6 ms·

Oh shit, let me go recompile my chargen and telnet servers then. We stopped using inetd for reasons. Modern services don't work this way, nor should they.

by exarch 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago
Yeah, but inetd was just about TCP sockets. systemd also supports unix-socket activation, which can block the client when the buffer is full, preventing data loss. I agree that TCP socket activation is iffy (though I still use inetd for non-critical stuff), but unix-socket activation seems safe to me.
- exarch 12y ago
  Safe, but seems like it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist, or at least exists as a mosquito not warranting a bazooka swat.
  - e7620 12y ago
    Your analogies are great, transmiting a clear picture of systemd, like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Professor_Lucifer_Butts.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Professor...
    - dang 12y ago
      This style of debate is not welcome on Hacker News. Please drop it while you're here.
      - exarch 12y ago
        What offended about his post, out of curiosity? The Rube Goldberg analogy (I found that rather apt), or the "Professor Lucifer Butts" aspect of it (which I'll also confess to finding not the least apropos nickname for a certain Red Hatted German)?
        dang 12y ago
        The sarcasm combined with the scabrous smack. There are some online communities in which that kind of thing is ok. HN is not one of those.
        e7620 12y ago
        > combined with the scabrous smack. The word 'scabrous' means "dealing with salacious or indecent material". Feel free to inspect the image, I guarantee it's safe for work.
        dang 12y ago
        I was chiding your comment for being rude, not salacious. The first meaning of "scabrous" in my dictionary is "having a rough surface", and that's how I meant it. There's a long tradition of using that word to describe rough-and-tumble discourse, and it seemed fitting. You didn't just smack another user, you smacked them with a pointy implement (a link to an insulting image). That's not ok on HN. Neither is smacking people without a pointy implement. And telling another user "You're a liar and a coward, and you know it" is right out—a bannable offense, although we didn't ban you for it. I'm insisting on this more than usual, because we don't want the pugilistic approach that is popular in some related (by subject matter, at least) online communities to take root here. When commenting on HN, please eliminate incivility from what you post.
        e7620 12y ago
        This is a well thought out and complete response, it's just unfortunate that an image illustrating an overcomplicated system to solve a simple problem has elicited this censure; instead of the comment, in response to another user throwing a personal insult against an OSS hacker, where I call this user "a coward". Your position about the place we want HN to be is clear, but I still believe the image is not insulting or offending anybody in any way. Those who flagged it, could they have misinterpreted it as an insult to the developers? An insult to the users? An inappropriate "scabrous" picture based on the URL? Or just as an attack to a program that needs our praise?

Oh shit, let me go recompile my chargen and telnet servers then. We stopped using inetd for reasons. Modern services don't work this way, nor should they.

by exarch 12y ago

Oh shit, let me go recompile my chargen and telnet servers then. We stopped using inetd for reasons. Modern services don't work this way, nor should they.

icebraining 12y ago

Yeah, but inetd was just about TCP sockets. systemd also supports unix-socket activation, which can block the client when the buffer is full, preventing data loss. I agree that TCP socket activation is iffy (though I still use inetd for non-critical stuff), but unix-socket activation seems safe to me.

exarch 12y ago
Safe, but seems like it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist, or at least exists as a mosquito not warranting a bazooka swat.
- e7620 12y ago
  Your analogies are great, transmiting a clear picture of systemd, like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Professor_Lucifer_Butts.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Professor...
  - dang 12y ago
    This style of debate is not welcome on Hacker News. Please drop it while you're here.
    - exarch 12y ago
      What offended about his post, out of curiosity? The Rube Goldberg analogy (I found that rather apt), or the "Professor Lucifer Butts" aspect of it (which I'll also confess to finding not the least apropos nickname for a certain Red Hatted German)?
      - dang 12y ago
        The sarcasm combined with the scabrous smack. There are some online communities in which that kind of thing is ok. HN is not one of those.
        e7620 12y ago
        > combined with the scabrous smack. The word 'scabrous' means "dealing with salacious or indecent material". Feel free to inspect the image, I guarantee it's safe for work.
        dang 12y ago
        I was chiding your comment for being rude, not salacious. The first meaning of "scabrous" in my dictionary is "having a rough surface", and that's how I meant it. There's a long tradition of using that word to describe rough-and-tumble discourse, and it seemed fitting. You didn't just smack another user, you smacked them with a pointy implement (a link to an insulting image). That's not ok on HN. Neither is smacking people without a pointy implement. And telling another user "You're a liar and a coward, and you know it" is right out—a bannable offense, although we didn't ban you for it. I'm insisting on this more than usual, because we don't want the pugilistic approach that is popular in some related (by subject matter, at least) online communities to take root here. When commenting on HN, please eliminate incivility from what you post.
        e7620 12y ago
        This is a well thought out and complete response, it's just unfortunate that an image illustrating an overcomplicated system to solve a simple problem has elicited this censure; instead of the comment, in response to another user throwing a personal insult against an OSS hacker, where I call this user "a coward". Your position about the place we want HN to be is clear, but I still believe the image is not insulting or offending anybody in any way. Those who flagged it, could they have misinterpreted it as an insult to the developers? An insult to the users? An inappropriate "scabrous" picture based on the URL? Or just as an attack to a program that needs our praise?