121–130 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SQL is the standard language for querying relational data, so why not.
It's not a great standard. Practically keywords the whole English language...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely crossed my mind, but I'm working on hosts where installing auditd isn't really easy. Broken yum and apt all over the place makes installing new packages almost impossible. Same goes for lsof, but its installed in "enough" places. Kinda nightmarish, but it gives me a chance to write some fun code ;). Also, thanks for the article! Super interesting. Think that'd be better than implementing something on top o…
Another non polling option: http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2014-07-25/opensnoop-for-li...
I wasn't aware of the polling limitations of sysdig, but it definitely explains some things I've seen in the past. This is definitely going in my toolkit. Cheers!
Edit: dammit, spelled his name wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I like the idea of using sql but it is painful to write. It would be nice to omit the select and the quoting; my suggestion would be that fsql "select * from ..." could be written as select all from ... and all could be assumed if ommitted; so you could write select from or just from ... But unfortunately `select` is a sh(1) reserved word and `from` is an existing command! (shows who who your mail is from) So m…
> or just > from ... Or just ... Why even bother naming fields. Just make enter return everything from anywhere from all time for all people on all platforms. How many times are we going to have this ridiculous suggestion that less characters/words is automatically better. This is 'short/arrow functions' (pick your language) all over again, and invariably ends up with the situation where the new syntax is just fuckin…
Fewer is better, in this case, and anyone who spends a large portion of their time in a terminal will likely agree. In most situations, one simply wants to answer a query or perform an operation as soon and as painlessly as possible and move on with their work.
How pretty the command is is irrelevant. You're never going to look at it again once it gives you the answer.
Ain't nobody got time to write full-fledged SQL queries to get access to a subset of GNU find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I like the idea of using sql but it is painful to write. It would be nice to omit the select and the quoting; my suggestion would be that fsql "select * from ..." could be written as select all from ... and all could be assumed if ommitted; so you could write select from or just from ... But unfortunately `select` is a sh(1) reserved word and `from` is an existing command! (shows who who your mail is from) So m…
> or just > from ... Or just ... Why even bother naming fields. Just make enter return everything from anywhere from all time for all people on all platforms. How many times are we going to have this ridiculous suggestion that less characters/words is automatically better. This is 'short/arrow functions' (pick your language) all over again, and invariably ends up with the situation where the new syntax is just fuckin…
Not what I suggested; yes they are shorter but that's not the point. Can you find a longer name than for `select` that is more appropriate?
I sympathise but for interactive shells the ergonomics are different than for most languages.
Even then I don't mind long names but I do mind hitting the shift key. Which means avoiding most punctuation.
For those of us on Windows: Everything [1] does the job quite nicely with much less verbose syntax. [1] http://voidtools.com
I've been using this for years and it is LIGHTNING fast. No need to "index" all the files because it reads directly from the MFT. If you create a new file matching the search pattern it's already sitting in the results window by the time you alt-tab. Also, the "directory size" equivalent of Everything is WizTree [1] ... much faster than WinDirStat, which I see recommended way too often. [1] http://antibody-software.c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that MS needs an excuse to index the contents of your files.
Everything does not index the content of your files, only the name and some attributes. Also MS already index file contents by default, it just sucks at it. There have been several occasions where I use the find file by name syntax and Windows can't even find the file in the current folder.
name:*mylostfile*.txt
Seems if the query is always going to start with SELECT, that maybe it should be assumed? I would never use this though, ack or find seem sufficient to me.
Does anyone remember WinFS (1)? Bill Gates described it as his biggest product regret (2). I remember I thought it was brilliant. Too bad it was probably a little bit too futuristic for its time, as for a few other things they launched when it just was not the right time... the clunky Tablet PCs (3) were for sure another example. (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS (2) http://www.zdnet.com/article/bill-gates-bi…
To clarify the comment re: Bill Gates biggest regret, his biggest regret according to the referenced article was that Microsoft never shipped WinFS. He did not regret the product itself. It was unclear to me what the parent meant, as my first question was, "If he regretted it, did he allude to reasons why it's a bad idea?" But that question no longer makes sense when you realize that the Mr Gates ostensibly still bel…
> We had a rich database as the client/cloud store that was part of a Windows release that was before its time. This is an idea that will remerge since your cloud store will be rich with schema rather than just a bunch of files and the client will be a partial replica of it with rich schema understanding.
Then he confirms few comment later that he was talking about WinFS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/18bhme/im_bill_gates_...