|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 467 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 425 of 467:
| 
Jan 27 19:14 UTC 2005 |
10 or 12 sounds fine by me too.
The decision is arrived at when there is a sense of what is
reasonable from a reasonable majority. And those who disagree have
had a chance to state their case.
I think we're moving in that direction. I trust staff's judgement
to know when it's time. We really don't need a vote on this, Kevin.
Staff can handle it just fine.
|
cross
|
|
response 426 of 467:
|
Jan 27 20:29 UTC 2005 |
I'd say 12 is good.
|
cross
|
|
response 427 of 467:
|
Jan 27 20:30 UTC 2005 |
Incidently, `ronjeremy' is more than likely not really THE Ron Jeremy,
who is a guy who holds the current world's record for appearing in the
most `adult' movies.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 428 of 467:
|
Jan 27 20:36 UTC 2005 |
And was pretty cool on The Surreal Life.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 429 of 467:
|
Jan 27 22:11 UTC 2005 |
Well, it's been 2 weeks now. So when is it soup?
|
naftee
|
|
response 430 of 467:
|
Jan 27 22:54 UTC 2005 |
Huh?! you talking to me ?!
|
arthurp
|
|
response 431 of 467:
|
Jan 28 00:31 UTC 2005 |
12.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 432 of 467:
|
Jan 28 03:35 UTC 2005 |
I'm opposed to just about any limit.
The limit used to be eight, because that is a "word" eight bytes. Now the
limit is 32, because there is enough memory for 32, and it's a multiple of
two. Eventually, it will probably grow again.
Once upon a time, every filename was eight characters long, followed by a dot
and three more characters. Do we *really* want to go back to that limit? If
not, why are long names could for files but not people?
It ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.
|
keesan
|
|
response 433 of 467:
|
Jan 28 04:29 UTC 2005 |
I don't like long file names for files either. Difficult to type.
Are there any commonly used programs here that need more than 8 characters?
lynx pine mutt mail w3m pico which
|
naftee
|
|
response 434 of 467:
|
Jan 28 05:36 UTC 2005 |
!fuckyoukeesan
|
marcvh
|
|
response 435 of 467:
|
Jan 28 06:24 UTC 2005 |
Longer filenames came about as a result of interface modifications which
made it such that most people only typed the name once -- when first
creating the file. Sometimes not even then. That does not apply to
Grex -- in general you type somebody's username if you want to do something
relating to that account. But hey, if we want to give people usernames
like thomas~3 then I guess that could be workable... :)
|
scholar
|
|
response 436 of 467:
|
Jan 28 07:05 UTC 2005 |
Oh boy.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 437 of 467:
|
Jan 28 14:51 UTC 2005 |
re#429- have a little patience. We rarely ever decide things quickly! ;)
re #433- the problem is that while you don't like logins with more than
8 characters- other people do. So do we go with only what you want or
try to come to a consensus with more users?
|
twenex
|
|
response 438 of 467:
|
Jan 28 14:53 UTC 2005 |
Why don't we just restrict them to eight again and keep everybody unhappy?
|
mooncat
|
|
response 439 of 467:
|
Jan 28 16:53 UTC 2005 |
re #438- because I don't like that answer. ;)
|
keesan
|
|
response 440 of 467:
|
Jan 28 17:19 UTC 2005 |
I only need to deal with these long usernames once, in .cfonce.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 441 of 467:
|
Jan 28 18:45 UTC 2005 |
re #440 then while it's a nuisance for you to have to type so many
extra letters- at least it's only once.
|
keesan
|
|
response 442 of 467:
|
Jan 28 18:46 UTC 2005 |
But then I forget to use pico -w and bbs won't work.
|
other
|
|
response 443 of 467:
|
Jan 28 19:20 UTC 2005 |
then try adding the line
alias pico="pico -w"
to your .profile file,
Then, do
source .profile
After that, pico will automatically start with the -w option and you'll
never have to remember it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 444 of 467:
|
Jan 28 19:38 UTC 2005 |
I like twenex's suggestion in #438. :-)
I'll give it to the end of January before I boorishly create a member vote.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 445 of 467:
|
Jan 28 20:33 UTC 2005 |
re 442- are you honestly suggesting that your forgetfullness is really
a good reason for the rest of the system to change?
|
arthurp
|
|
response 446 of 467:
|
Jan 29 00:18 UTC 2005 |
I don't agree with any limit either, but I'm afraid that nothing will
ever get done, so I say 12. I think 32 is a better idea. How in the
world will we vote on something like this?
|
scholar
|
|
response 447 of 467:
|
Jan 29 01:49 UTC 2005 |
Everyone says a number and then all those numbers are summed up and divided
by the number of, uh, numbers.
|
scholar
|
|
response 448 of 467:
|
Jan 29 03:32 UTC 2005 |
(by the way: i just realized: jan posting that part of /etc/passwd should
be seen as tacitly disagreeing with gelinas's absurd assumption that posting
/etc/passwd usernames in bbs somehow comprises a danger to the system.
despite this, i don't expect gelinas to do the decent thing and restore my
accounts, which he froze/killed for the very same thing jan did.)
|
naftee
|
|
response 449 of 467:
|
Jan 29 06:59 UTC 2005 |
(well, it depends on which part of the /etc/passwd file gelinas found the
MOST incriminating, so to speak. For example, jan's posting contains only
usernames drawn from /etc/passwd, and perhaps gelinas felt the username
coupled with, say, the UID, constituted the reason for the scribblage. )
|
