Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Cheers, philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Probably after kermit and "hello world". :-) -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: [unzip] Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Probably after kermit and "hello world". :-) You read the web page, didn't you. Nope, just guessing, based upon years of spending too much time staring at source code. *sigh*. Must remember to get a life one of these days... -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Seems like we've made a reasonable start on this project. We already have a few scripts written - anyone want to report progress on any of the others? I have Guestbook, FFA and simple search all ready to for testing elsewhere - I'll package and upload them somewhere this evening. I looked at wwwboard as well and discovered that I had got as far as making it strict and use CGI.pm so whover is working on that can have my work in progress if they want :) What we need now is to start to impose some structure on the project. Here are a few ideas: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) * Testing both our versions and the originals on as many platforms as possible. Ensuring that our scripts do the same thing as Matt's. * Licensing. Matt has a huge great license on all of his scripts. We should replace it with the standard "under the same tersm as Perl itself" statement. * Copyright. All the scripts (and the HTML pages) have Matt's copyright. We should change that to ours. * HTML. Most of the scripts have associated HTML pages. I've not looked at them yet, but judging by the HTML I've seen in the scripts I've looked at, Matt's HTML isn't much better than his Perl. I'd recommend changing all the HTML to XHTML. I have run tidy over all of it and converted it to HTML 4 Transitional but XHTML would be just as easy. I can download the rest of the scripts and then fix the associated HTML too. * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. This should probably done on the CVS server. * Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be a subdirectory on london.pm.org. Unfortunately because I am without laptop at the moment things are a bit difficult - I have had to press my very old machine into service. Oh BTW are we allowing POSIX in ? I had used that in the Guestbook for strftime ... /J\ -- I'm obviously challenged at the moment give me a break.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Snip * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. This should probably done on the CVS server. Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Thanks Gareth Harper
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On the subject of having zip archives as well as tarballs on the server,
Gareth Harper said:
Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by
default so that may not be neccesary.
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social
point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going
on! What are all these weird charges from AOL? etc)
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. If all the files are created in unix, they may well not have \n\r at the end of the lines, which make them a bugger to edit in notepad (wordpad and even edit handle them OK though.) So I think the archive should have windows versions of the text files that work in notepad. CVS (I use GNU winCVS in windows) handles all these conversions for you, but if someone wants to download a zip (whatever format) or a certain script (or doesn't care about CVS) then the zip will need to contain the \n\r.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. I don't have liability insurance, but don't look at me as a good example: I paid my tax a year late, and keep forgetting to send in my VAT returns! -- Marty
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. If the money was paid to you as a salary you'd be lucky to see 50% of it. It also reduces the NIC burden on the employer... by removing the 12.2% employers contribution, so they can afford to pay you even more :)) So Limited Company everytime if you can .. works best for both sides. The costs of setup are small, the costs (in terms of time to admin it) is small (1 hour a week max, plus a couple of days at some poin tduring hte year to get it all together and hassle the accountant) but the benfits, financially are significant. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) Thanks Gareth Harper
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 15:40 20/03/2001 +, Gareth Harper wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) IANAL but I think that clients become liable for paying certain dues, NI IIRC, if you, as a sole trader or casual worker, are based on a client site, directed by the client, for a long period of time (for some value, unknown to me, of "long"). By retaining a limited company, the client is absolved of this obligation. There could be other reasons or this reason could be completely false. It's been several years since I looked at this. Simon.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Marty Pauley writes: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. I don't have liability insurance, but don't look at me as a good example: I paid my tax a year late, and keep forgetting to send in my VAT returns! That pretty much describes me too. Regarding insurance, the PCG (http://www.pcgroup.org.uk) have arranged deals on professional indemnity and medical insurance which may be worth a butchers. -- Brian Raven My arthritic pinkies are already starting to ache just thinking about =. -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Excewpt that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which means they should be happy. Oh no, wait a minute, I think it uncompresses the .gz bit then prompts for what to do with the .tar bit, which might scare them off. Just shut up, matt. -- matt "'scuse me trooper, will you be needing any packets today? hey, baby, don't be pulling on my socket, okay?" [0] Or whatever handles .tar.gz on their machine.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) nope nothing like. as sole trader all monies received (- expenses) are treated as income .. thus you pay NIC on the whole lot .. tax at 23% or whatever up to 30K and then tax at 40% above 30k(ish). as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year Rubbish ;) its NIC free, not tax free. .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) No, thats what the self-assessment form is for at the end of the year.
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 04:07 PM 20.3.2001 +, you wrote: Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Except that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which means they should be happy. ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing a web or ftp site that doesn't have any .zip files... Oh no, wait a minute, I think it uncompresses the .gz bit then prompts for what to do with the .tar bit, which might scare them off. That too -- that's a pain in the arse: it ends up adding a seemingly superfluous step to the process that could be off-putting to Win-natives. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year Rubbish ;) its NIC free, not tax free. true, technically its not tax free .. as the company has paid 20% on it which is only 2% less (or is it 3%) less than basic rate. the big saving is if you are able to split it across 2 shareholders eg you and your wife, thus avoiding the 40% thing. for reasons less than clear to me this money is treated as being +10% gross (ie for every 1000 pounds you get it counts as 1100 pounds of tax-paid income .. but hey, thats what I pay the accountant for, to understand this sort of nonsense. .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) No, thats what the self-assessment form is for at the end of the year. so long as you have paid your NIC and PAYE throughout the year and kept a careful eye on how much the divvies come to then there should be little else to pay ... 80~85% in your pocket is quite achievable... this is of course when you suddenly reallise that youve been giving out divvies far too frequently and you had an effective income of 60K each .. and that you;ve already spent it all and owe the taxman $LOTS. ;) the other big advantage of a limited company is that it allows you to decide when to release the money .. as a sole trader if you earn shed loads one year it all counts as income for that year .. with a limited company you might decide that the dividend would not be paid until say .. the end of April, thus it would count towards your income for next year and avoid the 40% thing .. which if you take a lot of holidays or find it difficult to get a contract could be advantageous to be able to do that sort of thing from time to time. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote: ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing a web or ftp site that doesn't have any .zip files... Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. /rant -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. I don't know - maybe in your inexperience you have a windowsy perl book (there are some out there) or a poor cgi book to work from that never mentions tgz or .tar.gz - its an additional obstacle - they'd only go an use MSA. A. -- A HREF = "http://termisoc.org/~betty" Betty @ termisoc.org /A "As a youngster Fred fought sea battles on the village pond using a complex system of signals he devised that was later adopted by the Royal Navy. " (this email has nothing to do with any organisation except me)
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. Seems to me you don't really understand windows very well :-) ws-ftp/ ftp explorer - drag and drop files onto your server chmod - who needs that, the directory is executable already, all files are too. tweak config files - notepad will allow the user to either add or remove a # from the appropriate lines in the file - these will be marked. .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someone is using windows/mac doesn't make them a moron. They may well be, but I know quite a few unix morons too. It is a different skillset. If a Mac user is trying to set up some perl scripts on a windows machine, he may well have had no exposure to .tar.gz files (hqx, sit, zip, pak, arc maybe). Files should be available in the format that is most commonly used for the OS. /rant /Robert BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someone is using windows/mac doesn't make them a moron. They may well be, but I know quite a few unix morons too. It is a different skillset. True and also winzip makes the tar.gz file have a nice little zip icon, just like a .zip file, so they won't actually know the difference. Gareth
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) NAMEunzip - list, test and extract compressed files in a ZI archive DESCRIPTIONunzip will list, test, or extract files from a ZIP archive, commonly found on MS-DOS systems.The default behavior (with no options) is to extract into the current directory (and subdirectories below it) all files from the specified ZIP archive. A companion program, zip(1), creates ZIP archives; both programs are compatible with archives created by PKWARE's PKZIP and PKUNZIP for MS-DOS, but in many cases the program options or default behaviors differ. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. So then they go and download the buggy, insecure, crap script from MSA and when they fail they decide that Perl is crap /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gellyfish.com
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
* Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two
versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be
a subdirectory on london.pm.org.
I don't mind doing this bit of it. I would quite like the idea of
creating a few web pages for someone other than myself or for work for a
bit, unless anyone's got any objections...
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC
has concluded that:
a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title.
b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies.
c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1].
But apart from that we've been useless
Later.
Mark.
[1] Okay, so I added this one myself, but I think it's a good idea.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 12:40 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC has concluded that: a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title. So "Not the Matt Wright Archive" is out then ;-) b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. Can we make use of the PerlMonger connection and/or use the Programming Republic logo ? Simon.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:27:57 + (GMT), jo walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) i can sort this, perhaps with veeghelp. for leon and marcel's aspect oriented programming project we started a /home/projects directory, we could put the not-matt stuff in there and CVS all of it, and make a dev group as well as the www group we are using now would we want public access to part or all of the cvs repository? Sounds like a good plan to me. No strong opinions here about public access to CVS. Anyone else? Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. Can we make use of the PerlMonger connection and/or use the Programming Republic logo ? Yes, IMHO, though IANAL. http://www.pm.org/faq.shtml http://republic.perl.com/logo.html The perl mongers logo is a little on the big size (and we're not allowed to resize it.) Maybe a page that says "Who did this ?" "Why did we do it ?" and fit the logo in there ? Perhaps we should try and get the project endorsed in some way so that we can say "The Perl Mongers bring you Easy Perl Scripts" ? But now I'm descending into Marketing so I'll shut up ! S.
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? My own two-penn'orth would be that it's better without the 'perl'. It's easier to say, easier to type, and to be honest, the target audience for Matt's archive don't give a monkeys what language the script is written in. They're told they want "a guestbook script", they go get "a guestbook script." Perl can be emphasised in the text of the page, and brought to the fore when you come to optimise the page to be found in search engines, etc etc. It's also more generic, which means you can legitimately 'funnel in' websurfers who are looking for PHP scripts, and then brainwash^Weducate them as to why they don't want that shit, they want *this* shit. -- Simon Batistoni userfrenzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7209 4117
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
From: "Simon Wilcox" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 March 2001 13:34 Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? EZPS, pronounced Easy Peas :-) /Robert
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 14:59 19/03/2001 +, Simon Wistow wrote: Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ... ... it would all be in XML ;-)
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. Simple Search Oh I have done that one as well :) /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.btinternet.com/~gellyfish/ http://www.gellyfish.com
Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..
At 16:44 16/03/2001, you wrote: Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! Ah. This is probably a good time to back out. One of the other Daves beat me to it, and far better than I would have done it and I've got my VAT to do before I go to Tokyo. I'll buy whoever _does_ do mine a beer or two at the next pm meeting we're both at. I did the random _text_ one. Anyone else want to take on the rest of Dave H's stuff as I took one over from Alex earlier this week. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..
Hi Guys, I've created a random image generator (not Matt complient) that I needed for a friend. Please feel fee to put it in the collection. This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! http://totoro.cuckoo.org/rand_image.txt Thanks to the folks on IRC for some tidying ideas. Cheers Leo
Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..
Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! Ah. This is probably a good time to back out. One of the other Daves beat me to it, and far better than I would have done it and I've got my VAT to do before I go to Tokyo. I'll buy whoever _does_ do mine a beer or two at the next pm meeting we're both at. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Matt's Scripts
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is indeed lovely. Although you don't need to do tunnelling magic: rsync -options -e ssh source-list me@myserver:/destination rsync is a wonderful beast. The -a and -z options, accompanied by --progress (if they're big files) and --delete (for true mirroring). -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
RE: Matt's Scripts
Finding out where perl is
parody
Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello
world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you
actually working on these scripts yet!
/parody
You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of
helloWorld scripts that the script user can upload first to find out the
basic facts about their server and check everything is working.
a) You have multiple copys of the script with different shebang lines on
the top. Only one of these will work and one of the things it'll do is
print our is "The first line of programs you upload to this server should
be #!/blah/perl"
b) It checks your perl version is reasonable. Actually it probably should
do this before a) in case there are several versions installed.
c) It tests if you've got a borken version of CGI.pm (or CGI.pm at all) by
looking at version numbers, etc. Same for other modules.
d) It links to an image in the same directory as itself and explains that
if the image isn't viewable then you do not have inplace cgi and the
things you have to know about this
e) It prints out the time, and GMT time thus highlighting to the user any
problems they might have if this is wrong
f) It prints out a hunk of diagnostic information (e.g. perl version,
module versions, url, etc, etc)
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
RE: Matt's Scripts
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:19:42 + (GMT), Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of helloWorld scripts that the script user can upload first to find out the basic facts about their server and check everything is working. a) You have multiple copys of the script with different shebang lines on the top. Only one of these will work and one of the things it'll do is print our is "The first line of programs you upload to this server should be #!/blah/perl" b) It checks your perl version is reasonable. Actually it probably should do this before a) in case there are several versions installed. c) It tests if you've got a borken version of CGI.pm (or CGI.pm at all) by looking at version numbers, etc. Same for other modules. d) It links to an image in the same directory as itself and explains that if the image isn't viewable then you do not have inplace cgi and the things you have to know about this e) It prints out the time, and GMT time thus highlighting to the user any problems they might have if this is wrong f) It prints out a hunk of diagnostic information (e.g. perl version, module versions, url, etc, etc) My ms-env script does a lot of this. http://www.mag-sol.com/Scripts/ms-env-2.0.tar.gz Mind you, it _does_ rely on CGI.pm being available. Dave...
RE: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mark Fowler wrote: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody *giggle* L. delete smutty comment
Re: Matt's Scripts
Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of helloWorld scripts that the script user can upload first to find out the basic facts about their server and check everything is working. a) You have multiple copys of the script with different shebang lines on the top. Only one of these will work and one of the things it'll do is print our is "The first line of programs you upload to this server should be #!/blah/perl" b) It checks your perl version is reasonable. Actually it probably should do this before a) in case there are several versions installed. c) It tests if you've got a borken version of CGI.pm (or CGI.pm at all) by looking at version numbers, etc. Same for other modules. d) It links to an image in the same directory as itself and explains that if the image isn't viewable then you do not have inplace cgi and the things you have to know about this e) It prints out the time, and GMT time thus highlighting to the user any problems they might have if this is wrong f) It prints out a hunk of diagnostic information (e.g. perl version, module versions, url, etc, etc) Ooh, 'configure.cgi'. If only we could assume that they had a working perl on the box that they were installing from then we could write a cunning installer script which uploaded configure.cgi to the ISP and interrogated it via a LWP::... client to get a bunch of configuration stuff, which could then be used to generate a list of scripts that could run on the user's ISP, and which could then go on and upload the scripts. Ooh... You don't even have to assume working perl on their box. You stick the interrogation stuff on the 'Not Matt's scripts' website. The punter then says "I want to run these scripts on such an ISP". NMS then checks to see if it has information about that ISP cached, and provides the appropriate scripts if so, or a copy of configure.cgi for the punter to upload. Once the punter has done the upload, he sets off an interrogation phase, which works out the capabilities of the particular user's environment and builds an appropriate script set. Hmm... it's just a simple matter of programming... -- Piers
Re: Matt's Scripts
At 10:54 14/03/01 +, you wrote: Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finding out where perl is Ooh, 'configure.cgi'. If only we could assume that they had a working perl on the box that they were installing from then we could write a cunning installer script which uploaded configure.cgi to the ISP and interrogated it via a LWP::... client to get a bunch of configuration stuff, which could then be used to generate a list of scripts that could run on the user's ISP, and which could then go on and upload the scripts. Could we not produce something like configure.bat which is a hybrid shell script/batch file that starts the configuration process by finding perl and then launches perl to find out installed libraries. Obviously it would produce lots of 'Command not found' messages etc but it could quickly find perl (or not) and then move into a cleaner environment. Matt Ooh... You don't even have to assume working perl on their box. You stick the interrogation stuff on the 'Not Matt's scripts' website. The punter then says "I want to run these scripts on such an ISP". NMS then checks to see if it has information about that ISP cached, and provides the appropriate scripts if so, or a copy of configure.cgi for the punter to upload. Once the punter has done the upload, he sets off an interrogation phase, which works out the capabilities of the particular user's environment and builds an appropriate script set. Hmm... it's just a simple matter of programming... -- Piers
Re: Matt's Scripts
(What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?)
Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts
anywhere.
Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have
a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'.
Typically you cannot read from these dirs with a web server (you can only
execute the program and read their output.) This is so that if you have
passwords in your scripts it's very hard for the bad guys to read these
files and get the script via the webserver no matter what mistakes you
make (e.g. if you accidentlally leave backup files around.) The main
drawback of this is that you can't serve normal files (like images) from
the same directory.
I call the first 'in place cgi' and the latter 'cgi-bin'
Hope that's clear.
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:28:19 + (GMT), Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. We _like_ servers configured like this. Especially if they've got some kind of file upload facility installed. We can run any code we like on them :) Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'. Typically you cannot read from these dirs with a web server (you can only execute the program and read their output.) This is so that if you have passwords in your scripts it's very hard for the bad guys to read these files and get the script via the webserver no matter what mistakes you make (e.g. if you accidentlally leave backup files around.) The main drawback of this is that you can't serve normal files (like images) from the same directory. These servers, OTOH, are far less fun. Typically the web user has no wrtie access to the cgi-bin directory so you can't upload your own scripts there using HTTP. I call the first 'in place cgi' and the latter 'cgi-bin' I call the first 'a security nightmare' and the latter 'much safer'. Hope that's clear. Very much :) Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: (What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'. Typically you cannot read from these dirs with a web server (you can only execute the program and read their output.) This is so that if you have passwords in your scripts it's very hard for the bad guys to read these files and get the script via the webserver no matter what mistakes you make (e.g. if you accidentlally leave backup files around.) The main drawback of this is that you can't serve normal files (like images) from the same directory. or if for some reason the ISP edits the httpd.conf and removes execution from .pl file types // voila! .. your scripts are exposed to the world .. its not such a big deal on paranoid ISP sites as they are usually only luser scripts doing somethig tedious .. the consequences on a commercial site could be very real indeed ... I always have my cgi-bin directory outside my document root .. makes sense to me. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:50:04AM +, Jon Eyre wrote: In my experience, virtually *all* isps/hosting providers use the 'separate cgi-bin directory' configuration. either for the security reasons outlined by evil dave ... Eh-hem. Evil Dave's server does *not* use seperate cgi-bin directories - but then, there's no ftp file upload, and the ftp root is in a different place from the web root anyway, and HTTP file upload is also not permitted. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:46:45PM +, Jon Eyre wrote: oops... Heh. Just remember, Evil Dave is the paranoid nutcase, Dave Cross is the one with the gold-plated cat. At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:05:05 +, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evil Dave's server does *not* use seperate cgi-bin directories - but then, there's no ftp file upload, and the ftp root is in a different place from the web root anyway, and HTTP file upload is also not permitted. Evil Dave's server is therefore a different beast to a hosting company's server, which isn't really much use if their customers can't get anything on to it. My several users use scp. All of them can put anything they want on there. If you're doing hosting and letting people upload code, you have no choice but to trust your users. *BUT* by avoiding grotesqities like ftp, and by setting permissions sanely, third-parties are hard-pressed to compromise the server. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the users will bypass them (summarizing from Schneier's Secrets and Lies). All of them can put anything they want on there. If you're doing hosting and letting people upload code, you have no choice but to trust your users. *BUT* by avoiding grotesqities like ftp, and by setting permissions sanely, third-parties are hard-pressed to compromise the server. dealing with clients who can't remember or don't know usernames/passwords, and the subsequent calls to isp helpdesks: "Hello, I am from web agency X, we need ftp details for customer Y so we can upload their site." And they just give 'em out. No checks, no confirming with the customers, nothing. There's little hope of securing stuff if people can be socially engineered so easily.
Re: Matt's Scripts
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) On Windows I use pscp which comes from the same people as putty. It works well, but it doesn't have a pretty graphical front-end. Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts
On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the users will bypass them (summarizing from Schneier's Secrets and Lies). Then you disable ftp and smb. (And telnet, of course.) "Sorry, we can't use these because of the ban on plain-text passwords." Roger
Re: Matt's Scripts
is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows?
On Windows I use pscp which comes from the same people as putty. It
works well, but it doesn't have a pretty graphical front-end.
Yes there is. http://www.i-tree.org/ixplorer.htm.
I suggest you peeps read http://www.openssh.org/windows.html which lists
alternatives
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) Rule one of security: Ensure availability for authorised users this breaks it ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:55:28PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the users will bypass them (summarizing from Schneier's Secrets and Lies). I've been thinking that, while not ideal, webDAV is probably the best option here. I'm told it's a) secure-ish, and b) integrates nicely with Dreamweaver and whatever microsoft's thing is. WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My several users use scp.
is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows
clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue
using ftp, because it's *easier*...
They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :)
Rule one of security:
Ensure availability for authorised users
this breaks it ;-)
Do what we do. Keep everything running, but shove a whopping great
ipchains (or firewall of choice) in the way. If you want to access it,
ssh tunnel it first.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:00:22PM +, Greg McCarroll typed: * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) Rule one of security: Ensure availability for authorised users Rule zero of security: A system with no users is a system with no unauthorised users. For extra points, turn it off. Roger
Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. SCP for Windoz = http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ SCP for Linux = well, command line scp or what ever else there is. SCP for OSX = http://www.macorchard.com/ftp.html download Rbrowser SCP for Mac = http://www.macorchard.com/ftp.html download NiftyTelnet (the open option has an SCP radio button) The Mac one is NASTY! - the OSX and Windoz ones are just like standard FTP clients (your computer on the left, remove server one the right). If anyone hears of a good gui SCP client for non-OSX mac's I'd really like to know (I've got users on my machine that need it!). Cheers Leo
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:55:28PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: I've been thinking that, while not ideal, webDAV is probably the best option here. I'm told it's a) secure-ish, and b) integrates nicely with Dreamweaver and whatever microsoft's thing is. WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. The other thing is that *WHEN* subversion comes out, the protocol allows for version control, and there'll actually be a decent way of implementing version control, so if the people who are doing the uploading screw up, you have some chance of rolling back. DAV over HTTPS is not that bad, though... MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I don't know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be. -- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ In case anybody hasn't seen it, it's a very useful win32 ssh program with a terminal emulator. It even comes with an ssh-agent, which is pretty damned useful. Regarding scp, putty comes with pscp, a command line tool for uploading files. The next version also has a beginning implemntation of an sftp client and the latest version of OpenSSH also comes with an sftp server, which you could use. It's still all command line though (and its not released yet). There is a GUI front-end for pscp, available from http://www.i-tree.org/, apparently, although I haven't tried it. I don't know, but you may be able to download an eval version of some nicer copying tools courtesy of one of the professional ssh outfits. -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:08:03PM +, Struan Donald wrote: and people are worrying about plain scp confusing people? ssh tunneling is one of those things that appears close enough to magic that people assume it is. damn useful magic though. plus it always seems such a pain on windows It is. And a word of warning in case anybody tries it: Don't tunnel ftp over ssh. It doesn't work properly. Only 1 tunnel goes over the secure connection. Admittedly, it keeps the password out of the way, but it also leads to a false sense of security about your data being encrypted. -Dom (had to whinge to a Linux Journal author about this one)
Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)
At 03:00 PM 14.3.2001 +, Leo Lapworth wrote: If anyone hears of a good gui SCP client for non-OSX mac's I'd really like to know (I've got users on my machine that need it!). Can Fetch do it? At a glance, I don't see anything about SCP there, but then I've only done a cursory check; it may be in there somewhere. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:01:17PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote: WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:13:46PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: There is a GUI front-end for pscp, available from http://www.i-tree.org/, apparently, although I haven't tried it. This is kind of flakey, and has trouble with stuff like files owned by a user or group with more than 8 characters in its name. This is because it determines filenames by doing ls and then counting a fixed number of columns in from the left. :-( Well, if you've got Delphi handy, you can go in and fix it... -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)
* Neil Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. SCP for Windoz = http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ SCP for Linux = well, command line scp or what ever else there is. SCP for OSX = http://www.macorchard.com/ftp.html download Rbrowser Also see Linux above, seeing as OS X has comes with OpenSSH. (10 days and counting :-) ) OS X shall be a truly wonderful thing, of course the fact that it is even possible is down to the BSD license IIRC, discuss ... ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Matt's Scripts
* at 14/03 14:59 + Mark Fowler said: Do what we do. Keep everything running, but shove a whopping great ipchains (or firewall of choice) in the way. If you want to access it, ssh tunnel it first. Would not ipsec be a better solution? It's transparent to the users, and more reliable than ssh tunnels which tend to drop if not used. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:10:02 +, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:01:17PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote: WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. An admirable point of view in my opinion. Why would anyone possibly want to run an ISP and have to deal with all the clueless people? Well, quite. Of course, if their computer hasn't got a queueing mail system, then I don't want that either :) MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I don't know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be. -- Abraham Lincoln
RE: Matt's Scripts
which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. Scp is not hard. Users should be able to use scp. However, the real point is that scp sucks. scp is to a sensible way of transfering files what command.com is to a good shell. scp is stateless. scp makes you enter your password, again, all the time. scp doesn't let you browse the remote machine (hell, even ftp manages that). scp doesn't do ASCII conversion between differing architectures. scp doesn't even let you upload two files from different directories in a single operation, where operation is defined in human rather than computer terms. sftp is obviously better in every respect than scp, and the only reason for inflicting scp on a user is to convince them to spend the cash on f-secure's sftp client for win|mac|whatever. However, a million times better than any of these is to use SMB (just not with plain text pwords). And if the client really needs to constantly upload and download files in an encrypted state, setting up a VPN is the way to go, and then they can use whatever they want, presumably SMB or NFS if the pipe is at all reliable.
Re: Matt's Scripts
Yes there is. http://www.i-tree.org/ixplorer.htm.
I've since installed WinSCP, from the list of alternatives on OpenSSH This
is also based on PuTTY and isn't so, well, dodgy as iXplorer. Forget I
ever mentioned it.
Seems to work well for me. The interface is clunky (i.e. you have to
press F5 to copy rather than drag and drop) but is still something your
average windows user would have no problems using.
http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ (we should have just googled for winscp in the
first place)
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. Using WebDAV on a internal staging server and then updating the live server with something rsync-ish using scp might be a good usability/security compromise If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. alas, some of us don't get to choose our users... j
Re: Matt's Scripts
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:10:02 +, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:01:17PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote: WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. An admirable point of view in my opinion. Why would anyone possibly want to run an ISP and have to deal with all the clueless people? Beats me. Mike J, you used to work for AOL, you should be more than qualified to answer this one ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Matt's Scripts
* at 14/03 15:22 + Michael Stevens said: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:10:02PM +, David Cantrell wrote: WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. Admittedly rather unscientific research has shown you're actually wrong - lots of users find it very hard. enough people find moving/copying files on windows complex... when you start introducing a second computer... struan
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:22:59PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:10:02PM +, David Cantrell wrote: WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. Admittedly rather unscientific research has shown you're actually wrong - lots of users find it very hard. "In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 MS Windows users were found to have difficulties maximising and moving their windows. Macintosh users were not admitted to the tests because they had difficulties with the door handle at the lab where the tests were being conducted." -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: "In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 MS Windows users were found to have difficulties maximising and moving their windows. Macintosh users were not admitted to the tests because they had difficulties with the door handle at the lab where the tests were being conducted." ROTFL
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:50:14PM +, Struan Donald wrote: * at 14/03 15:22 + Michael Stevens said: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:10:02PM +, David Cantrell wrote: WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. Admittedly rather unscientific research has shown you're actually wrong - lots of users find it very hard. enough people find moving/copying files on windows complex... I said "it's not hard", not "no-one finds it hard". Stupid people will always find simple things difficult. I recognise that there are stupid people, I just want nothing to do with them. If my sister - a computer-illiterate tree-hugger - can manage scp, then it's not hard. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 11:34:16 AM, grep wrote: GM * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: An admirable point of view in my opinion. Why would anyone possibly want to run an ISP and have to deal with all the clueless people? GM Mike J, you used to work for AOL, you should be more than qualified GM to answer this one ;-) There are far more clueless people in the universe than clueful. As long as their money is green, or has pictures of the queen, their cc numbers pass mod 10, or other appropriate symbols, they're good customers. Also, back in the day, they didn't stay online as long as clueful people do. In fact, at one point 1/3rd of all AOL users logged on once a month or less, but still paid the $10/month. Those were the best customers. This is not as likely to happen these days though. Some people even *become* clueful. Believe it or not. -- mike
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: And they just give 'em out. No checks, no confirming with the customers, nothing. There's little hope of securing stuff if people can be socially engineered so easily. That's a matter of setting policy. If there's no policy in place to prevent that, then you can expect people to do it. If you have a security policy which states that you will fire people for such gross breaches - and more importantly, you *enforce* it - then it won't happen more than once or twice. ahh .. 'enforce' .. lets be clear here .. when you say 'fire' someone are we talking about simple termination of employment, something involving a large cannon or something involving a stake some rope and a quantity of firewood? .. i believe 1) is popular in the coporate world but BOFH's realise that no 3) is more likely to win respect of the front line troops. Anyway, how on earth can the helldesk grunts get at passwords? Not even the sysadmin should be able to tell you a user's password. They should *never* be stored in plain-text. If they are, fire the sysadmin. never a truer word ... of course if you _did_ want to discover a users password its not that hard .. there are ways ... I believe we have some world renowned experts on the topic at hand ... now where is 'merlin' when you need him :) -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: enough people find moving/copying files on windows complex... when you start introducing a second computer... hmmm I wouldn't place such creatures as far up the food chain as 'people' .. but I know what you mean. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: Yes there is. http://www.i-tree.org/ixplorer.htm. I've since installed WinSCP, from the list of alternatives on OpenSSH This is also based on PuTTY and isn't so, well, dodgy as iXplorer. Forget I ever mentioned it. Terraterm and TTSSH are what I have on the laptop for those 'emergency' moments. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
RE: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: Scp is not hard. Users should be able to use scp. However, the real point is that scp sucks. scp is to a sensible way of transfering files what command.com is to a good shell. scp is stateless. scp makes you enter your password, again, all the time. err ... not if you use sshagent it doesnt which is lightyears ahead of putting plain text FTP passowrd in your .netrc file innit scp doesn't let you browse the remote machine no .. but surely thats what ssh is for ? (hell, even ftp manages that). scp doesn't do ASCII conversion between differing architectures. scp doesn't even let you upload two files from different directories in a single operation, where operation is defined in human rather than computer terms. yes it does .. you can put multiple files in the source list using absolut paths sftp is obviously better in every respect than scp, and the only reason for inflicting scp on a user is to convince them to spend the cash on f-secure's sftp client for win|mac|whatever. I dont have a problem with scp .. but I can see it would annoy the drag and drop brigade ... it works for me and I script those batch transfers and site updates anyway .. I keep meaning to look at rsync over an ssh tunnel but never seem to find the time. However, a million times better than any of these is to use SMB (just not with plain text pwords). And if the client really needs to constantly upload and download files in an encrypted state, setting up a VPN is the way to go, and then they can use whatever they want, presumably SMB or NFS if the pipe is at all reliable. ugh .. SMB .. shiver ... -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:10:02PM +, David Cantrell wrote: WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. Admittedly rather unscientific research has shown you're actually wrong - lots of users find it very hard. nope .. you are answering a different question .. . NO, it's not hard FFS. but YES, lots of users find it very hard this is not because it is actually hard, but because most users are painfully clueless., and he doesn;t want em .. or indeed need em. the world is full of users (lusers ?) and you jsut can do without the painfully clueless ones .. there are many out there to chose from. Worse still the painfully clueless ones are the ones who will require the most idiotic handholding and AND want to pay the least for the service ... there is a rather good ISP on Hawaii that plainly states 'the service is not suitable for clueless users' .. ring em up and ask too many docile questions and they pull your account .. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:28:03PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: That's a matter of setting policy. If there's no policy in place to prevent that, then you can expect people to do it. If you have a security policy which states that you will fire people for such gross breaches - and more importantly, you *enforce* it - then it won't happen more than once or twice. ahh .. 'enforce' .. lets be clear here .. when you say 'fire' someone are we talking about simple termination of employment, something involving a large cannon or something involving a stake some rope and a quantity of firewood? .. i believe 1) is popular in the coporate world but BOFH's realise that no 3) is more likely to win respect of the front line troops. All three. One for the legal and bean-county folks (got to stop their pension contribs and salary you know - that frees up the budget for getting another underling^Wassistant); Two to tenderise them before cooking them with number three. To *really* make an example of them, you feed the results to the ex-cow-orkers. Anyway, how on earth can the helldesk grunts get at passwords? Not even the sysadmin should be able to tell you a user's password. They should *never* be stored in plain-text. If they are, fire the sysadmin. never a truer word ... of course if you _did_ want to discover a users password its not that hard .. there are ways ... I believe we have some world renowned experts on the topic at hand ... now where is 'merlin' when you need him :) If crack works in reasonable time, then you should fire the sysadmin. It is essential nowadays to use something like MD5 shadow passwords and not just plain ol' crypt. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:44:55PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote: I dont have a problem with scp .. but I can see it would annoy the drag and drop brigade ... it works for me and I script those batch transfers and site updates anyway .. I keep meaning to look at rsync over an ssh tunnel but never seem to find the time. It is indeed lovely. Although you don't need to do tunnelling magic: rsync -options -e ssh source-list me@myserver:/destination -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
Robin Szemeti wrote: of course if you _did_ want to discover a users password its not that hard .. there are ways ... I believe we have some world renowned experts on the topic at hand ... now where is 'merlin' when you need him :) ITYM 'merlyn' (or 'q[merlyn]'). HTH. HAND. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Matt's Scripts
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. Random Image Displayer daveh Random Link Generator daveh Random Textdaveh -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy -
Re: Matt's Scripts
Textclock Mark
Countdown Mark
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
At 15:18 13/03/2001, you wrote: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. Guestbook davorg WWWboard davorg -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
RE: Matt's Scripts
OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. To which we should add that in default configuration the new script has the same input and output requirements as the old script, such that no re-writing of HTML forms or config files is needed when deploying the new script.
Re: Matt's Scripts
At 15:44 13/03/2001, you wrote: Dave wrote: Oops. I just did the Random Text one. Should have put my name down really I suppose. Here it is if you're interested. And what's wrong with the following line? ;-) #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w D'Oh. It's a fair cop :-) In my defense, there isn't any data that could be tainted - but rules is rules! Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
RE: Matt's Scripts
At 15:47 13/03/2001, you wrote: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. To which we should add that in default configuration the new script has the same input and output requirements as the old script, such that no re-writing of HTML forms or config files is needed when deploying the new script. Correct. But Matt's scripts don't have config files IIRC - it's all done by editing variables at the top of the script file. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Matt's Scripts
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 14:23 13/03/2001, you wrote: Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. Random Image Displayer daveh Random Link Generator daveh Random Textdaveh Oops. I just did the Random Text one. Should have put my name down really I suppose. Here it is if you're interested. I surrender. You did it far better than I would have. And quicker. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy -
RE: Matt's Scripts
IIRC the problem with some of them is that they use config data supplied in form variables... do we really want to maintain this? Yes, we do. It's a useful way of supplying configuration information, because editing form fields in HTML has a lower fear threshold than editing perl source files. And then if the junior office slave asked to make the change uploads the file in file in binary after editing it on his PC, it will break the perl script but not the HTML form. Such is real life :-)
Re: Matt's Scripts
Dave Cross wrote:
Oops. I just did the Random Text one.
Two comments:
- what's with the "\%\%" in the separator? '%' isn't special in
double-quoted strings, last time I checked. This looks like Mattcode which
backwhacks just about anything ("$hh\:$mm\:$ss" comes to mind, for example).
- s/chmod 744/chmod 644/ , probably
And, of course, there should be a comment at the top above
#!/usr/local/bin/perl to the effect that "you should edit this to point to
where Perl [version 5.00x or above] is installed on your machine".
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
RE: Matt's Scripts
Yes, but *is a security hole, and not a small one*, usually. Yes, if you put the wrong things in there, like locations of files. I guess maybe Matt does this. On the other hand, other things can go in harmlessly, and should, such as the response email address for formmail. As for the security issue, there's no reason why we can't place extra layers of checking in for these values (although of course that may not close all holes). I suppose in extreme cases where the original is a security nightmare, the backward compatability mode should be off by default rather than on by default - but if we don't acheive easy compatability no-one will use the replacements.
Re: Matt's Scripts
From: "Dave Cross" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 March 2001 15:47 Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts At 14:23 13/03/2001, you wrote: Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oops. I just did the Random Text one. Should have put my name down really I suppose. Here it is if you're interested. This works on my win32 box, and is more random than Matts, and required one less line change for me. 1 down ! I'll do some more testing if you want, I'm quite good at breaking things g. I have access to Linux (apache), WinME/98 (apache/PWS), WinNT(IIS) and Mac(Mac!) boxes. /Robert
Re: Matt's Scripts
At 16:53 13/03/01 +, you wrote: At 16:39 13/03/2001, you wrote: Dave Cross wrote: Oops. I just did the Random Text one. And, of course, there should be a comment at the top above #!/usr/local/bin/perl to the effect that "you should edit this to point to where Perl [version 5.00x or above] is installed on your machine". Can you put something like that above the shebang line? I thought that #! had to be the first two chars in the file. Could we write some sort of internal installer process so the instruction to the user would be type 'perl rand_text2.pl configure' and the script then rewrites itself. Updating #! lines etc, possibly even asking configuration questions which get written to config files. Matt Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
RE: Matt's Scripts
At 16:55 13/03/01 -, you wrote: Could we write some sort of internal installer process so the instruction to the user would be type 'perl rand_text2.pl configure' and the script then rewrites itself. Updating #! lines etc, possibly even asking No, most people using these scripts don't have command line access to the servers that they need to install the scripts on. We'd have to do something like: go to http://www.yoursite.com/cgi-bin/randtext2.pl?mode=configure and then have configure itself online. Good point! The script would already have to have the correct shebang in order for this to work. Also, we can't necessarily assume that the script would have write access to the disk (or itself) when it is run through the web server. Matt
RE: Matt's Scripts
At 05:03 PM 13.3.2001 +, you wrote: No, most people using these scripts don't have command line access to the servers that they need to install the scripts on. We'd have to do something like: go to http://www.yoursite.com/cgi-bin/randtext2.pl?mode=configure and then have configure itself online. Good point! The script would already have to have the correct shebang in order for this to work. Also, we can't necessarily assume that the script would have write access to the disk (or itself) when it is run through the web server. What about using some kind of binary wrapper (or shell? Not sure which would be easier...) that finds out where perl is installed, sets the shebang line accordingly, and then turns over control to the script itself. I realize this would be kind of a pain, but it gets at least part of the way around some of the problems here. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] webmaster Skillcheck
Re: Matt's Scripts
*need* to configure #!. #!/bin/sh *ducks*
