Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition
-
@another_sam manual, as opposed to automatic. Where's an etymologist when you need one?
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Where's an etymologist when you need one?
Probably studying cockroaches and scorpions and shit like he's supposed to.
-
-
@LB_ for you, and a fail for not pointing out that scorpions aren't insects.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Alert?
Edit: Well plaid, microburst cooties...
Filed under: Did I do that right?
-
@another_sam I know the words are similar so I assumed one of us misread. I googled to be sure. Not sure how I'm supposed to interpret possible accidental misreading as a joke, but whatever.
-
@another_sam said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Do I need to point out that "man" is short for "manual", a common name for documentation accompanying products including software?
Pretty much exclusively when I think of a "manual" accompanying software, I think of physical paper. The electronic stuff is either "help", "documentation", or "readme".
-
@anotherusername said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Pretty much exclusively when I think of a "manual" accompanying software, I think of physical paper.
I'm guessing when the man tool was created, computers and software still came with paper manuals.
-
@anonymous234 said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
A CLI can be pretty usable, if it has consistent syntax, consistent and descriptive command names, and various discoverability mechanisms.
Like any other language, it can also be more than adequately usable without those things. English, for example, doesn't have any of them and yet it's usable enough to have become the international glue language.
Usability and ease of learning are not the same thing.
Then again, anybody who doesn't think ps is long overdue for a cleanout with a wire brush and Dettol is just plain wrong.
-
@flabdablet said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Then again, anybody who doesn't think ps is long overdue for a cleanout with a wire brush and Dettol is just plain wrong.
I can't think what you mean....
-bash-4.1$ ps --help ********* simple selection ********* ********* selection by list ********* -A all processes -C by command name -N negate selection -G by real group ID (supports names) -a all w/ tty except session leaders -U by real user ID (supports names) -d all except session leaders -g by session OR by effective group name -e all processes -p by process ID -q by process ID (unsorted & quick) T all processes on this terminal -s processes in the sessions given a all w/ tty, including other users -t by tty g OBSOLETE -- DO NOT USE -u by effective user ID (supports names) r only running processes U processes for specified users x processes w/o controlling ttys t by tty *********** output format ********** *********** long options *********** -o,o user-defined -f full --Group --User --pid --cols --ppid -j,j job control s signal --group --user --sid --rows --info -O,O preloaded -o v virtual memory --cumulative --format --deselect -l,l long u user-oriented --sort --tty --forest --version -F extra full X registers --heading --no-heading --context --quick-pid ********* misc options ********* -V,V show version L list format codes f ASCII art forest -m,m,-L,-T,H threads S children in sum -y change -l format -M,Z security data c true command name -c scheduling class -w,w wide output n numeric WCHAN,UID -H process hierarchy
OTOH, not sure what Ubuntu are up to here..
pjh@pjh-thinkpad:~/src/tdwtf$ ps --help Usage: ps [options] Try 'ps --help <simple|list|output|threads|misc|all>' or 'ps --help <s|l|o|t|m|a>' for additional help text. For more details see ps(1).
Ah...
pjh@pjh-thinkpad:~/src/tdwtf$ man 1 ps | wc -l 845
-
And no, the irony - in this discussion - of using
wc
toc
something other thanw
wasn't lost on me.
-
@anonymous234 said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
I'm guessing when the man tool was created, computers and software still came with paper manuals.
Yes, exactly. I've never heard anyone outside the *nix community refer to non-paper documentation as a "manual".
-
@anonymous234 said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@anotherusername said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Pretty much exclusively when I think of a "manual" accompanying software, I think of physical paper.
I'm guessing when the man tool was created, computers and software still came with paper manuals.
Yes, and the readme/help/documentation files generally weren't called "manuals" even then.
-
@masonwheeler said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Yes, exactly. I've never heard anyone outside the *nix community refer to non-paper documentation as a "manual".
-
TIL "RTFM"'s long form is lunix only.
-
-
@anonymous234 said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
if you look at shell scripts you'll see why string substitution is not a good way to process variables.
PowerShell actually has proper data type support.
But then you'd have to use PowerShell.
-
@another_sam yes but people whose immediate reaction to ‘man’ is manpages have irreversible brain damage and cannot be saved
They're like people who use emacs
-
@bb36e said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
They're like people who use emacs
not at all, there is us vim users too
-
@fbmac really anyone who willingly uses a computer must have at least some masochistic tendencies
-
@bb36e I use a computer but swear continuously about how much every single piece of software in it sucks. Does that count?
-
@anonymous234 said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@bb36e I use a computer but swear continuously about how much every single piece of software in it sucks. Does that count?
-
@coderpatsy said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
TIL "RTFM"'s long form is lunix only.
That actually hailed from the era of manuals being actual physical books. Not really like we're going to change a well-established acronym just because we don't call the e-docs "manuals" anymore.
-
@another_sam said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Useless advice
A message box is a particular type of dialog box; it has one to three buttons that can be chosen from a predefined list (e.g., yes/no, ok/cancel), an optional icon, a caption, and text.
-
@FrostCat Who made you the ultimate authority on the maximum number of buttons in a message box? Unless this is a limitation imposed by Microsoft, in which case, .
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Who made you the ultimate authority on the maximum number of buttons in a message box?
Microsoft did.
-
@anotherusername said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@another_sam said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Do I need to point out that "man" is short for "manual", a common name for documentation accompanying products including software?
Pretty much exclusively when I think of a "manual" accompanying software, I think of physical paper. The electronic stuff is either "help", "documentation", or "readme".
Wow, cool story, bro.
I mean, guys, arguing about the quality of "man" being a command name for manual/documentation is fucking atrocious.
Next in: how excel is a bad word for a spreadsheet app.
-
@masonwheeler said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@anonymous234 said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
I'm guessing when the man tool was created, computers and software still came with paper manuals.
Yes, exactly. I've never heard anyone outside the *nix community refer to non-paper documentation as a "manual".
Hey, that's cool. It proves that Linux users are morons. Here I was thinking we've established this long ago, but hey! it's always great to say it from time to time, just to make sure we don't forget it.
-
@bb36e said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@another_sam yes but people whose immediate reaction to ‘man’ is manpages have irreversible brain damage and cannot be saved
They're like people who use emacs
-
[Window Title] This Is A Message Box [Main Instruction] Dear @FrostCat [Content] How many do you count? [OK] [Yes] [No] [Retry] [Cancel] [Close]
Still, this is a really stupid restriction to only allow preset buttons and then only provide six possible buttons. I feel like I must be missing some part of the Windows API that allows for arbitrary buttons with custom text. (Obviously you could create your own dialog from scratch, but that's dumb).
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
Still, this is a really stupid restriction to only allow preset buttons and then only provide six possible buttons. I feel like I must be missing some part of the Windows API that allows for arbitrary buttons with custom text. (Obviously you could create your own dialog from scratch, but that's dumb).
Yeah... it's called "get the window ID, find the button controls, and change the button text".
-
@anotherusername I'd seen that already. Still only six buttons, and rather hackish.
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
How many do you count?
The page I linked doesn't show a 6-button option, so you must be engaging in some kind of undefined behavior.
-
@FrostCat I used the TaskDialog function that was linked earlier in this thread. The discussion was about how you can tell what dialogs support Ctrl+C, and it seems both MessageBox and TaskDialog do despite looking different and having different button options.
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
I used the TaskDialog function that was linked earlier in this thread.
I bet you TaskDialog uses a different window class from a MessageBox, i.e., that they're not the same thing.
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
I'd seen that already. Still only six buttons, and rather hackish.
No kidding. But, you asked. :P
-
@anotherusername I specifically asked for arbitrary number of buttons :p
@FrostCat the point is Ctrl+C works, leading back to the question "how can you tell?"
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@anotherusername I specifically asked for arbitrary number of buttons
You can do pretty much anything you want with the window, once you have its handle. I assume you could add more buttons, although I dunno how you'd set up the events to handle the clicks on them.
-
@anotherusername said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
I dunno how you'd set up the events to handle the clicks on them.
Subclass the window procedure.
-
@LB_ said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
the point is Ctrl+C works
Actually, the question was "what's a message box".
-
@FrostCat There was no original question: https://what.thedailywtf.com/post/913585
-
@FrostCat said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
@anotherusername said in Arbitrary code execution: Package Manager edition:
I dunno how you'd set up the events to handle the clicks on them.
But of course. It's so simple; why didn't I think of that?