Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | humdumb's commentslogin

- hackers don't read source code

All one has to do is look at the source for ping and questions like these are answered.


I'll not look this up now, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is found in inlet_aton() in the c-library ping has been linked against, not ping.


I think you meant inet_aton() or inet_addr().

However, the value of looking at ping is it let's you see a simple example of a lot of networking system calls which you can then dig into. I had a class project to write a simple web-server and text based browser in C and ping was actually a great place to start.


"excessive meetings"

Based on that criteria we could probably cut some 15% of the total workforce. For many employees, that's all they do is attend meetings, all day long. We call these employees managers. :)

Startups where almost everyone is actually working (save VC chosen CEO's) and there's no room for corporate welfare I guess bigger companies might perceive them as "nimble".

Is that a euphemism for efficient?


I'd say this is a flaw of the "web" and relying on hyperlinking and "HTML forms" as a means to access all content. That's what web crawlers do.

Better would be putting databases on certain known ports, with no "hostname" requirements and let search engines scan IP ranges for openings on those ports. You send a ping to the port and if a "Welcome" response comes back, then you have a public database to explore. The response might even describe the contents of the database. (Yikes, I'm having flashbacks to gopher.)

What's funny is that "port scanning" is like the term "hacker" it has a negative connotation even though there's nothing inherently devious about it. Pinging a port to detect if there's a public database open on it is actually a more efficient less resource intensive means of service discovery than crawling hyperlinks in HTML generated by some web developer (maybe even one employed by a governemnt agency with a tight budget) hoping to stumble upon every possible data resource.


Bacteria vs. Human body^1.

1. Specifically, teeth and saliva, but you must always consider the whole organism.

Drink soda pop --> Advantage, Bacteria.

Don't drink soda pop. --> What do you think?

Bacteria need acidic conditions and they are happy to have plenty of sugar. Preserving your teeth means giving your body the best possible chance against bacteria, slowing the process of decay as much as you can. But in the end, on every front, bacteria will always win. It's just a matter of time. If they don't consume you while you're alive, they will after you're dead.

With respect to tooth decay, drinking soft drinks surely helps bacteria, not the human body. But then, maybe people derive other benefits from drinking these concoctions. (Jolt?) Maybe preserving their teeth is not their number one priority?

Factoid: George Washington had wooden teeth?


So, _hypothetically_, what if you don't use a third party email provider? That is, all your mail is delievred directly to you and is stored on your local machines/devices.

Does that give you more privacy protection than keeping messages stored with some third party in the cloud? Or does it give you less protection?


The title could be better. What he's describing with the term "dark social" is not the "Web", it's the internet. That's a distinction that is important to understand. There is much you can do over the internet that is difficult to do over the "web". Moreover, the "web" is still quite centralized in the sense that there are a disproportionate number of servers to clients. It has been called the "calf-cow" model. Some are calling for an end to that.


Someone correct me if this is wrong but I think Dylan's Infidels was the first digitally recorded LP. I should probably Google it. Anyway, that was released in 1983, the same year as Zappa wrote this.


Blah, blah, home taping, blah, blah, CD's, blah, blah.

"Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar" :)

Some people miss Steve Jobs. I miss Frank Zappa. Genius.


Indeed. His sardonic attacks on everyone, including himself, are priceless. And he was a great composer and guitarist as well... I still can't listen to We're Only In It For The Money or Overnite Sensation without bursts of laughter.


"cleaner, consistent.. better documented"

I think that sums it up. Why should I use Linux?

BSD definitely can't do everything that Linux can do, but it can do most things, normally the most important things, and it can do some interesting things that Linux cannot.

For programs that only are available on Linux, BSD kernels can run Linux applications.

It's a little painful using Linux after you become accustomed to BSD. Linux is really fast, but it's too random, sometimes even chaotic, and it seems disorganized by comparison.

But for people who are used to Linux there seems no reason to switch. Linux has lots of resources behind it to keep up with new hardware. BSD will never be as quick to produce drivers.


Actually because of senior managment who told the company lawyers to take action. But yeah, this is the correct answer. Go figure it's at the bottom of the thread.

Linus was a 386BSD user, or hoped to be. A lawsuit stopped people like him from getting their hands on the BSD code to play with, so he wrote a UNIX clone himself using MINIX as a model. Eventually the legal situation with BSD was cleared, and BSD became free and available to everyone, but that wasn't until 1993 or so. And even after the lawsuit some people still wanted to make money selling BSD for the PC. (They failed.^1) By that time, lots of people had already shifted to Linux as the "free" available UNIX as it was readily available. Why pay for CD-ROMs of BSD when you could freely download Linux via FTP?

1. But just look at Apple. BSD is in lots of commercial products, though you might not always realize it.


> senior managment who told the company lawyers to take action

There's lawyers that "take action". Then there's lawyers who advise. Senior management gets advice from a few sources and then makes a decision. If that decision involves lawsuits, patents or any other type of legal action you can be sure the idea originated with lawyers.


> Linus was a 386BSD user, or hoped to be. A lawsuit stopped people like him from getting their hands on the BSD code to play with, so he wrote a UNIX clone himself using MINIX as a model.

Torvalds himself said that he couldn't use 386BSD because it required the 80387, which he didn't have.

http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2010/02/18/freebsd-and-the-gpl/

Apparently this is wrong because I misquoted. Damn.


Maybe I'm reading the story you linked to incorrecty but wasn't that a quote from his friend, Lars Wirzenius?

The gist of what I was trying to say, poorly perhaps, is that in 1993 Linux was available, it was free and it worked on previously DOS-controlled, home PC's. BSD wasn't as available nor as ready for use on the home PC. At least not as I remember it. It certainly is now. But it wasn't then.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: