Clearly I am insane



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    who apparently doesn't even know that much about Linux
    Especially since he totally missed the howler about using vim to configure machines. No one does that any more unless they really really want to (or they use Slackware, which amounts to the same thing).
     

    A minimal install of CentOS only includes vi (which I assume is similar to vim somehow) and because of that I'm forced to use it until I can get the network configuration done and download nano. Our Linux servers at work run on CentOS 6 and I always start from a minimal install.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    who apparently doesn't even know that much about Linux
    Especially since he totally missed the howler about using vim to configure machines. No one does that any more unless they really really want to (or they use Slackware, which amounts to the same thing).

    This is true; you also can choose to configure from several buggy, clunky GUIs. I gravitate towards vim because at least it works reliably, which is more than can be said about any other Linux GUI config tool.



  • Let us not forget Mac OS and its "Bundles and Packages," where the OS pretends it's a file but it's really a directory (which may have a different name) and a bunch of files.

    And anyway, thy're just junctions with some funny permissions. Try this: create a folder, add permission "List folder contents/DENY" to "Everyone." You can no longer see what's in it, but you can copy and save to it and read anything you already know the name of.



  • @Bulb said:

    Than it seems they tried to use symlinks, the new form they added in Vista, but somehow screwed it up and they don't work.

    They work just fine - you can't go to C:\Documents and Settings, but you can go to C:\Documents and Settings<username>. This was made to prevent old backup programs from backing up every file twice, and to prevent programs that enumerate the complete drive from going in infinite loop (C:\ProgramData\Application Data points back to C:\Program Data - try going to C:\ProgramData\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Microsoft).
    @pkmnfrk said:

    Those are called Hard Links.

    Nope, they're junctions. You can only hardlink files (although junctions [which have been available since Windows 2000] do act kind of like directory hardlinks).
    @LegacyCrono said:

    Really, 0.01%? Where did you get that number? Are you american?

    Don't you know that 95% of statistics are made up on the spot? (for the record, no, I'm not American, and I don't use English Windows - but I don't switch languages either, and I sincerely doubt that most users do, simply because Microsoft doesn't allow you to switch languages on the most common editions of Windows).
    @lpope187 said:

    No, these apps are shitty because the location of Special Directories (SystemRoot, ProgramFiles, Desktop, StartMenu, Documents, etc) have been specified in the registry since at least Win2k

    No, they haven't, and if you're reading them from some undocumented registry key (which just happens to contain a hint that you really shouldn't be doing that), you're just as broken as the programs that hardcode the names. Use the shell folder functions - that's the only correct way since Windows 95 shipped.
    @pnieuwkamp said:

    The 'fix' however, makes it appear like there is a 'Documents and Settings' and then errors out as you can't do anything with it.

    The localized folders behave somewhat strangely - some parts of the UI let you use them (eg. the address bar in Explorer works with both on-disk and localized name), and others don't - and there's no real indication when it works or not (eg. in common dialog boxes, typing C:\Programske datoteke (localized C:\Program Files, in case it's not obvious) won't autocomplete, but the moment I add a backslash, it'll start autocompleting - but then it'll complain that the file or folder doesn't exist.



  • @Bulb said:

    @ASheridan said:
    Just be lucky it wasn't on Windows. Since Vista, they've added pseudo directories which only exist within Explorer (which means explorer driven file dialogues too) that don't actually exist, so any software that attempts to access it will fail. The My Documents directory is a prime example, if you try accessing it via the command prompt, it's actually a directory called Documents. I'm not sure why they've done this, but it was confusing at first to diagnose when I was having issues because of it.

    In Vista, they renamed the directories to saner names (My Documents to Documents, Documents And Settings to Users etc.). Than it seems they tried to use symlinks, the new form they added in Vista, but somehow screwed it up and they don't work. In fact for me they work the other way. In cygwin, ls /cygdrive/c/Documents\ And\ Settings will list the c:\Users directory just fine, but in explorer when I click the Documents And Settings, it pops up a dialog saying C:\Documents And Settings is not accessible. Access Denied.

    TRWTF: The symlinks in question work just fine (and appear as perfectly ordinary symlinks) if you mount the Windows drive in question from within Linux.



  • @pauly said:

    Shit man, just turn off hidden files.
     

    They're not hidden files, have you been following the conversation at all?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I have no idea whatsoever how what you just typed related to what you quoted from me.

     You first say that the problem is with the software, and the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows. As it's the same problem we're talking about, these things are mutually exclusive. Maybe I misunderstood you? Maybe you just mentioned about the user saying Windows was the problem because you just wanted to throw in something completely unrelated in an attempt to throw the conversation in a different direction. If that was the intention, then congratulations.@blakeyrat said:

    Textbook example of selective quoting. Congratulations. Now read that sentence and the following one.

     I did, and still stand by what I said.@blakeyrat said:

    And... we're down to the level of complaining about typos. Thanks for once again raising the level of discourse.

    Hey, I'm just taking a leaf out of your book. In-fact, one of the first times you ranted at me was to pick up on a typo because I'd missed a space out between a word. Why so surprised now?

     

     

     



  • @ASheridan said:

    the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows.
     

    It does not.



  • @dhromed said:

    @ASheridan said:
    the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows.
    It does not.

    Do we have one of those handy forum "laws" that states that its impossible to debate with someone who can't read? I think we need one.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:
    @ASheridan said:
    the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows.
    It does not.

    Do we have one of those handy forum "laws" that states that its impossible to debate with someone who can't read? I think we need one.

     

    All of this is detracting from my original point anyway, which you had a failure to read and recognise, so way to go there.



  • @ASheridan said:

    All of this is detracting from my original point anyway, which you had a failure to read and recognise, so way to go there.

    You've demonstrated you can't read. Why would I assume you could write?

    Your point could be anything, completely unassociated with the words appearing on the screen.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Maybe I misunderstood you?

    Yes.

     



  •  Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!



  • @ASheridan said:

    You first say that the problem is with the software, and the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows. As it's the same problem we're talking about, these things are mutually exclusive. Maybe I misunderstood you? Maybe you just mentioned about the user saying Windows was the problem because you just wanted to throw in something completely unrelated in an attempt to throw the conversation in a different direction. If that was the intention, then congratulations.

    I probably ought to go stab myself for actually siding with Blakey on this, but I have to side with him.

    You swung hard and got close, but you whiffed it.  You said "the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows."  What he's saying is that the user won't know that his/her/its favorite piece of software was written incorrectly in the first place, not using the built-in facilities of Windows for getting version-specific information.  The user then upgrades from XP, where the software works just fine, to Vista, where the same software package bombs.  He's saying the user is going to blame the Vista upgrade for breaking the application, even though the application wasn't written correctly in the first place.  That is, indeed, a software fail on the part of the application writer, and it is consistent with Blakey's original statement that the software was written shittily in the first place.

    Damn.  I'm going to need to find me a trauma center.  Shit.



  • @dhromed said:

    Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!

    If there's alcohol, I'll have a Candian Club and lemonade please.



  • @dhromed said:

     Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!

    You. Next riddle!



  • @Spectre said:

    @dhromed said:

     Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!

    You. Next riddle!

     

    CORRECT

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Spectre said:
    @dhromed said:

    Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!


    You. Next riddle!

    CORRECT

    I used to believe in the goodness of mankind, but now I know she's not a woman because she has an Adam's apple.



  • @mott555 said:

    A minimal install of CentOS only includes vi (which I assume is similar to vim somehow)

    You assume correct - vim (improved vi[1]) is what you get when typing in "vi" in a Linux distro. It's only beardy old Unixes that still use vi.

    @mott555 said:

    and because of that I'm forced to use it until I can get the network configuration done and download nano. Our Linux servers at work run on CentOS 6 and I always start from a minimal install.

    Thought of installing them via kickstart and adding nano into the minimal install image?



  • @Cassidy said:

    @mott555 said:
    and because of that I'm forced to use it until I can get the network configuration done and download nano. Our Linux servers at work run on CentOS 6 and I always start from a minimal install.
    Thought of installing them via kickstart and adding nano into the minimal install image?

    Somehow I expect that will take much longer than the three minutes it takes to edit the network script and assign IP and network information and then type "yum install nano". If I don't already know how to do something in Linux, then it always takes 50 - 100 times longer than expected to figure out how to get it working and then document it so I have a reliable guide next time I need to do it.



  • @mott555 said:

    Somehow I expect that will take much longer than the three minutes it takes to edit the network script and assign IP and network information and then type "yum install nano".

    It will. However, if you build servers on a fairly frequent basis, using Kickstart to do unattended installs can automate the installation and finish up that last bit for you.[1]

    @mott555 said:

    If I don't already know how to do something in Linux, then it always takes 50 - 100 times longer than expected to figure out how to get it working and then document it so I have a reliable guide next time I need to do it.

    Some would call that a sensible investment of time - but again, it depends upon how often you're called on to do it. YMMV and all that.

    [1] I believe modern installs actually use kickstart anyway, just that they fall back to the vendor-supplied config if no custom one is provided.



  • @mott555 said:

    "yum install nano"

    People still use RH-derived distros? :(



  •  CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.



  • @Cassidy said:

     CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.

    Ubuntu tends to be what I see the most of. If anyone uses CentOS it's only reluctantly and they complain the entire time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:

     CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.

    Ubuntu tends to be what I see the most of. If anyone uses CentOS it's only reluctantly and they complain the entire time.

    RHEL is pretty popular in the enterprise area. Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too. That's what the Raspberry Pi guys selected as their default. I try to stick with Debian or its derivatives, personally, though.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too.

    Huh, I didn't know people used Fedora for server systems, I thought it was just used as a desktop.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:

     CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.

    Ubuntu tends to be what I see the most of. If anyone uses CentOS it's only reluctantly and they complain the entire time.

    In the UK, Ubuntu & Mint is what I see mostly on desktops and netbooks.

    However, the majority of people I teach are supporting Fedora/CentOS/RHEL/SLinux systems. Complain they may, but not to me.

    Then again, it's probably because they haven't used any better/different. And I'm not in earshot when they complain.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too.

    Huh, I didn't know people used Fedora for server systems, I thought it was just used as a desktop.

    Eh...I think you're right. I lost the thread a bit as the original quotes fell off. The RHEL point stands, though. Actually, it might have been your Ubuntu comment. Are there really very many people using Ubuntu for servers?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too.

    Huh, I didn't know people used Fedora for server systems, I thought it was just used as a desktop.

    Eh...I think you're right. I lost the thread a bit as the original quotes fell off. The RHEL point stands, though. Actually, it might have been your Ubuntu comment. Are there really very many people using Ubuntu for servers?

    Yes, it's become all-the-rage in the last 4 years. For new servers, that's 99% of what I see. Also, it was sorta the default EC2 distro for a long time. Basically, it's Debian with commercial support..


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.