Talk:HTTrack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Please review my English[edit]

Please review my English!!!--Alex brollo 01:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article may read slightly like an advertisement, but there is nothing to be gained by the makers of HTTrack by you using the software since it's GNU licensed.

It doesn't explain what "recursively" means or what a "chron job" is. So it's a pretty obscure advert.

Bugs Section[edit]

The wording of the 'Bugs' Section is strange and looks like original research.

'It can be used for small websites only which can be downloaded all at once' - well, what does that mean? I've personally used the update feature successfully.

'HTTrack is unable to interpret the HTTP header "Content-Type" correctly'. Maybe true, but this this seems to be the design of the program, and hence not a bug.

Citations needed, please, before adding this kind of material. 222.239.174.26 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bug regarding --continue or --update needs to be removed. Post-3.23 versions of HTTrack have the bug fixed. Tatsh (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Note from the author: httrack is definitely able to interpret the HTTP header "Content-Type" correctly ; you can test this by mirroring these two URls:

httrack "http://www.httrack.com/test_type2/get.htm?1234" "http://www.httrack.com/test_type/fake_image.gif"

Will correctly produce "fake_image.html" and "get81dc.gif"

And regarding the update issue, this was currently only reproduced because of a corrupted index, and/or server-side problems (dynamic pages not handling update requests correctly)

--Xavier Roche (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section. -- BenRG (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The main website is down, does anyone know the status of the developers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.83.206 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of citable sources[edit]

Note from the author of HTTrack (xroche): I do not know whether it may be considered as citable source (and I won't discuss on the opportunity to keep the page - due to obvious conflicts of interest!), but several studies and/or pages are citing (sometimes very briefly - the main topic is not generally httrack itself) httrack:

And brief citations from the following sources:

  • Penetration Tester's Open Source Toolkit - Jeremy Faircloth (ISBN 978-1597496278)
  • How to Start A Home-Based Web Design Business, 4th - Jim Smith (ISBN 978-0762759552)
  • Placing the Suspect Behind the Keyboard: Using Digital Forensics and Investigative Techniques to Identify Cybercrime Suspects - Brett Shavers (ISBN 978-1597499859)
  • Malware Forensic Field Guide for Windows Systems: Digital Forensics Field Guides - Cameron H. Malin, James M. Aquilina, Eoghan Casey (ISBN 978-1597494724)

Other "online-only" citations:

Again, these may not be considered as sources, depending on what is considered as a valid source. And the cited samples are neither exhaustive, nor necessarily perfectly representative. Xavier Roche (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)