You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-286        
 
Author Message
25 new of 286 responses total.
tsty
response 50 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 20 07:29 UTC 2004

hell, a buncha of us *wish* we could take credit for the salvation.
  
congratulations to whomever it was!
/
naftee
response 51 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 21 02:18 UTC 2004

re 49 oic, but why'd it take so long ?!
jor
response 52 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 21 12:09 UTC 2004

 grex: telnet

/tmp: write failed, file system is full

/tmp: write failed, file system is full
/usr/local/grex-scripts/.inet_real/telnet> 

jor
response 53 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 21 12:11 UTC 2004

 grex: df
Filesystem            kbytes    used   avail capacity  Mounted on
/dev/sd0a             109823   73971   24870    75%    /
/dev/sd0d             156783  120973   20132    86%    /usr
/dev/sd6h            1971009 1798533       0   101%    /usr/local
/dev/sd0e             706783  372750  263355    59%    /bbs
/dev/sd0f             471183  450069       0   106%    /x
/dev/sd6g            1969885 1621510  151387    91%    /var
/dev/sd7h            1969885 1026946  745951    58%    /var/spool/mail
/dev/sd2a              31023   16317   11604    58%    /rootbak
/dev/sd2d              31023   15998   11923    57%    /suidbin
/dev/sd2f              62863   56584       0   100%    /tmp
/dev/sd2h             842574  709514   48803    94%    /s
/dev/sd4a            1944365 1749935       0   100%    /c
/dev/sd7g            1971009  774405  999504    44%    /d
/dev/sd11g           1971692 1733443   41080    98%    /a
/dev/sd2e             699223  455142  174159    72%    /oldvar
 grex:


naftee
response 54 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 21 15:48 UTC 2004

Filesystem            kbytes    used   avail capacity  Mounted on
/dev/sd0a             109823   73979   24862    75%    /
/dev/sd0d             156783  121239   19866    86%    /usr
/dev/sd6h            1971009 1798541       0   101%    /usr/local
/dev/sd0e             706783  372754  263351    59%    /bbs
/dev/sd0f             471183  450069       0   106%    /x
/dev/sd6g            1969885 1629334  143563    92%    /var
/dev/sd7h            1969885 1028824  744073    58%    /var/spool/mail
/dev/sd2a              31023   16317   11604    58%    /rootbak
/dev/sd2d              31023   15998   11923    57%    /suidbin
/dev/sd2f              62863    3873   52704     7%    /tmp
/dev/sd2h             842574  709514   48803    94%    /s
/dev/sd4a            1944365 1671559   78370    96%    /c
/dev/sd7g            1971009  780978  992931    44%    /d
/dev/sd11g           1971692 1733229   41294    98%    /a
/dev/sd2e             699223  455142  174159    72%    /oldvar
rcurl
response 55 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 05:26 UTC 2004

The vandal has struck here too - 50 newresponse items, with many just
'activations' of items with no response entered. Does Grex have any
way to stop these denial-of-service attacks?
glenda
response 56 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 05:34 UTC 2004

These are the result of Tod scribbling all his responses yet again.
rcurl
response 57 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 05:37 UTC 2004

It sure is a nuisance.
glenda
response 58 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 05:39 UTC 2004

He hit almost every cf, including 107 new responses in Fall 2003 Agora and
60 in Winter 2003/2004.
rcurl
response 59 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 05:57 UTC 2004

It would be useful if responses could only be scribbled within some short
time - 24 hours? - after posting them. 
mfp
response 60 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 06:53 UTC 2004

That's not technically feasible.  Especially since no-one's going to spend
any time doing it.  Since they aren't even making New Grex go.
slynne
response 61 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 15:19 UTC 2004

resp:59 - yes, it would be useful if that were the rule. We could have 
avoided the whole valerie and jep thing if that were the case. As it 
is, as long as we allow some users to delete their posts, we have to 
allow everyone to do it even if some people choose to be obnoxious 
about it. 
albaugh
response 62 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 17:03 UTC 2004

I don't think a limit on scribbling is warranted, as much as I'm annoyed.
As intelligently as he writes, tod is acting like a moron every time he does
this.  Maybe he's trying to keep up with the polytarp's in the twit race...
tod
response 63 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 18:16 UTC 2004

Or maybe I'm exercising my right to scribble old responses and saving Grex
some disk space while others see it as a nuisance.  Move along, nothing to
see here, folks.
rcurl
response 64 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 18:59 UTC 2004

Why don't you  think a limit on  scribbling is warranted, albaugh? It
could give anyone adequate time to scribble if they want. The point is
to stop this *wholesale* scribbling, which grinds one's use of the  bbs
to a crawl, as one encounters and bypasses numerous empty responses. If
there were a limit, those that want to scribble would not have as many
to scribble all at once. 
tod
response 65 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 19:07 UTC 2004

Why not change Picospan to not show items as having a new response when there
is just a scribble INSTEAD of punishing those that want to remove their
responses for whatever reasons they may have?
gelinas
response 66 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 19:59 UTC 2004

I don't _think_ removing your responses will save grex significant disk-space:
each response is lines in a file, and the file still remains after the lines
are gone.

Picospan (and probably every other conferencing system) just compares the
last-modified time of the item file with the last-read time in the
participation file.  Deleting a response updates the modification time of the
item file.
marcvh
response 67 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 20:02 UTC 2004

I'm not sure what the 24-hour time period would do.  But it's become
pretty clear that allowing authors to scribble their own responses
causes more problems than it solves.
tod
response 68 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 20:48 UTC 2004

The discussion of "allowing authors to" is a problem outside of the truth
complaint I'm hearing.  People complain they are being told there is a new
response when there isn't one.  It has nothing to do with motivation within
authors.

Joe says, " Picospan (and probably every other conferencing system) just
compares the
 last-modified time of the item file with the last-read time in the
 participation file.  Deleting a response updates the modification time of
the
 item file."

That sounds like a problem to me.  Perhaps its time to revisit the
modification detection process in BBS.
marcvh
response 69 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 21:03 UTC 2004

"Problem" is relative.  PicoSpan was written under the assumption that 
modifying responses after they are entered would be a relatively rare
event, and so a little anomalous behavior in this case was acceptable.

Unfortunately, on an open system one can assume that anything which can
be done to annoy people will be done, and not rarely.
tod
response 70 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 23:25 UTC 2004

"a little anomalous behavior in this case was acceptable"
So the author is responsible if some deem "little" as "too much"?
Illogical.
marcvh
response 71 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 23:30 UTC 2004

If the "little" behavior is multipled by being done hundreds of times,
and thereby becomes "too much", and the author did it hundreds of times
for the express purpose of annoying people in order to beat a dead
horse, then yes.
tod
response 72 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 22 23:44 UTC 2004

Let's break this down. The "little" behavior was a one time thing unless
you're saying that somehow I populated Grex with hundreds of responses in the
sum of one day(which I did not).
If I delete all my responses in one day after years of posting, that makes
means I'm doing it "for the express purpose of annoying people in order to
beat a dead horse"?
I find the analysis of the behavior a spin from the real complaint that there
is "a little anomalous behavior in this case was acceptable".
marcvh
response 73 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 23 00:05 UTC 2004

This was not a one-time thing; you have repeatedly run scribble scripts,
which slow the system down, scribble your items, and produce mild
annoyance due to PicoSpan timestamp issues or people who now have
difficulty following conversations in items where your content has been
removed.  I have no idea what your point is with the "entering hundreds
of responses in one day" part so I'll ignore it.

Yes, based on the information available, I feel the most reasonable
conclusion is that you run scribble scripts for the express purpose of
annoying people in order to beat a dead horse.  If you can honestly say
that you have some other primary reason and you have no wish to annoy
people, then I apologize.

I agree with you that this is a bug in PicoSpan, but that seems only
peripherally relevant.
tpryan
response 74 of 286: Mark Unseen   Jul 23 11:57 UTC 2004

        Let's get down to the point of abuse of the system and 
stay there.  98% of the responses recently scribbled had already
been scribbled.  That is consumeing resources beyond reasonable use.
        Tod, I thought you where one for taking responsibility for
ones deeds.  It is not the fault of the system.  The fault is yours.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-286        
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss