Re: The List
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:12:01PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:23:38AM +0000, Michael Stevens wrote: > > I seem to recall a certain proposal that a mailing list manager be > > written in postscript, and run on a suitable net connected printer. > I seem to recall I was drunk at the time. That's no excuse.
Re: The List
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > David Cantrell wrote: > [about majordomo] > > Mutter mutter fscking substandard perl software. We probably > > *could* do a better job in Postscript. > "Perl 4" ne "Perl". "Perl 4" eq "rotten, flea-bitten camel carcass". "Perl > 5" eq "Perl". > Or something like that. ezmlm is quite nice...
Re: The List
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:48:40PM +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > I'm still looking for time to start > POE::Component::Mail POE::Component::Client::SMTP and POE::Component::Server::SMTP, surely? Do these right, and most importantly non blocking, and you'd have the world's finest spamming engine. We've already got asynch dns lookups... Michael
Re: The List
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 05:18:53PM -0500, David H. Adler wrote: > > That's no excuse. > For proposing it or not implementing it? For not implementing it.
Re: Perl Geek Code
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 04:00:35PM +, Mark Fowler wrote: > PLPM++I answer questions (correctly) on #london.pm But aren't most of the questions on #london.pm of the form "shall we go down the pub then?", to which there is a simple answer that's almost always correct... > PLPM+ I occasionally visit #london.pm I like the idea that we're an actual place. Maybe a good bar or curryhouse.
Re: Perl Geek Code
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 06:28:29PM +, David Hodgkinson wrote: > Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I like the idea that we're an actual place. Maybe a good bar or curryhouse. > That wouldn't be Penderel's Oak then... > We're meeting on Thursday, right? If we aren't I'm going to be getting pretty lonely drinking on my own...
Re: Perl Geek Code
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:52:56PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > >I'll join you. Leo said he was coming too. > I may even make it this time. I think we *are* having a proper meeting, anyway. Looking forward to recover from spending christmas at home... Michael
Re: irc again
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:49:58AM +, Aaron Trevena wrote: > erm.. whats the irc channel for london.pm again. > I spose I'll have to download bitchx as well now. irc.rhizomatic.net #london.pm Michael
Re: irc again
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:56:38PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Michael Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:49:58AM +, Aaron Trevena wrote: > > > erm.. whats the irc channel for london.pm again. > > > I spose I'll have to download bitchx as well now. > > irc.rhizomatic.net #london.pm > london.rhizomatic.net I prefer irc. YMMV.
Re: Books
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:59:05PM +, David Hodgkinson wrote: > > er, what's wrong with foyles if it's not a silly question? > > Insane filing system > > Legendarily unhelpful staff > > It smells funny I spent several minutes once trying to teach one of the staff in their computing section how to spell the word 'silicon'. So he could put it into their computer and find the book I wanted, for which I knew both title and author. Michael
Re: Books
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:10:24PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > That was Sili of you On the plus side, They Have Lots Of Books, which makes up for almost all their faults.
Re: FOOD
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:36:39PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Are we in PO this evening? I need a drink badly. Yes.
blibble
You know you're drunk when, faced with the problem of getting through an underground ticket gate, you get out your house keys and start fiddling with them looking for the right one. Michael
neck
I can't remember who I was talking to about this, but perl-necklace.com seems to be available, although most of the other variants are taken. Michael
Re: one liner
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:12:37PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > Ok, we are not (void) but we are pretty close so here is a one liner that > hopefully will provote discussion > the only thing that gives potential for the marketing of a language is the > projects that are achieved using it and java has a hell of a lot more cool > projects than perl > What are these mysterious cool java projects that no-one's been telling me about? > > /me is thinking of a new london.pm project called ``ignore the perl 6 body > and parallel to it lets create our own perl propoganda/marketting/best > practice/for the good fo the language movement'' I think the best thing people can do for the language is create good things and modules and whatever using it.
Re: one liner
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:46:04PM -, Dean S Wilson wrote: > Does anyone think that compilation is an issue with perls lack of user > space apps? Discuss[1]. As a vague point I was looking for a good jabber client. Tried jarl, which is perl, and gabber, which is C. jarl is perl/Tk, I think. gabber is a GNOME thing. Switched to gabber because it feels MUCH FASTER on my machine, to the point where I won't go mad using it. And this is a PIII 500. Michael
Re: one liner
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:58:33PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Beyond that, we have a mod_perl book by Stas and Eric coming along. > It's going to be enormous. I'm in awe of the amount of writing > they've done on it. Stas and Eric are pretty well known by their > writing (look for Stas's mod_perl columns in apacheweek), talks, and > tutorials. They know their stuff. I have to say "where do I sign" on this one. I would really like to purchase this book :) (Writing apache modules with perl and C is excellent, another at or above that level would be superb) Michael
Re: one liner
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:43:06AM +, Mark Fowler wrote: > I printed out the mod_perl guide and it killed a tree. It took me an > afternoon to get it all printed out correctly (mostly because I was doing > it double sided, was to thick to work which way up the pages should go in > the printer, and it was just post-xmas) and bound. > > It's about 12cm (That's like, 3inches ish) thick, including bindings. > > No I leave it up to you to decide just how much I would have paid for > something to be produced for me and with just a few clicks of the mouse a > purchase to be made and it to arrive on my desks a few days later... I'm sure there are reasonable number of online manuals we'd all like printed copies of. Maybe we should see about costs for getting some of them printed fairly nicely and bound. Michael
Re: Forthcoming Meetings - Summary
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:01:29PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > I'll submit to the popular vote of course, though a central London pub would > > be easier if we have to change. Why don't people like the PO? > have we ever tried reservin tables in PO? My only objection to PO is the packed thing. Oh and the fact they occasionally try to throw us out when we break all their rules. Michael
Re: Forthcoming Meetings - Summary
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:01:52PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:36:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >Lets face it, we do break their rules in somewhat of a spectacular > > >manner... > > > > Did I miss something? When did they ever try to throw london.pm out? > > I'm not sure that they have tried to throw us out, but I think we have > been 'frowned on' rather heavily in the past... and we certainly have been > brushed aside as drunkards and fools (take the TVR jugs with you -- just > go away...) I exaggerate slightly, but I think we've got to the "if I have to say this again you're out" stage at least once. Michael
Re: one liner
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:25:54AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Michael Stevens writes: > > I'm sure there are reasonable number of online manuals we'd all like > > printed copies of. > Yeah, but if O'Reilly were to print them, you'd complain that the > book was nothing more than the online manual :-) Yes, but that's because you have such a good reputation for delivering *more* than the online manual! Michael
Re: one liner
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:24:59PM +, Shevek wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote: > > > I'm sure there are reasonable number of online manuals we'd all like > > printed copies of. > > > > Maybe we should see about costs for getting some of them printed fairly > > nicely and bound. > > I think the uni offers such a service here. What about us poor, benighted souls who aren't at a uni? :)
Re: the list is dead, long live the list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:32:46PM +, Leon Brocard wrote: > Jo Walsh sent the following bits through the ether: > > lets kill off the old list before the two get too far out of sync > Nah, mailman on penderel - you know you want to! ;-) Yeah, we want our own mailing list server. And a pony.
Re: the list is dead, long live the list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:11:45PM +, Peter Corlett wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > >> Nah, mailman on penderel - you know you want to! ;-) > > Yeah, we want our own mailing list server. > Mmph, it's not that hard to install Majordomo is it? If need be, just give > me the root password and I'll go and set it up... Yes, but majordomo is unpleasant.
Re: the list is dead, long live the list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:16:19PM +, Jo Walsh wrote: > i would sooner install qmail/ezmlm than mailman > would ppl object? I'd rather see exim/mailman but qmail is cool too. The most important bit is to get *something* working :) Michael
Re: the list is dead, long live the list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:20:33PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > (Supposedly Mjd 2 is going to be better, RSN.) IIRC the postgresql mailing list are actually using it, or were. Don't think that it is done yet, tho. > Smartlist is good. Mailman is good. ezmlm and qmail actually seem pretty nice, apart from the usual bernstein factor. Michael
Re: the list is dead, long live the list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:27:50PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > /me has a bone to pick with majordomo. > majordomo + virtual domains = a whole world of hurt It's doable, you'll just wish you hadn't. Michael
Re: the list is dead, long live the list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:51:15PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > Good thing: the error messages were short enough to fit into an SMS > Bad thing: they contained no useful information whatsoever > I Will Not Give In. I Will Not Install Python. I actually kinda like python, from the little I've played with it. Michael
Re: Mailman in Perl (Re: the list is dead, long live the list)
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 02:53:57PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > > Surely, then, rpm should have the ability to install and fetch > > dependencies from the network automagically? > Yes it should. It doesn't. Which is why Helix's installer is so much > easier to use. Or, more sensibly, debian. apt-get install foo already knows how to fetch foo from the network and install, grabbing any required dependencies. I even hear you can use it with rpms these days. Michael
Re: Mailman in Perl (Re: the list is dead, long live the list)
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:26:28PM -0500, Mark Rogaski wrote: > It's also sheer idiocy to pipe arbitrary code from an untrusted, unverified > source directly to the shell. How is it less secure than downloading a tar file and typing ./configure? Admittedly you *could* check several meg of source for trojans, but I don't believe you *do*. Michael
Re: Feelers for London Open Source Convention
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 03:28:40PM +, Neil Ford wrote: > Then there's the Psion 3 being used to detonate a bomb is a movie > who's name I can't remember but it features the same Mr Segal being > killed in the first 10 minutes or so. Executive Decision. Michael
Re: Red Hat worm discovered
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:56:07AM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > Robin Szemeti wrote: > > as a matter of interest what is your fave Linux or *nix install then?? > >From what I've been reading on this list, Debian seems to be argued for > quite a lot, as is FreeBSD (? I think -- one of the BSDs, anyway). I like Debian for general use, and OpenBSD for servers where there's a particular security concern... Michael
Re: [Job] BOFH wanted was: Re: Red Hat worm discovered
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:55:08PM -, dcross - David Cross wrote: > Sounds a tad low to me. I've never contracted as a Perl programmer for less > than £50/hr. Normally I'd estimate at about £500/day. I'd have thought that > if we were selling ourselves as top-notch Perl consultants (Dave H's > "getting it right" idea), then it would be more like double that. When I was working in cardiff the company I was working for would charge clients 500ukp/day for technical development. And this was cardiff. Michael
Re: Consultancy company was [Job] BOFH wanted was: Re: Red Hat worm discovered
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:42:11AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > yes and no. If you need to do an allnighter and its unavoidable (due to a > > client suddenly changing ther mind) then theres no problem doing it .. > > just charge em bigtime! > nope this is where your pimp/MD should of tied up the contract watertight, > so if they change their mind the deadline changes What do you do where this is not the case, other than think about finding a new job? Michael
Re: Consultancy company was [Job] BOFH wanted was: Re: Red Hat worm discovered
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:32:16AM +, Michael Stevens wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:42:11AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > yes and no. If you need to do an allnighter and its unavoidable (due to a > > > client suddenly changing ther mind) then theres no problem doing it .. > > > just charge em bigtime! > > nope this is where your pimp/MD should of tied up the contract watertight, > > so if they change their mind the deadline changes > What do you do where this is not the case, other than think about finding > a new job? Although, thinking about it, I can also note that the "find a new job" approach seems to work... Michael
Re: Hardware Upgrade Fund
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:43PM -, Robert Shiels wrote: > > At Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:34:11 +, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [upgrading penderel] > > > What's the current specs of the machine? (Just out of interest) > > I'm not sure. I don't think I've ever known this. I'm hoping that > > someone woh a) bought it or b) is sitting next to it will be able to > > leap in with this information. > > http://se71.org/myimages/pm/picklist.jpg More disk and RAM sounds like the obvious upgrade... Personally I'd be happier if we had mirrored disks in there. Michael (then again, isn't it always?)
Re: Hardware Upgrade Fund
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:41:57PM +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > > [gem@penderel gem]$ df -h > > FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > /dev/sda6 3.9G 879M 2.8G 24% / > > /dev/sda1 7.6M 2.9M 4.2M 41% /boot > > > OK that'll be another disk or two then - if there are going to be a number > of accounts on the machine then I would suggest /home should be a separate > disk. I would vote for separate /usr /usr/local and /var partitions too.
Re: Hardware Upgrade Fund
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:37:24PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > Personally I'd be happier if we had mirrored disks in there. > I'd go for a backup system before a mirror, myself. That could be good, too... We definately need one of the two. (IMHO) Michael
Re: Oh! Idea for penderel!
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:31:00PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:52:54PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > I'm happy to set this up if anyone is interested (although, frankly, you'd > > be mad to let me anywhere near a root password and a copy of bind) > Heh. djbdns is, despite being a bernsteinism, very good. For values of > 'very good' which are equivalent to 'not bind'. It's smaller, easier to > configure, and more secure. All in all, it's a Jolly Good Thing.
Re: Holy War
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:29:18AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote: > So I'm looking for advice on the best distro to use. Bear in mind that > the existing box will currently become a firewall/proxy box so I'll > do all the paranoid security stuff on there. > Go for it. Give it your best shot. > Let battle commence. Debian. Or, if you want uber-paranoia, OpenBSD. Michael
Re: Oh! Idea for penderel!
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:48:03PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:43:28PM +0000, Michael Stevens wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:31:00PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > > > Heh. djbdns is, despite being a bernsteinism, very good. For values of > > > 'very good' which are equivalent to 'not bind'. It's smaller, easier to > > > configure, and more secure. All in all, it's a Jolly Good Thing. > > > > However, I don't believe it supports some of the more weird DNS entries > you can have like HINFO and LOC records. > > [dcantrel@tim-the-enchanter dcantrel]$ nslookup > > set type=HINFO > > ariadne.barnyard.co.uk > > ariadne.barnyard.co.ukCPU = Amstrad CPC OS = Amsdos / CPCIP > > Yay! Not supporting such silliness may be considered a Bad Thing by some > people. I'm fairly sure it is supported, through an escape that allows you to return any record type. --cut-- :fqdn:n:rdata:ttl:timestamp:lo Generic record for fqdn. tinydns-data creates a record of type n for fqdn showing rdata. n must be an integer between 1 and 65535. The proper format of rdata depends on n. You may use octal \nnn codes to include arbitrary bytes inside rdata. --cut-- (from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-data.html) Michael
Re: Holy War
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:02:01PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:58:41PM +, Richard Clamp typed: > >On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:44:42PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > >> I'd use Debian 'cos I like it. Downside: latest versions of stuff > >> aren't usually available as packages. > >Untrue, if you're following the testing/unstable branch and have sufficient > >bandwidth that is. > Depends on what you mean by "latest". Give it a week or two to get into > unstable, a few more to get into testing - fair enough? > Not what I'd use for CPAN modules, for example. And, of course, there's the obvious downside of following the unstable branch of anything... Michael
Re: Hardware Upgrade Fund
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 11:42:52PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Paul Makepeace ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Building reliability is probably your best aim: does it have a UPS? does it > > have a RAID 1/0 config? Dual PSUs? Tape drive & backup policy? Those things > > are way more important than a faster chip or RAM. > your right of course, however all of those things are more expensive > and in some cases involve disgarding existing equipment > and at the end of the day its a hobby machine that currently is lucky > to have an average CPU usage of 0.1% per hour But when we start using it for the web site and the mailing list and that jobs thing I think jo is working on we're all gonna get really annoyed if it breaks... Michael
Re: Perl/MySQL based forums
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 01:33:09PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Dave Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > No, I'm not going to code a forum package by hand. > go on dave, it cant be that hard Having done it a few times, it *isn't* that hard... Michael
Re: Conultancy discussion (was Re: TPC5)
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:50:39PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Neil Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >potential london clients will be put off dealing with a company not in london > > Seeing as this was about TPC, interesting subject change :-) > apologise for that i've rejoined (void) and once again regard all mailing lists > as one big holistic stream ;-) Ah, they all come back in the end... Michael
Mail::ListDetector - please test
Hi. I have an (as yet unreleased) module called Mail::ListDetector, which takes a Mail::Internet object, and attempts to tell you if the message involved was posted to a mailing list, and if so, attempts to get some details about that list. I need testers - in particular, see if it builds and passes tests for you, and throw lots of messages at the sample script and see if you can get it to be inaccurate for any of them. If you can, please send me the message in question. (if you don't want to give out the content, just headers should do). Currently it should know about majordomo, smartlist, ezmlm, and mailman, although the majordomo and smartlist guessers are a bit experimental. It's at: http://www.etla.org/Mail-ListDetector-0.05.tar.gz Michael
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef -- )
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 08:37:02PM +, Kieran Barry wrote: > TCL is used because its multithreaded. Perl 6 is going to be > multithreaded. It should be able to wipe TCL out. I've never actually understood the appeal of threads. Why do people like them? Michael
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef -- )
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 09:06:52PM +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 08:37:02PM +, Kieran Barry wrote: > > > TCL is used because its multithreaded. Perl 6 is going to be > > > multithreaded. It should be able to wipe TCL out. > > I've never actually understood the appeal of threads. Why do > > people like them? > Thats a trick question right ? Ok, it's trolling a bit, but their main use seems to be where you don't want to bother to do proper nonblocking IO... Michael
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef -- )
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: > Ok, it's trolling a bit, but their main use seems to be where > you don't want to bother to do proper nonblocking IO... They're apparently faster. And make it easier to share data. Michael
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef -- )
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:58:54PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > y* Michael Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: > > > Ok, it's trolling a bit, but their main use seems to be where > > > you don't want to bother to do proper nonblocking IO... > > > > They're apparently faster. And make it easier to share data. > aside from the whole LWP aspect, i think the main appeal is they are > a defined art - unlike the matre'd/minicab controller element of > forked process management Hmm, it just always feels like someone sat down once and said "ok, we have two choices: 1) we could improve proccesses, and IPC, and make them useful and standard and easy for the task we want to do. 2) we could ignore the considerable work we spent implementing processes, and build a new form of thing, and them build all our standards on top of that ". And they picked the second option. > we really want standardisation of technology interfaces in the industry, > and threads go a little towards that - oh and a law that alows be to > go around and shooting people who work in IT and i deep unworthy[1]. I do agree with this part.
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef -- )
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:24:03PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Michael Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > we really want standardisation of technology interfaces in the industry, > > > and threads go a little towards that - oh and a law that alows be to > > > go around and shooting people who work in IT and i deep unworthy[1]. > > I do agree with this part. > the standardisation on the bloody massacre part? Actually both. Michael
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef -- )
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:34:54PM +, Kieran Barry wrote: > The concept of execution threads within a process makes it easy to share > resources like database connections. As I understand it, that's it. The > pre-forked model that Apache uses has a problem because it's tough to > share resources. > > Incidentally, I think this is the reason servlets are used. Servlets are actually pretty nice. They're like mod_perl handlers except they feel... cleaner somehow. IMHO, anyway. Michael
Re: Consultancy company
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:29PM +, Piers Cawley typed: > >And if the Big Cheese does hand down decisions that override the > >Minion then the contract between developer and client should stipulate > >that the client pays for the wasted time. > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific you attempt to be. Michael
Re: Consultancy company
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:26:18AM +, James O'Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he > > > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my > > > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some > > > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to > > > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness > > > > > I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the > > issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific > > you attempt to be. > > > > All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control > process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that > specific job. > > A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what > the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the > project timeline. This will need to be read and physically signed off by > the client before any work is undertaken. a) you need to be able to persuade management this is a good idea b) you need to get someone writing specs who is actually able to be specific. And you need to have some way of dealing with a client who will refuse to pay until you implement something that they say is contained within the spec, and you don't. Despite the fact you're both reading the same spec. >From memories of my last job, both of these can be a problem. Michael
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:52:08PM +, DJ Adams wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:47:03PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: > > So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change > too late ;) > > the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to? > No no! Please no! Why surely the most sensible reply-to is no reply-to at all...
Re: [OT] Putty invocation
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:32:58PM +, DJ Adams wrote: > Hi folks > Am I going mad or is there no way I can start my fav client program > PuTTY and specify a saved 'session' directly with a switch? > (i.e. I can specify a hostname, but I _want_ to specify a session > name - to have my colours / fonts etc) And does anyone know how to get putty to save settings like they key for backspace, etc, rather than my having to set them every time I start it? Michael
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:34PM +, Simon Wistow wrote: > Greg McCarroll wrote: > > reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, > > it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of > > that message, when you reply-all you reply to all > No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the > sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating > *AND* a waste of bandwidth. So you use list-reply like sensible people. Or you actually take the time to pay attention to who you're sending the message to. Aargh. help! i'm being drawn in! Michael
Re: [OT] Putty invocation
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:11PM -, Robert Shiels wrote: > > And does anyone know how to get putty to save settings like they key > > for backspace, etc, rather than my having to set them every time I start > > it? > Do you mean setting the backspace to Control-H in the keyboard tab isn't > working, or are there other esoteric things you want to set? The backspace->ctrl-h. I can set it once in putty, and it works, but if I quit putty and restart, new sessions don't get it. Michael
Re: Conslutancy
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:11:02PM -0600, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la > > The issue of millions-of-CCs needs to be addressed by anyone > putting together a pro-reply-to: sender argument. Using procmail > is *not* the right answer, neither is burdening the user with > constantly editing the outgoing To: & Cc: *every fscking email*. I just use the list reply feature in my MUA. Michael
Re: Stupid Email
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:32:58AM +, Andy Wardley wrote: > There was a moral in this story but I forgot it in the process of > rambling on. Probably something about munging Reply-To, or putting > all middle management up against a wall and shooting them (which ICL > did a short while later). Was this simple yet violent process found to be of benefit to the company? michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:04:33PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:08:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: > >Got it -- something else to stick in the commit checks... grrr... I forgot > >that some people use windows. > If only I could. > Try using CVS when some people insist on editing with Windows... Emacs is available for windows. Now if I can just persuade it to save with unix line ending conventions... Michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 01:18:16PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > And Xemacs. Seems to work fine with both Unix and DOS line endings, but > > I haven't yet worked out how to change them. > its more the people, a lot of them want to drag and drop and > have file menus I propose we drag these people and drop them in those big rubbish bins you see outside offices. michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:36:40PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:31:28PM +0000, Michael Stevens typed: > >I propose we drag these people and drop them in those big rubbish bins > >you see outside offices. > D&D is vaguely useful sometimes. Just not when I'm editing text. I hate to say it, but I'm slowly becoming converted to windows cut & paste. I like being able to highlight a block of text and hit ctrl-v to replace that with the contents of the clipboard. Michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:35:17PM -, Robert Shiels wrote: > Let's be kind to the poor Windows users, encouraging them with the lure of > free powerful software; once they get a taste for it they'll be begging you > to help them get Linux installed as a dual boot on their home machines, then > as they get used to it and driver support gets better they'll find > themselves booting Linux more than Windows, then their conversion away from > the dark side will be complete :-) I think the appropriate attitude is to NOT try to convert people, except possibly in a slightly silly "muh, you must use linux for everything" way that I personally don't take too seriously. We need to just get on with using linux, and other sensible stuff, and IF PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS then we can tell them about it. But we shouldn't try to promote it as what they want, because invariably they start going "aargh, it' doesn't have all the shiny windows features, it must suck, and you said it was good", whereas if they get interested in it themselves, and come to you, you've made no promises so they can't be dissappointed. OTOH, that doesn't help us much with the desirable goal of getting unix used more in the workplace. I dunno. Michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:46:13PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:43:46PM +0000, Michael Stevens typed: > > >We need to just get on with using linux, and other sensible stuff, and > >IF PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS then we can tell them about it. But we shouldn't > >try to promote it as what they want, because invariably they start going > >"aargh, it' doesn't have all the shiny windows features, it must suck, and > >you said it was good", whereas if they get interested in it themselves, > >and come to you, you've made no promises so they can't be dissappointed. > >OTOH, that doesn't help us much with the desirable goal of getting unix > >used more in the workplace. I dunno. > I think it's just like proactive evangelism vs "living a good life" - > when your box hasn't crashed six times today, and it's running a clone > of a production web site faster than the live box, and it's doing all > the monitoring for the company, and... people start to say "ooh, how can > I get some of that". This is a reaction that hitting them over the head > with Debian CDs rarely engenders (though it's fun anyway). I was actually thinking religion here as the analogy... Anyway, we seem to be in furious agreement. Michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 01:31:02PM +, Richard Clamp wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:08:50PM +0000, Michael Stevens wrote: > > Emacs is available for windows. Now if I can just persuade it to save > > with unix line ending conventions... > Having recently done this, the thing you want is > set-buffer-file-coding-system, the default keybinding being 'C-x RET f'. I > can highly recommend undecided-unix. Cool, that seems to work. Now experimenting with (set-default-coding-systems 'undecided-unix) Michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 02:05:27PM -, Robert Shiels wrote: > From: "Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > *nix is not the future. Something else entirely is. > > > Strangely enough, thats exactly what I do at home. With Exceed for doing X > stuff. The one windows application I can't live without is IE. linux box, with a solaris machine for supplying much needed web browsing. I've not tried this yet, though. What box I want depends on the local environment - windows boxes can be easier to run on windows networks, and linux boxes on more unixy or open networks. Michael
Re: word processors
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 05:03:14PM +, Robin Houston wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 04:35:17PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > I wonder if anyone has written a novel in Latex? > That sounds like a challenge to me :-) > You have to set it in Computer Modern as well though. Much as I love Computer Modern for technical work, using it for fiction would just be WRONG WRONG WRONG. Michael
Re: odd -w effect
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:07:38PM -0600, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 01:47:59PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > Jon, who thinks Windows workstation connected to *nix machine running samba > > is the prefered development environment. > Aye aye. Windows UI is much nicer than linux's (right now) and > linux doesn't have a decent browser which is a serious handicap. My mileage varies. Although you're right about the browser. Michael
Re: Dumb-assed question
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 06:02:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dreamweaver (I know, don't ask) nicely escapes the spaces to %20 but when > I try and download these, the %20 appears in the Netscape file save as box > instead of spaces. Dreamweaver is by far the best GUI html development tool I'm aware of. Michael
Re: Dumb-assed question
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:05:49AM +, Struan Donald wrote: > the number of times i've sent stuff to people that works fine, had > them run it through dreamweaver and then complain that it's broken > makes me wonder what the bad gui tools are like. Much much worse. Trust me on this. Michael
Re: Dream weaver
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:09:15AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pretty much !
>
> Having started the web site project here without much knowledge of developing
> websites (having mostly been doing corporate network support before that) I
> allowed the designer to choose the tools. I chose apache/mod_perl for the
> backend because I wanted to learn more about perl & apache. Perhaps not the best
> rationale but hey, it's my project :-)
>
> We now have a site with lots of html files full of dreamweaver tags which are
> very easy to mess up with a text editor so we tend to stick to DW and keep the
> hand editing to a minimum.
>
> Having learned LOTS in the last year, we are planning to rebuild the site to
> separate the templates from the content because content management is becoming a
> pain. Naturally we will be doing this with perl.
>
> So - Dreamweaver is a good gui editor but it generates files which are difficult
> to maintain. It is good for those who are not technically minded but probably
> not the best choice if you have technical skills available.
> We will ditch DW in the new version of the site.
I think there's a lot of potential for manipulating dreamweaver's markup
and file structures from perl. I've been able to write CGI scripts
that do stuff like.
print STDOUT get_library_component('componentname');
and fetch and include stuff from dreamweaver at the appropriate place.
I think there's a lot of potential in this sort of approach but I've not
heard of anyone exploiting it.
Michael
> __
>
>
>This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
>and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
>written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, our company disclaim all
>responsibility and accept no liability (including in negligence) for the
>consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such
>information prior to the receipt by those persons of subsequent written
>confirmation.
>
>If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us
>immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from
>your computer.
>
>Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
>distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly
>prohibited.
>
use Std::Disclaimer::Moan;
my $moan = new Std::Disclaimer::Moan;
$moan->mail('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');
Re: Dream weaver
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:32:46PM -, Matthews Simon wrote: > As someone who's been using templates and perl to do web sites since January > 96 I can see both sides of the argument. We (perl people) are all much > happier with the idea of building pages from bits it appeals to our > laziness. There are however end users to consider. Much as I have tried I > cannot get the marketing droids to use vim and templates. They seem to have > a real problem with this. Our solution to this has been to write some perl > code to convert Word documents (marketers tool of choice) into > Template::Toolkit templates that we use internally. This makes us all happy > :-) I would actually be interested to hear from someone on the Dreamweaver side of this argument... Anyone? Michael
Re: Dream weaver
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:43:47PM -, Mark Kitching wrote: > >>I would actually be interested to hear from someone on the > >>Dreamweaver side of this argument... > >>Anyone? > >>Michael > I'd love to but the last time I spoke about Dreamweaver with Dave Cross > around > it turned into a LOOONG lunchtime. I'm not seeing the flaw yet... Michael
Re: Mailing List Archive
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:20:28PM +, Dave Cross wrote: > >From the discussion on IRC, it seems that Leon's summary mail has opened > a bit of a can of worms. There are a number of people who don't like the > idea of a publically advertised archive of this mailing list. For the record, I don't like the idea.
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:35:45AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: > I suspect things like SMP probably still work better. And if I were > on call supporting a server I would probably still trust a Sparc > running Solaris over some dodgy PC desktop with Redhat stuck on it by > a hobbyist who has never used another UNIX. Can't we compare something vaguely equivalent here instead? I personally would have just as little faith in Solaris run by someone who didn't know what they were doing as I would in Redhat run by someone who didn't know what they were doing. How about a decently built rack mount PC running Debian[1], by someone who actually knows how to setup that particular OS decently, as compared with a Sun box running Solaris setup by someone good with solaris? (And, myself, I'd recommend the PC for some situations, and the Solaris box for others). My main problem with the PC architecture is that you can do a lot by carefully picking a good manufacturer, but it's still fundamentally not as solid and consistent as sun stuff, IMHO. I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience paying vast amounts of money for PC support? did you get much for your money? Michael [1] OS changed on the grounds I feel that Redhat ships something more optimised towards desktop use, whereas I feel Debian and Solaris are both more suited for servers.
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:18:06AM +, Greg Cope wrote: > > How about a decently built rack mount PC running Debian[1], by > > someone who actually knows how to setup that particular OS decently, > > as compared with a Sun box running Solaris setup by someone good > > with solaris? > > > > (And, myself, I'd recommend the PC for some situations, and the Solaris box > > for others). > > > My main problem with the PC architecture is that you can do a lot by carefully > > picking a good manufacturer, but it's still fundamentally not as solid and > > consistent as sun stuff, IMHO. > > > > I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as > > Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience > > paying vast amounts of money for PC support? did you get much for your > > money? > > > > Michael > > > > [1] OS changed on the grounds I feel that Redhat ships something more > > optimised towards desktop use, whereas I feel Debian and Solaris are both > > more suited for servers. > > > Would this still hold for a RedDrat system with all the X stuff and > other unncessary stuff removed ? > > And if not - what else do you you think is different ? > > I've a small shell script that does quite a bit of rpm -e (remove) on X > stuff / other druff that redhat installs by default - it would be nice > if they included a stripped down install class in their default install > - which left you with a basic machine IMHO the main significance here is in the default install. You can fiddle around with anything if you want and make it vaguely sensible as a server. Redhat as default is not very well setup to use as a server on the internet (I feel). Debian I think is a lot better as shipped, as is Solaris, mostly on the grounds they're less prone to installing irrelevant crap[1]. Michael [1] My solaris admin experience is almost completely nonexistent, but I'd drawing on my experience as a user of solaris systems.
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:19:02AM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:07:02AM +0000, Michael Stevens typed: > >I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as > >Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience > >paying vast amounts of money for PC support? did you get much for your > >money? > Dell offer this on some of their servers. IMHO this is always a waste of > money - they don't provide anything that you couldn't do yourself by > having a stock of spare parts and someone competent on call. I don't really like most big name linux stuff, because all they seem to support is Redhat, and while I can completely understand their reasons, I find it almost impossible to make a Redhat system into something that I like. Michael
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:30:03AM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:23:26AM +0000, Michael Stevens typed: > >On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:19:02AM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > >> Dell offer this on some of their servers. IMHO this is always a waste of > >> money - they don't provide anything that you couldn't do yourself by > >> having a stock of spare parts and someone competent on call. > >I don't really like most big name linux stuff, because all they seem to > >support is Redhat, and while I can completely understand their reasons, > >I find it almost impossible to make a Redhat system into something that I > >like. > > Agreed entirely. I was thinking purely of hardware support; software > support IME is always and everywhere a complete waste of time and money. > > And then people wonder why I like open source... I've heard rumours that software support can be useful, but not yet encountered such a thing. Michael
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:30:28AM +, Struan Donald wrote: > on the other hand kickstart files aren't that tricky to write and you > can then set up the box in a sensible way (or something approaching > that) and it's very easy to set up a chunk of boxes the same. > > of course you a box to put the kcikstart stuff on (assuming network > install...) Isn't kickstart a solaris thing, or have redhat developed new stuff I didn't know about? If it is just a solaris thing, I was holding up solaris boxes as being GOOD because they don't come with much stuff installed. For servers, I see this as a desirable feature. One of these days I must play with the FAI (fully automatic installation) stuff for debian. Michael
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:39:17AM +, Struan Donald wrote: > > One of these days I must play with the FAI (fully automatic installation) > > stuff for debian. > kickstart is (i assume) teh redhat equiv of FAI. or at least it is if > FAI is stick floppy in system, create symlink in some magic format i > can't quite remember on kickstart server and reboot box. go and make > beverage of choice, come back to newly installed box. They sound similiar. Google reveals that what I was thinking of was Jumpstart, which is the solaris approach to all this. I think the FAI stuff will work with remote boot roms on the network cards if you want to do that, too. I don't have any info but I think FAI is fairly immature. I just prefer a small system which makes it easy to install what you want rather than a big one where you have to remove stuff. I dunno. Michael
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:16:52PM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
There's very little off-topic on this list :)
> Kickstart is RedHat
>
> http://wwwcache.ja.net/dev/kickstart/KickStart-HOWTO.html
>
> Jumpstart is Solaris
>
> Both are automated install procedures.
Yes. I have learnt.
> > If it is just a solaris thing, I was holding up solaris boxes as being
> > GOOD because they don't come with much stuff installed. For servers,
> > I see this as a desirable feature.
>
> Whatever system I use (linux or solaris) I find they come with far too
> much stuff installed. Solaris is a bad offender as well with Thai X
> Windows fonts and that CDE junk as well. No I don't want power
> management or true-type fonts on a server thank you Mr Joy.
My only install of solaris has been on a 486, but IIRC you get a decent
amount of flexibility over what does, and does not, go in.
> Any system, irrespective of OS or distribution, I tend to totally
> strip down out of all junk. Binary package managers [1] tend to help a
> lot with this (yes RPM can be good especially the -e flag).
>
> This is what the Hells Angels did with their Harleys, strip them
> ("chop") down the bare essentials before starting work.
>
> I then customise them by installing all the real GNU programs (and
> checking all the configuration options before building) you need like
> emacs, rcs, gcc, perl etc (and the DJB stuff) under /usr/local and
> killing that evil inetd program (a nice simple way of securing your
> system).
> If you follow this then you should be able to make a useable UNIX
> system from any system (maybe even SCO if you were that insane).
This is reminding me of our talk of the ROPE thing - drop in packages
that turn any system into something usable for a particular application.
> [1] My main gripe with *BSD is lack of binary package management
It's been a while since I BSD'd much, but I definately remember installing
binary packages for many things on OpenBSD.
Michael
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:40:13AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > *>Oh, agreed entirely. The key thing is that nobody _expects_ a professional > *>support service, so they're less disappointed when it doesn't happen. > I don't think this is true for the great majority of software end-users > out there. They expect documentation and some sort of answer/FAQ whatnot > to their questions and those that don't have the bare minimum will > probably fail in the public arena. Can anyone point to actual studies of the "we took some end users, and found they wanted FOO amounts of documentation". And, for completeness, "we took some end users, looked at what they were actually using, and then looked at how much documentation was available for those products"? Michael
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: > *>I personally would have just as little faith in Solaris run by someone > *>who didn't know what they were doing as I would in Redhat run by > *>someone who didn't know what they were doing. > I would have more faith in Solaris. On an acadmeic network, no firewalls, > we had user workstations that pretty much lived on their own and at the > mercy of their users. One day, one of the AI profs installed RedHat after > most of us had left the computing dept...we heard that someone hacked into > said linux box and sniffed the entire dept. passwords. Were the solaris boxes setup by the same people who setup the redhat boxes tho, or were two different people adminning them? The scenario I'm guessing is: a) solaris workstations setup by sysadmin, left on their own. users don't have root. b) redhat box setup by AI prof, left on own. users don't have root. But that's just my guess from common practice at the university I've attended. If this *is* the case, and the sysadmins have more experience than the AI prof, the two cases aren't comparable, because they don't both not know what they're doing. > perhaps Linux gives people a sense of adventure or something, but Solaris > in the last few years has become quite good at running well in spite of > the chimps at the keyboard. I'm working on the theory that everybody gets root exploits. Therefore, no matter what it is, if you don't patch it for 6 months / a year, it'll be exploitable. We need a decent way to work out the difference between "box A is more hackable than box B", and "box A is more likely to get hacked than box B, due the type of exploits people tend to try". I suspect without detailed evidence skr1pt k1dd1es are more likely to go for redhat. Redhat is perhaps more likely to have security bugs spotted due to (I'm guessing here), more installations in the world. Perhaps not. I certainly have a *perception* more security issues are found in redhat than in most other linux and unix (eg solaris) distributions. And can't we have an discussion about which OS is best without bashing a particular one all time? [1] > *>How about a decently built rack mount PC running Debian[1], by > *>someone who actually knows how to setup that particular OS decently, > *>as compared with a Sun box running Solaris setup by someone good > *>with solaris? > I have a farm of suns, if you want to make a benchmark, I'll be very > interested to run and compare the results. I'm not interested in performance numbers. No. I like. I *am* interested in performance numbers, but not right now. And I'm fairly sure big sun boxes go significantly bigger and better than big pcs. This is one of the advantages of Sun. More interesting would be stuff like "redhat gets x security problems per year, solaris has y problems", "we see x exploit attempts specific to redhat, y specific to solaris", "on this metric of well-adminstered-ness, these sets of sun boxes were found to have these numbers. this other set of redhat boxes were found to have these other numbers". I suspect a number of these issues could be found by someone reading bugtraq more carefully than I do - I remember some of these types of stats being discussed. Michael [1] Ok, yes, most of us suck here when the other OS is windows.
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:59:08AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: > *>Isn't kickstart a solaris thing, or have redhat developed new stuff > *>I didn't know about? > Jumpstart. yes, I found that out, my memory sucks.
Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce platforms
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 06:04:07PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > > Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: I take that post back. I don't think it would be productive to continue the discussion. Michael
Re: LAMP Stuff
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:52:37AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote: > O'Reilly have launched a new site discussing LAMP (Linux, Apache, > MySQL, Perl/Python/PHP) web development. Most of the current content > seems to be links to existing O'Reilly Network content (e.g. perl.com), > but it's a interesting start. And good to see the term being given > credence by someone like O'Reilly. > Dave... > [who is glad he still has the lampmagic domains!] And the url is? Michael (I had a quick look at ora.com but I couldn't see anything obvious)
Re: Passwords
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:30:07PM -, Robert Shiels wrote: > I just wanted to ask a brief question about passwords. > I have access to about 10 SAP systems in my work at the moment, and all of > them require a password, and these passwords all expire after 60 days. This > will happen at random times depending on when I actually try to logon. So I > have the potential of having 10 different passwords. And I get locked out of > the system after 3 bad password tries (as sysadmin I can unlock myself, but > it's a pain, and also as sysadmin, I need to unlock other people all the > time). > My question is, Why is automatic password expiry a good idea? > It's a pain, and encourages bad password management. I'll probably log onto > each system every 60 days and set them all to the same one. Not that I necessarily agree with what this says, it's definately interesting and worth thinking about: Security and Human Factors http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001126.html Michael
Re: Technical Meeting Venues
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:41:38PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > i assume odd beer is a typo and you mean't odd beers, i.e. an odd number > of beers ( i've also decided that 1 is not an odd number ) > seriously, i'm sure everyone would welcome you with open arms We are perl. you will be assimiliated. Michael
Re: Passwords
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:55:08PM -, Robert Shiels wrote: > > Not that I necessarily agree with what this says, it's definately > interesting > > and worth thinking about: > > Security and Human Factors > > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001126.html > Basically a lot of password restrictions sound like a good idea in theory, > but when real people have to cope with them they fail miserably. I always get conflicted on this. On the one hand we fundamentally want systems people can use, otherwise there's no point. But on the other I think there has to be room for at least *some* education, otherwise we'd have people sitting down at a computer having never seen one before, not being able to use one, and us concluding computers being a bad idea and giving up on the whole thing. But the question is, where do we put the middle ground? Michael
Re: .emacs
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:53:00PM +, Mark Fowler wrote: > I like my .emacs file. It sets nice fonts and colours, and sets the > editing mode and wrapping mode of choice ;-) > I'm sure it can do more... > 1) Where do I find handy things to put into my .emacs file on the web? > 2) Got any nice bits of your .emacs file to share? > Note that (shock, horror) I can't program lisp properly (duh, I program > perl) so that I may sound stupid when it comes to these things. I have a massive emacs setup of multi-pleasure that's been mouldering for about two-three years. Maybe I should resurrect it. Michael
Re: Fwd: [mengerin@deja.com: [?] Template Toolkit]
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:31:30PM +, Leon Brocard wrote: > > I got the following email in response to my TT2 article. I know nothing > > about EmbPerl so I can't really answer these points. Does anyone who has > > used EmbPerl have any ammo that I can use in my reply? > Embperl is entirely Apache and web based, which is good for some > things and bad for some things, like having the template wotsit work > orthogonally to everything else. It's definately entirely web based, but I have cron jobs using embperl to generate html email that goes to various people without ever going near apache... Michael
Re: .emacs
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:53:00PM +, Mark Fowler wrote: > I like my .emacs file. It sets nice fonts and colours, and sets the > editing mode and wrapping mode of choice ;-) > > I'm sure it can do more... > > 1) Where do I find handy things to put into my .emacs file on the web? > 2) Got any nice bits of your .emacs file to share? > > Note that (shock, horror) I can't program lisp properly (duh, I program > perl) so that I may sound stupid when it comes to these things. The real trick is trying to write something portable between emacs and xemacs. Anyway... ;; inhibit annoying messages (setq inhibit-startup-echo-area-message t) (setq inhibit-startup-message t) ;; set general defaults (setq tab-width 2) (setq indent-tabs-mode nil) (setq initial-major-mode 'text-mode) (setq default-major-mode 'text-mode) ;; add my libraries to load-path (setq load-path (append (list (expand-file-name "~michaels/etc/emacs")) load-path)) p4.el available from http://www.dsmit.com/p4/ is kinda nice if you're working with perforce. Michael
Re: .emacs
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:53:00PM +, Mark Fowler wrote: > I like my .emacs file. It sets nice fonts and colours, and sets the > editing mode and wrapping mode of choice ;-) > I'm sure it can do more... > 1) Where do I find handy things to put into my .emacs file on the web? > 2) Got any nice bits of your .emacs file to share? > Note that (shock, horror) I can't program lisp properly (duh, I program > perl) so that I may sound stupid when it comes to these things. ;; working for me to get unix line endings on a win32 system (set-default-coding-systems 'undecided-unix) ;; I like auto-fill when I'm editing text. usually (add-hook 'text-mode-hook 'auto-fill-mode) ;; show me the region selected right now (setq transient-mark-mode t) Michael
Re: Meeting Reminder
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:18:24PM +, Leon Brocard wrote: > Simon Wistow sent the following bits through the ether: > > Conveniently close to Cynthia's Cyberbar. > No, please god, no! Can't we just try and forget this excuse for a > bar?[1] But the mirrors! Don't forget the mirrors!
the list
It's oh so quiet. After recent activity this is somewhat disconcerting. Michael
Re: the list
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:04:54PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Michael Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > It's oh so quiet. > > After recent activity this is somewhat disconcerting. > everyone is probably reading up on ruby in preparation for it > taking over the world Surely you mean python? (I kinda like python) Michael
Re: Perl Books
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:24:20AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote: > Here's an interesting page[1] it shows the top 100 best selling Perl > books at Amazon. Obviously I was most interesting in seeing where I url? Michael
Re: irc problems
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:28:37AM +, Neil Ford wrote: > >I can't get onto any of rhizomatic.net. Is anyone else having problems? > >Michael > we're all there fine > in actuall fact as I type this you've just appeared :-) Having now got on I can state the problem was a complete inability to get rhizomatic dns. Michael
irc problems
I can't get onto any of rhizomatic.net. Is anyone else having problems? Michael
