Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:34:14 -0600
> "Data archive" seems a bit broad to me -- I'd probably require a more
> specifically-focused skill instead. After all, if I were to put you in
> front of my computer and say "Find all my MP3s" it would probably take
> you much longer than if I asked you to find all your own MP3s on your
> own computer: this because you have the knowledge skill "Where I Store
> Stuff on My Computer" but not "Where Gurth Stores Stuff on His
> Computers" (at least, I hope you don't ;) Matrix hosts would be the
> same, IMHO.

Easy as pie! Cmd+Space, Type *.mp3 and ctrl-click the first choice and
choose "open containing folder"

(gotta love macs ;) )
Message no. 2
From: jon.gilmour@*****.com (Jon Gilmour)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:16:13 -0500
//Easy as pie! Cmd+Space, Type *.mp3 and ctrl-click the first choice and
//choose "open containing folder"
//
//(gotta love macs ;) )


windows key + F, type *.mp3, right click the first choice and choose "open
containing folder"

Gotta love PC's too
Message no. 3
From: wilson.reis@*****.com (Wilson Reis)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:27:53 -0300
On 1/9/07, Jon Gilmour <jon.gilmour@*****.com> wrote:
> //Easy as pie! Cmd+Space, Type *.mp3 and ctrl-click the first choice and
> //choose "open containing folder"
> //
> //(gotta love macs ;) )
>
>
> windows key + F, type *.mp3, right click the first choice and choose "open
> containing folder"
>
> Gotta love PC's too
>


Warning ! OS Flame War content, beware !

Will
Message no. 4
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:33:02 -0800 (PST)
> Warning ! OS Flame War content, beware !

This would have to be the tamest, most light-hearted flame war in the
history of teh intarwebz... :p

======Korishinzo
--My Amiga will crush UR C64 l-user! ;)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:39:25 +0100
According to Jon Gilmour, on 9-1-07 17:16 the word on the street was...

> windows key + F, type *.mp3, right click the first choice and choose
> "open containing folder"
>
> Gotta love PC's too

If you have the time to wait for that damn dog to find anything, sure ;)


According to Ice Heart, on 9-1-07 18:33 the word on the street was...

>> Warning ! OS Flame War content, beware !
>
> This would have to be the tamest, most light-hearted flame war in the
> history of teh intarwebz... :p

In the interest of fanning the flames, I'll post comparative search
times, all clocked on my 2.0 GHz MacBook using my wristwatch :)

* Spotlight search for .txt: call it one second for 1196 matches
* Unix Find: about a second for 45 matches
* Windows XP under Parallels Desktop: BSOD-ed when I clicked on Start >
Search ;) Second attempt: 9 seconds for 82 matches

Do note that these searches were not identical, seeing as how find only
looks for filenames while Spotlight also returns files that contain the
text ".txt" (which accounts for the much higher number of hits), and
Windows searches a virtual hard drive that the other two don't have
access to. Still, 9 seconds for 82 matches is a bit long compared to the
other two ... I'd hate to think how long it'll take it to come up with
1200 matches.

> --My Amiga will crush UR C64 l-user! ;)

Pfft ... my Apple I rulez them all ;P (Well, it would if I had one ...
but I haven't felt the need yet to buy one of those reproductions :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: ggerrietts@*****.com (Geoff Gerrietts)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:51:39 -0800
The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to the Google
Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized document
types as they are written to disk. The Apple technology is unquestionably
superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory and an
undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.

On 1/9/07, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
> According to Jon Gilmour, on 9-1-07 17:16 the word on the street was...
>
> > windows key + F, type *.mp3, right click the first choice and choose
> > "open containing folder"
> >
> > Gotta love PC's too
>
> If you have the time to wait for that damn dog to find anything, sure ;)
>
>
> According to Ice Heart, on 9-1-07 18:33 the word on the street was...
>
> >> Warning ! OS Flame War content, beware !
> >
> > This would have to be the tamest, most light-hearted flame war in the
> > history of teh intarwebz... :p
>
> In the interest of fanning the flames, I'll post comparative search
> times, all clocked on my 2.0 GHz MacBook using my wristwatch :)
>
> * Spotlight search for .txt: call it one second for 1196 matches
> * Unix Find: about a second for 45 matches
> * Windows XP under Parallels Desktop: BSOD-ed when I clicked on Start >
> Search ;) Second attempt: 9 seconds for 82 matches
>
> Do note that these searches were not identical, seeing as how find only
> looks for filenames while Spotlight also returns files that contain the
> text ".txt" (which accounts for the much higher number of hits), and
> Windows searches a virtual hard drive that the other two don't have
> access to. Still, 9 seconds for 82 matches is a bit long compared to the
> other two ... I'd hate to think how long it'll take it to come up with
> 1200 matches.
>
> > --My Amiga will crush UR C64 l-user! ;)
>
> Pfft ... my Apple I rulez them all ;P (Well, it would if I had one ...
> but I haven't felt the need yet to buy one of those reproductions :)
>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
> -> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
> -> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
>
> GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
> M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
> Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
>
Message no. 7
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:03:51 -0500
Gurth wrote:

> * Windows XP under Parallels Desktop: BSOD-ed when I clicked on Start >
> Search ;) Second attempt: 9 seconds for 82 matches
>
> Do note that these searches were not identical, seeing as how find only
> looks for filenames while Spotlight also returns files that contain the
> text ".txt" (which accounts for the much higher number of hits), and
> Windows searches a virtual hard drive that the other two don't have
> access to. Still, 9 seconds for 82 matches is a bit long compared to the
> other two ... I'd hate to think how long it'll take it to come up with
> 1200 matches.

Searching a virtual HD can take longer. You also need to define windows
search so it searches hidden directories, otherwise it ignores them.

Application Data is a popular directory that's ignored.
Message no. 8
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:03:25 +0000
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:51:39AM -0800, Geoff Gerrietts wrote:
> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to the Google
> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized document
> types as they are written to disk. The Apple technology is unquestionably
> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory and an
> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.
>

What I don't understand is why all the UNIX examples were using find instead of locate.
Who uses find these days? locate has been around forever and uses a similar approach,
though like find it only does file names. If you want to search contents then you'll have
to use grep.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 9
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:06:23 +0100
According to Geoff Gerrietts, on 9-1-07 19:51 the word on the street was...

> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to the Google
> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized document
> types as they are written to disk.

Which is why I use my laptop during SR sessions. A Spotlight search for,
for example, "Petrify" or "watcher spirit" has proved a lot faster
than
manually searching a book for the relevant rules :) Too bad I have to
make do with some scanned (non-searchable) PDFs for a number of SR and
other game books :(

> The Apple technology is unquestionably
> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory and an
> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.

Which, if you ask me, is well worth it. Back when I had a Windows PC, I
virtually never used Windows search because I could usually find things
on my hard drive quicker than it did, whereas I have found much more use
for Spotlight.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:06:42 -0500
David Kettler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:51:39AM -0800, Geoff Gerrietts wrote:
>> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to the
>> Google Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all
>> recognized document types as they are written to disk. The Apple
>> technology is unquestionably superior, but it does consume hidden
>> amounts of processor/memory and an undisclosed amount of disk to
>> keep everything up to date.
>>
>
> What I don't understand is why all the UNIX examples were using find
> instead of locate. Who uses find these days? locate has been around
> forever and uses a similar approach, though like find it only does
> file names. If you want to search contents then you'll have to use
> grep.
>

locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.
Message no. 11
From: n.kobschaetzki@**********.com (Niels_KobschÀtzki)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:09:29 +0100
On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:03 PM, David Kettler wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:51:39AM -0800, Geoff Gerrietts wrote:
>> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to
>> the Google
>> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized
>> document
>> types as they are written to disk. The Apple technology is
>> unquestionably
>> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory
>> and an
>> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.
>>
>
> What I don't understand is why all the UNIX examples were using
> find instead of locate. Who uses find these days? locate has been
> around forever and uses a similar approach, though like find it
> only does file names. If you want to search contents then you'll
> have to use grep.

because we're searching another persons computer and you never know
if he/she has already a locate-db and how actual it is

Niels
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:15:04 +0100
According to Justin Bell, on 9-1-07 20:03 the word on the street was...

> Searching a virtual HD can take longer. You also need to define
> windows search so it searches hidden directories, otherwise it ignores
> them.

I think that gets compensated a little by the Windows "drive" containing
relatively little data (maybe 2 or 3 GB in all, including the OS), while
the real hard drive has about 35 GB on it (including OS, virtual hard
drive, etc.).

According to Justin Bell, on 9-1-07 20:06 the word on the street was...

> locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.

It is installed on Macs, but I've never used it (didn't even know it
existed, TBH ...). I did consider using grep, as David mentioned, but
that wouldn't have fit the original idea that prompted this thread
(finding MP3s[1]) and would have taken _much_ longer than either of the
other two.

[1] I deliberately didn't search for MP3s in my test because there are
none on my laptop, but it does contain many text files :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:26:37 +0000
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:06:42PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
>
> locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.
>

No, but it should be ;)

Seriously, though, it's pretty common. What modern UNIX system doesn't have locate?

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 14
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:30:42 -0500
David Kettler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:06:42PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
>> locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.
>>
>
> No, but it should be ;)
>
> Seriously, though, it's pretty common. What modern UNIX system
> doesn't have locate?

AIX doesn't, for one.
Message no. 15
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:50:42 -0800 (PST)
> Which, if you ask me, is well worth it. Back when I had a Windows
> PC, I
> virtually never used Windows search because I could usually find
> things
> on my hard drive quicker than it did, whereas I have found much
> more use
> for Spotlight.

I find if you maintain well-organized filesystems (whatever the OS),
search times drop to the time it takes to drill down a directory tree
(which is about nil if you remember relative paths accurately). ;)

Which is moot, since this thread started with a discussion of how to
find files on a remote and unfamiliar system (a la decking). At that
point, ls/dir is your friend.

Anyone possessing sufficient familiarity with filesystems and data
storage techniques will figure out quickly A: what type of system
they are on, and B: the most likely place to go to find things (such
as browsing /bin to see if locate is available). To pull this
slightly back on topic, I think we've all just demonstrated my point.

All of us would know how to get started with a search for MP3s on
Gurth's computer. (It's called a Dutch dictionary, but that's beside
the point. :p ) I support a user community of about 2000 students
and faculty, who would all have roughly no idea where to begin.
Thus, all of us have displayed a working knowledge of "data archives"
which would help us start or refine a search. Hence my contention
that a decker with said knowledge skill should get a small boost to
their roll if armed with such a knowledge skill. :)

======Korishinzo
--wonders what this "Screams_Of_Dying_PCs.mp3" is doing in Gurth's
playlist...





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 16
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:05:13 -0600
> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to the Google
> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized document
> types as they are written to disk. The Apple technology is unquestionably
> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory and an
> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.
>
....you mean like the windows Indexing Service is supposed to do?
Message no. 17
From: grimjack@******.com (Martin Little)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:27:06 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Justin Bell wrote:

> David Kettler wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:06:42PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
>>> locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.
>>>
>>
>> No, but it should be ;)
>>
>> Seriously, though, it's pretty common. What modern UNIX system
>> doesn't have locate?
>
> AIX doesn't, for one.
>
>
>
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.11 snv_54 October 2007
# find / -name "locate"
#
Message no. 18
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:49:54 -0500
On 1/10/2007 1:27 PM, Martin Little wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Justin Bell wrote:
>
>> David Kettler wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:06:42PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
>>>> locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but it should be ;)
>>>
>>> Seriously, though, it's pretty common. What modern UNIX system
>>> doesn't have locate?
>>
>> AIX doesn't, for one.
>>
>>
>>
> Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.11 snv_54 October 2007
> # find / -name "locate"
> #

I am also pretty sure HPUX doesn't it.

Actually, I am almost certain locate is a Linux thing that sysadmins
install on Unix when and if they feel like it.
Message no. 19
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:00:18 +0000
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 01:49:54PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> On 1/10/2007 1:27 PM, Martin Little wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Justin Bell wrote:
> >
> >> David Kettler wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:06:42PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> >>>> locate is not on every UNIX machine you'll run across.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No, but it should be ;)
> >>>
> >>> Seriously, though, it's pretty common. What modern UNIX system
> >>> doesn't have locate?
> >>
> >> AIX doesn't, for one.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.11 snv_54 October 2007
> > # find / -name "locate"
> > #
>
> I am also pretty sure HPUX doesn't it.
>
> Actually, I am almost certain locate is a Linux thing that sysadmins
> install on Unix when and if they feel like it.

I can't speak for AIX or HPUX, as I've barely used AIX and never used HPUX, but locate is
certainly available for Solaris. It's part of the GNU findutils package. It's certainly
not just a "Linux thing" as it's a standard feature on BSD systems and as
someone mentioned on this list it's even in OS X.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 20
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:15:13 -0500
On 1/10/2007 2:00 PM, David Kettler wrote:
> I can't speak for AIX or HPUX, as I've barely used AIX and never used
> HPUX, but locate is certainly available for Solaris.

Available for as an addition via the GNU project is not every UNIX box
having locate. I can find the findutils package available for win32 and
AmigaOS in a 5 second google search.

> It's part of
> the GNU findutils package. It's certainly not just a "Linux thing"
> as it's a standard feature on BSD systems and as someone mentioned on
> this list it's even in OS X.

By Linux thing I mean started in the OS world, of which BSD and Apple
embrace, and is installed on a case by case basis.

Very few modern Unices install GNU software by default.
Message no. 21
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:54:10 +0200
On 1/10/07, Justin Bell <justin@***********.net> wrote:
> On 1/10/2007 2:00 PM, David Kettler wrote:
> > I can't speak for AIX or HPUX, as I've barely used AIX and never used
> > HPUX, but locate is certainly available for Solaris.
>
> Available for as an addition via the GNU project is not every UNIX box
> having locate. I can find the findutils package available for win32 and
> AmigaOS in a 5 second google search.
>
> > It's part of
> > the GNU findutils package. It's certainly not just a "Linux thing"
> > as it's a standard feature on BSD systems and as someone mentioned on
> > this list it's even in OS X.
>
> By Linux thing I mean started in the OS world, of which BSD and Apple
> embrace, and is installed on a case by case basis.
>
> Very few modern Unices install GNU software by default.
>

We should distinguish between Commercial and Free. In my experience,
the free OS's tend to have all the fun toys, while the commercial
stuff doesn't. Commercial = Business Oriented = No-Frills and Boring.
It's ridiculous - how can you have a unix box without 'fortune'?

This has made me something of a maverick in my company, in that I tend
to install non-certified 3rd party utilities just to regain the sort
of functionality I cut my teeth on. Stuff like a working c
compiler...
Message no. 22
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:50:47 -0600
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:15, Justin Bell <justin@***********.net>
wrote about 'Re: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's':
> On 1/10/2007 2:00 PM, David Kettler wrote:
> > It's part of
> > the GNU findutils package. It's certainly not just a "Linux thing"
> > as it's a standard feature on BSD systems and as someone mentioned on
> > this list it's even in OS X.
>
> By Linux thing I mean started in the OS world, of which BSD and Apple
> embrace, and is installed on a case by case basis.

Gah. Then you certainly shouldn't say "a Linux thing". The GNU project
was providing software before Linux was even a dream, and the BSDs were
providing full OSes that were free (in both senses) even if not protected
by a "strong copyleft". (Perhaps modulo the advertising clause as well.)

I'd prefer the phrase "a GNU thing", giving credit to the eldest project
and the specific project that provides this package, but whatever you
use, "a Linux thing" is inappropriate.

> Very few modern Unices install GNU software by default.

Although, unless your organization has a rampant fear of F(L)OSS,
particularly the "viral" GPL, installing the GNU utilities is usually the
first thing a competent sysadmin does. For most tasks they are strictly
superior. And, if installed into /usr/local, the original versions are
available using absolute paths (or by users changing their PATH).

[Well, at least gcc, fileutils, and pure userland (meaning no syscalls)
stuff. Changing your libc to glibc could cause some interesting problems
on non-Linux systems.]

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 23
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:01:51 -0500
On 1/10/2007 3:50 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> [Well, at least gcc, fileutils, and pure userland (meaning no syscalls)
> stuff. Changing your libc to glibc could cause some interesting problems
> on non-Linux systems.]

Installing gcc by default would be a huge mistake, you don't need to be
compiling anything in most installs.
Message no. 24
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:13:48 -0500
On 1/10/2007 3:50 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> Gah. Then you certainly shouldn't say "a Linux thing". The GNU project
> was providing software before Linux was even a dream, and the BSDs were
> providing full OSes that were free (in both senses) even if not protected
> by a "strong copyleft". (Perhaps modulo the advertising clause as well.)
>
> I'd prefer the phrase "a GNU thing", giving credit to the eldest project
> and the specific project that provides this package, but whatever you
> use, "a Linux thing" is inappropriate.

Who says the OS wars are MAC/Win32 only, eh.


>> Very few modern Unices install GNU software by default.
>
> Although, unless your organization has a rampant fear of F(L)OSS,
> particularly the "viral" GPL, installing the GNU utilities is usually the
> first thing a competent sysadmin does. For most tasks they are strictly
> superior. And, if installed into /usr/local, the original versions are
> available using absolute paths (or by users changing their PATH).

Welcome to the world of Federally regulated industries where open source
must be looked at line by line before installation is approved.
Message no. 25
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:46:08 -0600
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 15:13, Justin Bell <justin@***********.net>
wrote about 'Re: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's':
> On 1/10/2007 3:50 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> >> Very few modern Unices install GNU software by default.
> > Although, unless your organization has a rampant fear of F(L)OSS,
> > particularly the "viral" GPL, installing the GNU utilities is usually
> > the first thing a competent sysadmin does. For most tasks they are
> > strictly superior. And, if installed into /usr/local, the original
> > versions are available using absolute paths (or by users changing
> > their PATH).
> Welcome to the world of Federally regulated industries where open source
> must be looked at line by line before installation is approved.

I call BS. F(L)OSS has no more restrictions than proprietary software in
any FIPS publication, and selling proprietary software to federally
regulated industries does not require line-by-line inspection.

There are *some* security levels that require code audits, but they require
such audits to be applied to proprietary software as well (although, it is
more likely that the proprietary software vendor can pay for a in-depth
security audit). Those security levels generally also require features
that simply aren't available in a desktop OS, including OBSD -- like being
able to mark memory pages as non-copyable even by the process that
allocated them. (AIX/HPUX might be able to do this, although I didn't
hear of it while I was an HPUX admin; OpenSolaris doesn't seem to have
such features.)

It sounds like some manager above you is trying to hide his irrational fear
of F(L)OSS software behind a ghost of a rumor that code audits are
required or you are in an organization where this irrational fear has
become systemic and has actually put in place (organization-specific; not
federally mandated) such audits.

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 26
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:28:58 +0000
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:13:48PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> On 1/10/2007 3:50 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> > Gah. Then you certainly shouldn't say "a Linux thing". The GNU
project
> > was providing software before Linux was even a dream, and the BSDs were
> > providing full OSes that were free (in both senses) even if not protected
> > by a "strong copyleft". (Perhaps modulo the advertising clause as
well.)
> >
> > I'd prefer the phrase "a GNU thing", giving credit to the eldest
project
> > and the specific project that provides this package, but whatever you
> > use, "a Linux thing" is inappropriate.
>
> Who says the OS wars are MAC/Win32 only, eh.
>

OK, this discussion has gotten *really* off-topic...I suppose I could point out that there
are non-GNU versions of locate (though the GNU version is by far the most common), but
really I don't care that much anymore. OK, I accept that locate isn't going to be
everywhere. It's still worth using if it's there, and it isn't very hard to check. Let's
talk about Shadowrun again ;)

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 27
From: wilson.reis@*****.com (Wilson Reis)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:58:42 -0300
> OK, this discussion has gotten *really* off-topic...

Just do as i´ve been doing. Pretend they are discussing SR1 decking rules.

Well, it won´t work if you actually know the rules for decking in SR1
but if that´s the case then you are probably understanding this whole
thread...

Will
Message no. 28
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:11:44 -0800 (PST)
> OK, this discussion has gotten *really* off-topic...I suppose I
> could point out that there are non-GNU versions of locate (though
> the GNU version is by far the most common), but really I don't care
> that much anymore. OK, I accept that locate isn't going to be
> everywhere. It's still worth using if it's there, and it isn't
> very hard to check. Let's talk about Shadowrun again ;)

So, does anyone else think that deckers in SR get into OS arguments,
utility debates, etc? I'm just picturing the deckers arguing:

"HoloLISP is better!"

"Yer full of drek!"

"No you are!"

"Eat hoop pulse-cruncher!"

======Korishinzo
--There, now it is about SR again.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
Message no. 29
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:06:28 -0600
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 17:11, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote
about 'Re: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's':
> > OK, this discussion has gotten *really* off-topic...
> > Let's talk about Shadowrun again ;)
>
> So, does anyone else think that deckers in SR get into OS arguments,
> utility debates, etc? I'm just picturing the deckers arguing:

Oh *absolutely*. That whole programming teams section in (SR3) Matrix, is
just drek -- it completely glosses over the whole issue of "What language
do we use?" :)

> "HoloLISP is better!"

More like, "HoloLISP had all the features of these new 10G languages,
without any of the problems."

> "Yer full of drek!"

More like, "but HoloLISP is interpreted, meaning your response increase is
saturated with unoptimized simsense realizations. That's why I alaways
use Omega, for it's close to the hardware optimizations."

> "No you are!"

More like, "HoloLISP will compile to native code for your specific
home-brew MPCP, as long as you've followed the relevant standards, and has
for years. Plus, good luck running your Omega on non-Fuchi hardware --
hell it *still* won't talk to my <mumble>."

> "Eat hoop pulse-cruncher!"

More like, "Right, and if I followed the standard I could leverage this
custom Fuchi Bod program. <flex>. Plus, I don't think there's a full
common HoloLISP compiler that works for my MPCP; Omega is the only way to
fly."

"That's drek."

"Eat pulse, slot junkie!"

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 30
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:53:50 +0100
On Jan 9, 2007, at 20:06 , Gurth wrote:

> According to Geoff Gerrietts, on 9-1-07 19:51 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to
>> the Google
>> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized
>> document
>> types as they are written to disk.
>
> Which is why I use my laptop during SR sessions. A Spotlight search
> for, for example, "Petrify" or "watcher spirit" has proved a lot

> faster than manually searching a book for the relevant rules :) Too
> bad I have to make do with some scanned (non-searchable) PDFs for a
> number of SR and other game books :(
>

Here here!

>> The Apple technology is unquestionably
>> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory
>> and an
>> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.
>
> Which, if you ask me, is well worth it. Back when I had a Windows
> PC, I virtually never used Windows search because I could usually
> find things on my hard drive quicker than it did, whereas I have
> found much more use for Spotlight.
>

The normal argument of hard disk space being cheap is one I have
heard many times. However, with all the stuff accumulated on my
laptop, I need a new hard drive because I am running out of space.
The processing time really does not amount to much, because you are
writing to disk which is much slower than the memory operations to
index.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 31
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:56:12 +0100
On Jan 9, 2007, at 20:03 , David Kettler wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:51:39AM -0800, Geoff Gerrietts wrote:
>> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to
>> the Google
>> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized
>> document
>> types as they are written to disk. The Apple technology is
>> unquestionably
>> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory
>> and an
>> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.
>>
>
> What I don't understand is why all the UNIX examples were using
> find instead of locate. Who uses find these days? locate has been
> around forever and uses a similar approach, though like find it
> only does file names. If you want to search contents then you'll
> have to use grep.
>

I never use location because I use find. Find gives me more power
because it allows me to limit searches to specific file types,
creation times, etc. Locate is only useful for names. If I want
names only and want speed I use Spotlight, otherwise I use find
because I am usually looking for a combination of parameters.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 32
From: n.kobschaetzki@**********.com (Niels_KobschÀtzki)
Subject: [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:10:03 +0100
On Jan 28, 2007, at 9:56 PM, Scott Harrison wrote:

>
> On Jan 9, 2007, at 20:03 , David Kettler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:51:39AM -0800, Geoff Gerrietts wrote:
>>> The Mac stuff is pretty sophisticated technology, equivalent to
>>> the Google
>>> Desktop Search. It performs full-text indexing on all recognized
>>> document
>>> types as they are written to disk. The Apple technology is
>>> unquestionably
>>> superior, but it does consume hidden amounts of processor/memory
>>> and an
>>> undisclosed amount of disk to keep everything up to date.
>>>
>>
>> What I don't understand is why all the UNIX examples were using
>> find instead of locate. Who uses find these days? locate has
>> been around forever and uses a similar approach, though like find
>> it only does file names. If you want to search contents then
>> you'll have to use grep.
>>
>
> I never use location because I use find. Find gives me more power
> because it allows me to limit searches to specific file types,
> creation times, etc. Locate is only useful for names. If I want
> names only and want speed I use Spotlight, otherwise I use find
> because I am usually looking for a combination of parameters.

the mentioned examples were all based on find and not locate. in
addition - spotlight isn't available on other *nix-systems than mac
os x…

Niels

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Searching Gurth's MP3's, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!