🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD
-
Don't some of the userscripts here use DCVCS?@monarch
Yes,it is also agile, DCVCS enforce 1 week release cycle.
It uses a special file format know as: DisContent
-
-
[spoiler][/spoiler]
-
-
It may just be me, but I'm sure a story like that comes up every year
-
Probably. Doesn't reduce the factor.
-
-
-
Without actually reading the story, is there a reason 'high-fiving' is in quotes like that? Is is a sexual euphemism?
-
Is there a reason 'belly bounced' is in quotes like that? (Another sexual euphemism?)
-
Without actually reading the story, is there a reason 'high-fiving' is in quotes like that? Is is a sexual euphemism?
No. My guess is the BBC put it in quotes because they think it's jargon, or slang, or something. Likewise "belly bounced."
-
And yet, they didn't put "fertilizer" in quotes.
He also claimed fertiliser was thrown at him after the fall.
I'm pretty sure *that* was an euphemism.
-
BBC put it in quotes because they think it's jargon, or slang, or something.
What he said.
-
The BBC love putting 'random words' in quotes
-
Yeah, like the "Jimmy Savile" "sexual abuse" "scandal"
-
"I" was more amused at "figuring out" what a lollipop "man is."
-
You "can" do "a" lot "with" scare "quotes", although "it" can "really" mess "up" the "meaning" of "what" is "written" ;)
-
So, what you're saying is, scare quotes are TRBI?
-
-
"I" was more amused at "figuring out" what a lollipop "man is."
<serious>Do you guys not have lollipop men and lollipop ladies over in the states?</serious>
Filed under: I've got a lollipop for the ladies, right here!
-
-
Do you guys not have lollipop men and lollipop ladies over in the states?
We have "crossing guards" who perform the same function, but they do not have lollipop-shaped signs (at least not in any area I'm familiar with, but that's very much a local thing, so could vary widely). Therefore, there is no reason for them to have such a silly name.
-
Do you guys not have lollipop men and lollipop ladies over in the states?
I usually call them cashiers, I think.
-
-
-
-
BAD IDEA: Nest an SSH session in an SSH session in an SSH session to get through multiple NATs
user@pc > ssh user@server1 user@server1 > ssh user@server2 user@server2 >
Filed Under: Still better than forticlient
-
i've had to do this before:
user@pc$ ssh user@server1 user@server1$ ssh user@server2 user@server2$ ssh user@server3 user@server3$ ssh user@server4 user@server4$ ssh user@server5 user@server5$ scp -r folder/ user@pc
-
Yo dawg, I herd u liek SSH sessions...
-
i've had to do this before:
user@pc$ ssh user@server1 user@server1$ ssh user@server2 user@server2$ ssh user@server3 user@server3$ ssh user@server4 user@server4$ ssh user@server5 user@server5$ scp -r folder/ user@pc</blockquote>
Owch. How does the scp get back to the original computer though?
-
I mean, she did provide the hostname on the machine. Assuming it's on the same network it should be able to find it.
-
I mean, she did provide the hostname on the machine. Assuming it's on the same network it should be able to find it.
Then why are we nesting SSH sessions?
-
Surely user@server5 may be an authorized user on pc without user@pc being authorized on server5?
-
the original host can be routed from the bottom machine, but not the other way around?
-
This
-
Owch. How does the scp get back to the original computer though?
PC was behind a NAT firewall with a port forward, Server5 wasn't but there was a chain of port forwards i could use to get to it.
i didn't need that machine remotely for much but when i did i tended to chain to it and then open an SSH tunnel in a screen session, then disconnect and SSH through the tunnel direct to Server5
-
Oh SSH tunnel. I see. Makes sense now :)
-
Hop/jump boxes aren't that strange a concept, especially if the end point is out in a DMZ or something.
-
Hop/jump boxes aren't that strange a concept, especially if the end point is out in a DMZ or something.
Oh I understand the concept. I just buttumed that @accalia was using an ssh shell not an ssl tunnel
EDIT unless you were responding to my post, in which case I blame Discourse for being ambiguous.
-
I was replying to your earlier post, not @accalia's :)
-
-
Oh I understand the concept. I just buttumed that @accalia was using an ssh shell not an ssl tunnel
well to be fair i was using both. i used several nested ssh shells to get to a box of interest and create the SSH tunnel from there (i know i posted runniung an SCP command. i do that on occasion too when i only need to get/send files)
-
in which case I blame Discourse for being ambiguous.
To be fair to Dischorse (yeah, I know, Doing It Wrong™) you can click the Reply-To indicator
-
@loopback0 Is Doing It Wrong™
-
BAD IDEA: Nest an SSH session in an SSH session in an SSH session to get through multiple NATs
user@pc > ssh user@server1
user@server1 > ssh user@server2
user@server2 >
To get to a certain machine, I have to open a SSH session to host1, do a port forward to host2, open SSH session through port forward to host2 and forward port to host3, then RDP to host3. It's a tunnel within a tunnel within a tunnel.
-
-
-
I… whu?
-
-
Am I the winner for WTF of the day?