or Mac machine, and then open them up in Excel. This is certainly fully-featured, allowing filtering and other nice options. But sometimes, you just want to look at something quickly on the command line. I wrote a bare-bones utility to display the first<n>lines of a file like so: --- line 1 --- 1:{header-1} 2:{header-2} 3:... --- line 2 --- 1:{data-1} 2:{data-2} 3:... This is, obviously, very lame, but it's enough to pipe through grep, or figure out which header columns to use "cut -f" on. Is there a *nix-based viewer for a terminal session which will display rows and columns of a tab-delimited file and let you move the viewing window over the file, or otherwise look at data? I don't want to write this myself; instead, I'd just make a reformatter which would replace tabs with spaces for padding so I could open the file up in emacs and see aligned columns. But if there's already a tool out there to do something like this, that'd be great! (Or, I could just live with Excel.)

    Read the article

  • can I make Excel always open a delimited text file with "text" translation?

    - by khedron
    Hi there, Opening a tab-delimited data file in Excel to view & manipulate the data is a very common operation around here. However, by default Excel (2003/4 or 2007/8) will read the columns in a "General" format, which occasionally does terrible things like turning "1/2" into "2-Jan". Is there a way to tell Excel never to do this, but always process the values as Text, without going through the format wizard, selecting all of the columns, and doing it manually? Extra points if this works in both Mac and Windows versions of Excel.

    Read the article

  • GPG - why am I encrypting with subkey instead of primary key?

    - by khedron
    When encrypting a file to send to a collaborator, I see this message: gpg: using subkey XXXX instead of primary key YYYY Why would that be? I've noticed that when they send me an encrypted file, it also appears to be encrypted towards my subkey instead of my primary key. For me, this doesn't appear to be a problem; gpg (1.4.x, macosx) just handles it & moves on. But for them, with their automated tool setup, this seems to be an issue, and they've requested that I be sure to use their primary key. I've tried to do some reading, and I have the Michael Lucas's "GPG & PGP" book on order, but I'm not seeing why there's this distinction. I have read that the key used for signing and the key used for encryption would be different, but I assumed that was about public vs private keys at first. In case it was a trust/validation issue, I went through the process of comparing fingerprints and verifying, yes, I trust this key. While I was doing that, I noticed the primary & subkeys had different "usage" notes: primary: usage: SCA subkey: usage: E "E" seems likely to mean "Encryption". But, I haven't been able to find any documentation on this. Moreover, my collaborator has been using these tools & techniques for some years now, so why would this only be a problem for me?

    Read the article

  • apache front-end rewriting URL to different https ports?

    - by khedron
    Hi all, One of my users is having some trouble with forwarding to an internal web app from a public address. Everything worked fine for him when the situation was like this: front page: http://www.myexample.com/ public ref to internal app: http://www.example.com/app-8903/app.html secretly goes to: http://secret.example.com:8903/app-8903/app.html This is to say, my user is providing the very last URL, with the port information duplicated in the URL base, and they were using that to give a public face that hid both the port and the internal machine name. You could still read the port in the URL base if you looked, but the obvious reference and machine name were hidden. Doing it this way, he could have several different instances of the application running on secret.example.com with different ports, and on the front end it just looked like it was changing the URL directory/base. Now the user wants to do the same thing over https:, and the people helping him with apache config say it can't be done. Is that so? Without being there to tinker with the configuration myself, I'm not sure what his IT people have tried, but reading through the apache2 SSL FAQ and other docs, it seems like it should be possible to rewrite URLs to different ports and still use https:.

    Read the article

1