|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 203 of 293:
| 
Feb 21 06:48 UTC 2002 |
She would not have to have done anything if an obnoxious user hadn't
accosted her. keesan is not the villain here..
|
oval
|
|
response 204 of 293:
|
Feb 21 06:51 UTC 2002 |
but she _is_ the whiner here.
|
other
|
|
response 205 of 293:
|
Feb 21 07:18 UTC 2002 |
To put this in absolutist perspective, the effort keesan put into
complaining about this abuser is far beyond what would have been required
for her to eliminate the problem he represented to her.
|
glenda
|
|
response 206 of 293:
|
Feb 21 12:43 UTC 2002 |
Sindi, did you tell the person that you did not want to chat right now? If
you did and s/he persisted than complaining is appropriate. If you did not,
how is the person supposed to know? Granted the requests should have stopped
after 2-4, but maybe the person is clueless to how it all works.
|
jp2
|
|
response 207 of 293:
|
Feb 21 15:41 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 208 of 293:
|
Feb 21 15:49 UTC 2002 |
#205> Yes, but it wouldn't have gotten her nearly the attention.
#204> Hear, hear.
|
keesan
|
|
response 209 of 293:
|
Feb 21 16:43 UTC 2002 |
Is there some way to send a telegram while I am chatting with someone else?
The people I chat with often have trouble understanding English and this
particular one would have been offended if I tried to hang up to do so, or
change my plan, so I just kept hitting Ctl-L every time the chat request
scrambled the screen (every few seconds). (It took about 20 minutes to say
goodbye after that, he wanted to chat for just another 30 min, but I finally
promised to be online Friday at noon - it is hard to find someone to chat with
you in your own language.) After changing my write permissions, I sent a
short and polite letter to smart007 explaining what had happened and
suggesting that they request a chat only once, and first do a who to find out
what the other person is doing at the moment. Did not hear back.
|
oval
|
|
response 210 of 293:
|
Feb 21 16:53 UTC 2002 |
suspend the process.
|
slynne
|
|
response 211 of 293:
|
Feb 21 17:56 UTC 2002 |
Cant you shell out of write with a !?
|
tpryan
|
|
response 212 of 293:
|
Feb 21 18:11 UTC 2002 |
I keep chats and writes off until I am done with other
things and are ready to recieve them.
|
keesan
|
|
response 213 of 293:
|
Feb 21 20:13 UTC 2002 |
I have had a few chatters get offended when they tried to reach me and I was
in Pine (cannot get chat requests while in Pine). One clever guy sent me an
email that he was online.
Can you shell out of chat?
|
mdw
|
|
response 214 of 293:
|
Feb 21 21:35 UTC 2002 |
^Z works with talk. use "fg" to get back to it.
!man tcsh
for more info on fg, ^Z, and all that.
chat/write support ! escapes, and I think it's possible to suspend them too.
|
keesan
|
|
response 215 of 293:
|
Feb 21 21:46 UTC 2002 |
Thanks, I will tell the chatter to wait 30 sec next time while I shell.
|
katie
|
|
response 216 of 293:
|
Feb 22 01:01 UTC 2002 |
For the record, I still think the person who invented 'talkdaemon'
should be lined up and shot.
|
jazz
|
|
response 217 of 293:
|
Feb 22 04:37 UTC 2002 |
Mesg's author, presumably, earned his pardon.
|
tsty
|
|
response 218 of 293:
|
Feb 22 15:28 UTC 2002 |
a !mesg N and then a quick restart of your chat <loginid>
will stop the problem. that also presumes yu haven't sent a tel to
your annoyer already.
|
keesan
|
|
response 219 of 293:
|
Feb 22 17:07 UTC 2002 |
Thanks, that sounds much easier than exiting chat and running the change
program. I did not know you could even shell from chat.
|
jp2
|
|
response 220 of 293:
|
Feb 22 17:59 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jhudson
|
|
response 221 of 293:
|
Feb 23 02:06 UTC 2002 |
Because only one kernel syscall can run at a time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 222 of 293:
|
Feb 23 15:44 UTC 2002 |
Not true. If *that* were so, lots of other things would be slow,
and a system call that didn't return would bring everything to a
stop.
|
mdw
|
|
response 223 of 293:
|
Feb 24 04:00 UTC 2002 |
Actually, only one kernel syscall can run at a time (at least under
sunos), but that's a moot point, since long-running system calls
typically block on some event and allow other things, including other
system calls, to use the CPU. None of this is particularly relevant to
why ps et al are slow -- the real reason is because sunos doesn't offer
the accellerators that later systems have to access kernel structures.
In SunOS, everything is done using "nlist" and "/dev/kmem"; on many more
recent systems, there is a kernel ksyms data structure and things in
/dev and /procfs that access the kernel ksyms data, and even more
usefully, stuff in the kernel that provides access to the process table,
per-user kernel data, and other stuff without the bother of going
through kmem. This is just one of the things that contributes to kernel
bloat in linux, solaris, etc.
|
keesan
|
|
response 224 of 293:
|
Feb 25 15:38 UTC 2002 |
Valerie kindly pointed out that there is no need to set up your own twit
filter, you can type 'ignore username'. I presume this holds for an
individual session. Is there some way to make it permanent for use when
someone has trashed all the items in a conference? I. e., can I put the line
in some file that runs whenever I use bbs?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 225 of 293:
|
Feb 25 15:46 UTC 2002 |
The spam rate here seems to be increasing. Is there a central spam filter
for incoming mail, for either source or recipient addresses (like
Undisclosed-Recipient@cyberspace.org)?
|
keesan
|
|
response 226 of 293:
|
Feb 25 16:01 UTC 2002 |
Ask Marcus, who is working on it. I forward my spams to him at UCE, with full
headers.
|
keesan
|
|
response 227 of 293:
|
Feb 25 16:07 UTC 2002 |
I am unable to connect with lynx to google, altavista, or alltheweb.
It says it is trying to connect to 123.45.567.78 (sample numbers) and nothing
happens for 60 sec. I Ctl-C to exit.
|
