Twice, recently, people have commented on my post titles. I keep a real journal elsewhere where entries are either untitled, or are titled by quotations. In the past I used to keep a running total of who had guessed the source of the quote, but these days that game gets ignored.
Titles here used to be song lyrics, but these days they are film quotes.
When I started I intended to be a little interesting, and make "happy posts" contain quotes from films I enjoyed watching, and "ironic" or "ranty" posts contain quotes from films I disliked. But that didn't last for long, and I suspect nobody noticed anyway. (Why would they?!)
Regardless that's the only explaination I'll give.
Once or twice I've had people "complain" :
Your titles have no relationship to your posts.
I don't know if your post is a serious one I should read, or a trivial one I should ignore.
To those comments I have several potential response:
- Either I believe the posts are serious, or I believe they are not. My opinion might coincide with yours, but frankly I have no expectation either way.
- Read the body, ignore the title. Consider it an ironic commentry on the importance of fashion, where appearance is more important than content.
- It quickly gets old making titles of the form "Hey, asql released. Again.".
- I find your ideas intruiging and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
In short, if you (dis)like what I have to say I'm sure that the title of the post you disagree with is the least important part of that. I'm sure I could say more either way, but since the recent reminder I figured I should write something.
I've almost done so several times but I find it hard to be specific. Regardless the summary is:
"I'll keep this up, whether you like it or not, until I get bored. Regardless of how much I might respect you, and your opinion."
PS. tscreen released. Again.
ObFilm: Star Trek #2 - Wrath of Khan
Tags: meta, tscreen
27 October 2008 21:50
Recently I've been hacking around on GNU screen. I've fixed a few bugs and added a few new features. One of the earliest features I added was the ability to source every file in a directory. One of the later additions was to add simple conditionals to the dotfile, via the new if primitive.
Today I had an epiphany moment. Rather than adding either of these two features I should have altered the behaviour in the far simpler manner.
If we allow ~/.tscreenrc to be an executable we immediately gain lots of things for free.
Consider this ~/.tscreenrc file:
for i in ~/.tscreen/*; do
if [ -e $i ];
echo "source $i"
That gives us the effect of a "source directory/" primitive. Similarly I can do complex tests without the need for an if primitive if I were to write this:
# common config
# per host config?
if [ -e "$file" ]; then
# if we have lynx define an alias for it + map it to a key
if [ -x /usr/bin/lynx ]; then
# Surf the web with <Ctrl-a f>
alias web screen -F -t web /usr/bin/lynx
bind w web
So as of v0.4.7 tscreen allows you to have your configuration file be:
- A normal file:
In which case it is parsed as you'd expect.
- An executable file:
In which case it is executed and the output is parsed.
The code change is trivial, just an extra stat call and the use of popen vs. fopen, but the payoff is significant.
28 October 2008 21:50
I could argue and make reasonable points - but instead I'm going to be childish/annoying/ignorant/confrontational/blunt:
If I wanted a rational debate I'd approach the topic differently - this is a clue that you shouldn't attempt to convert me.
I got distracted during the "Should selinux be standard? thread, so I will optimistically assume it will not be. Why? Because SELinux is annoying to configure if you understand it, and pointless if you don't.
ObFilm: From Dusk Til Dawn
Tags: lenny, rants, selinux
31 October 2008 21:50
In response to the comments left on my previous entry about executable configuration files I've changed the way that tscreen works.
There is still support for using an arbitrary shell script or binary as a configuration file, but you must be explicit to enable it:
# Load the dynamic section, if it exists.
if -x ~/.tscreen.dynamic 'source ~/.tscreen.dynamic|'
The change here is the trailing "|" on the argument to the source command:
- source ~/foo/bar
Opens ~/foo/bar and parses the contents. (Assuming it exists.)
- source ~/bin/blah|
Executes ~/bin/blah and parses the output. (Assuming it exists)
I still see no security risk with the previous setup, but I'm happy to apply a little misdirection if that makes people feel better.
Tags: security, tscreen