|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 467 responses total. |
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. )
|
other
|
|
response 450 of 467:
|
Jan 29 07:09 UTC 2005 |
Actually the difference is that when you act like an asshole, you
shouldn't be surprised when you get treated like an asshole.
|
remmers
|
|
response 451 of 467:
|
Jan 29 13:46 UTC 2005 |
If you want a quick resolution of this, I don't see how a vote would help.
A vote proposal would probably delay a decision more than just discussing
it here. Have a look at the voting timelines specified in the bylaws. Not
to mention that a proposal doesn't guarantee that there will even be a vote,
since a certain percentage of endorsements is needed for a vote to take place.
This is too trivial an issue to subject to that kind of bureaucratic process.
Marc, in an early response, echoes my main issue with really long user id's -
in the context of Grex, to do something with the account (send email, add it
to a list, whatever), you have to type the name. And a long name is harder to
remember and easier to mistype than a short one.
HOWEVER, it remains to be seen whether that concern will really be a problem
in practice. The data Jan entered in #421 is instructive - since the limit
was increased, we've seen a bunch of reasonable id's created with 10 or 12
characters or so, and a few prank accounts by folks who like to test the
limits. Those folks are going to continue to test limits no matter what.
Another downside of a vote at this time would be that we would be trying
to solve a problem before we even know the extent of it, or even knowing for
sure if it's a problem; this is almost always a bad idea.
I'd suggest the following, for now: Leave the limits as they are, and
modify the newuser text to recommend that peoople choose id's of no more
than about 12 characters or so, pointing out the advantages of having an
id that's easy to remember and type. If after a few weeks pass, it's
evident that the current limits are a real problem, we can always revisit
the decision.
|
