< mari
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
chi >
[ Page 11 of 76 ]
From: Chris Devers Date: 14:31 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: RsyncX RsyncX is a Mac GUI for rsync. Fair enough. It wants to be complete, so it bundles an rsync binary. Fair enough. But come on. Why litter the $PATH like this? $ /usr/local/bin/rsync --version | head -1 rsync version 2.6.0 protocol version 27 The system is already bundled with this: $ /usr/bin/rsync --version | head -1 rsync version 2.6.3 protocol version 28 No wonder half my usual rsync flags haven't been working since a coworker installed RsynxX... :-/ Then again, spite me for not using full paths. Fair enough.
From: Timothy Knox Date: 03:36 on 28 Sep 2007 Subject: Hating fink (fish. barrel. gun.) Fink is a wonderful idea for software. Let's take the debian package installation experience, and adopt it to work on Mac OS X. Nice idea. Really. I mean it. ;-) It's the execution where it leads to hatefulness, weeping & wailing, & gnashing of teeth. So I'm doing one of my periodic "fink selfupdate" runs[1]. So good, so far. I get to "fink update-all". It gives me a list of packages it wants to update. It's a good sized list, 'cause it's been a few months since last I updated. Fine, I can live with that, I'm at the office, and if it wants to run updates all day, more power to it. ;-) It starts fetching, and for some package, it tells me that <mirror-site1> has returned a 404. What would I like to do? Hatefulness number one: 99.9999% of the time, I am going to take the default option, so why not accept that for me after a reasonable timeout period (say, sixty seconds)? I know fink is capable of such a feat, as it does it when I am running "fink selfupdate". The default is generally, "Try another mirror (somewhere)". Good enough. Don't ask me, or at least, don't wait FOREVER for me to respond. Just go ahead. I trust you. REALLY! Hatefulness number two: On a subsequent package, it tries again at <mirror-site1>, and by d*mn, it returns another 404. Any reasonable person would guess that the site is probably down, and GIVE UP ON IT (at least, for this session). Far be it from me to call fink unreasonable, but every five minutes, I've got to pop back in, see that it tried (and failed) to get a package from <mirror-site1>, and tell it to try another site. AGAIN! AND AGAIN! AND FSCKING AGAIN! AAAAAARGH! This is totally asinine. Really, folks, this is the twenty-first century. Software should be smarter than that. Of course, I know what the problem is: The developers test against sites that are always up, so they never run into this particular bit of hatefulness. I've got a nice brick wall I'd like them to run into. Pfui! [1]Bonus hate: It is "fink selfupdate" but "fink update-all". Why can't it (also) accept "fink self-update"? I always forget which of the two options takes the d*mn hyphen and which does not!
From: Aaron J. Grier Date: 19:01 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Exception trying to run FYM on vista a followup from another group. plenty of hate here. On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:22:13PM -0000, camrex_chi wrote: > I think you will find that files in: > C:\Program Files\<FYMroot>\server1\ are not being read as you think. > > Instead it is reading the files located in: > C:\Users\<your username>\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program > Files\<FYMroot>\server1\ > > At least that is what is supposed to happen, unless you have changed > some security setting that changes this. This is supposed to be a > feature of Vista. FYM will still work using this configuration, but > you have to remember that server downloaded files are stored in a > different location...not where you think they are. I have lost some > FYM data in the past because of this, though I thought I had backed it > up, but forgot to backup the "VirtualStore" folder. > > Microsoft actually advises that programs not try to store data in the > "Program Files". The "VirtualStore" is only a short-term measure till > programmers stop storing files there. I'm not exactly sure where they > suggest files are stored. microsoft still doesn't have a concept of a home directory? XP uses C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\ Vista uses C:\Users\<username>\AppData\ is there at least a consistent registry entry that stores this location? I started using unix in the early 90s and "$HOME" and "~" seemed well-established by then. there's still plenty of hate over where underneath a user's home directory files should be written, but there seems to be general consensus that programs get installed system-wide, are users are allowed only a limited sandbox in the filesystem. > The easy solution, as I see it, since FYM is used on Windows 98 to > Vista, that it stay the same, but Vista users should probably not > install in the Program Files directory. I use C:/FYM/. an example of the kind of mess that users resort to for workarounds. it's like the old DOS days. if I have to deal with broken programs that assume they can scribble anywhere on disk, at least let me enable it per-program, and let me specify _exactly_ where it has permissions, and what sort of pathname remapping occurs.
From: Jonathan Katz Date: 14:51 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Fuck you Siebel (2) ------=_Part_1720_17384626.1190901071810 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Dear Siebel, When I run the installer on my Solaris box as "./setupsol -console" I expect that the installer remains in a CLI-mode. This does not mean execute the first half of the install process from the command line and then launch a portion of the X-windows installer. I just happened to have Exceed running on my laptop and X11 tunneling turned on to catch this, otherwise I didn't know why the installer kept crapping out half-way through. Requiring a GUI to do things on a Unix system is a special kind of hate. Also, the installer should not require us to populate values in the configuration files, essentially slowing-down the install process and eliminating any form of automation (as it's the X11 component of the install that requires us to fill in values.) I should be able to independently generate configuration files and copy them in place after the install. After all, the install process is not dependent upon those values.
From: tgies Date: 13:15 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Ruby is pretty advanced, folks Today I found out that certain Ruby environments (I discovered this playing around with XChat's Ruby scripting plugin, as an exercise in determining whether or not this Ruby tripe the kids won't shut up about is any good), when asked to unload a given module/script containing a single static method and then reload a new version of it, may silently fail to unload some submodule of that module (due to a revolutionary new misinterpretation of the "lazy evaluation" paradigm) and then silently not replace it with the new version. This is an interesting system. Let me offer some thoughts on how it might be improved. - What - That's nasty - You're retarded Also, I don't think that my 17-line script to chop up some text and display some trivial statistical information about it should sometimes suck up 1MB of memory idle, but this is arguable and we'll leave that one for another time.
From: Earle Martin Date: 11:04 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X You may have a tarball you wish to open, named, say, Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz. If you double-click it, it expands to a folder called, predictably, Foo-Bar-0.1. However, if you then double-click it again (without removing the first expanded folder), it produces a folder called... Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-Bar-0.3. Yes, Mac OS X has decided to increment the version numbers on your downloaded software. In the old Mac OS, you'd get folders called "Copy of Foo-Bar-0.1" and "Copy 2 of Foo-Bar-0.1", etc. Whoever replaced this behavior with the current braindead one is a goddamn moron.
From: Struan Donald Date: 23:13 on 26 Sep 2007 Subject: symantec firewall I might be a bit old fashioned but I've always thought the point of firewalls was to stop software on other computers connecting to my computer (or network but let's not run just yet). Symantec seems to find this rather a narrow definition and is keen to stop software on my computer connecting to other computers. And hey, this is windows so perhaps a bit of extra caution is required. What is galling is being told that php has tried to connect to the internet and has been blocked when the internet is the mysql server running on the _same_ machine. Can you not tell the difference between the internet and localhost? Could you just not be arsed to make an exception? Even more galling is the fact that there's no way to say connections to localhost are fine so you have to allow every single program one at a time... gah! Struan
From: Jonathan Katz Date: 20:16 on 26 Sep 2007 Subject: Fuck you, Siebel! ------=_Part_8679_11407277.1190834203714 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Yes, I know you have an ego, especially after being bought by Oracle. However, there are other web servers on the system than the one we're installing Siebel extensions to and really, it's A-OK if those servers are running while we work on the server I'm building with the Siebel hooks. You don't need to abort out of the install when the other servers are running. And the fact you create a windows-like registry in /var/adm/siebel without asking us and making the permissions mode 777 is really lame, too. ------=_Part_8679_11407277.1190834203714 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Yes, I know you have an ego, especially after being bought by Oracle. However, there are other web servers on the system than the one we're installing Siebel extensions to and really, it's A-OK if those servers are running while we work on the server I'm building with the Siebel hooks. You don't need to abort out of the install when the other servers are running. And the fact you create a windows-like registry in /var/adm/siebel without asking us and making the permissions mode 777 is really lame, too. <br> ------=_Part_8679_11407277.1190834203714--
From: Earle Martin Date: 22:32 on 24 Sep 2007 Subject: Changing a disk icon in Windows XP Hey Windows! You cunt! I want to VISUALLY DISTINGUISH my FUCKING DISKS. I don't give a shit what you think about it. You make your users do this: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1849093,00.asp When I meet your programmers in Hell I will cry sweet tears of joy at their suffering even as the demons tear off my skin.
< mari
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
chi >
[ Page 11 of 76 ]
Generated at 10:28 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi