Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 344 posts

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#311

Post by Ginger-Pickles »

throwaway_08932 wrote: post #176

A few years ago, I read all of bash.org from beginning to end. It took about a week of transit rides. There were a lot of laughs, but a huge proportion of it was slurs directed at Black people and women. It's probably time for it to fade away. The quotes I remember the most were (paraphrased) 1. Best ebay review ever -- bought item for my brother who had cancer, item never arrived and my brother died 2. Something abo…

Once upon a time I eagerly showed a promising newbie the top page, and they said exactly the same thing. Felt bad.

> As we all know, the most secure computer is one not connected to the internet. That’s why I recommend Telstra ADSL.

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#313

Post by qingcharles »

philsnow wrote: post #286
RainaRelanah wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works for me. Do note that archive.is blocks CloudFlare DNS.

This has bitten me before; now my pihole has this line in its dnsmasq configuration server=/archive.is/archive.ph/8.8.8.8 so that even if I'm using cloudflare dns for everything else, it will query 8.8.8.8 for those two domains

This hack needs to be pinned to the front of HN :)

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#314

Post by TylerE »

KomoD wrote: post #295
TylerE wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily said when it's not your $100/mo for something that no longer interests you.

I was taking this comment into account > and putting on a few ads (ethical, non-intrusive, etc.) can net you passive $100+/mo.

My response is: In what decade?

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#315

Post by mikrotikker »

ryandv wrote: post #297
pixl97 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder why basically _everything_ must be on the Web NAT. You can thank NAT for making the internet far worse.

That's right. The death of P2P is in many ways thanks to NAT. How reliable is hole punching these days? Where is the activity in the peer to peer space today?

I miss direct connect terribly...

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#316

Post by qingcharles »

toyg wrote: post #53
bayindirh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Host resolves, packets are dropped (ICMP timeouts, but nothing is "unreachable"). My sysadmin gut says that the server is there, behind a firewall, and the webserver is down/stopped, or the firewall is killing everything. The IP is not shared. It reverse-resolves, too. So, it's not dismantled and thrown to side. Looks like the hosting provider, Idologic, got bought by Stablepoint. Maybe they have somehow blocked the…

One of the most famous quotes was about a server that is online and pings, but the sysadmin doesn't know anymore where it physically is.

I'd love to find the contact details for this old server I used to use. It's been online continuously since 1996 and I know the first name of the guy that has it, but I don't remember his last name. Shit, the server hardware might even be mine, I don't even remember. I can't even remember if it is Linux or *BSD at this point.

http://resworld.eolith.net/staff.html

The email address is no use as that is my domain name and I dropped it in like 1997 o_O

Dustin: if you see this I would love to pull my DMs off Resworld :)

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#317

Post by qingcharles »

bayindirh wrote: post #41
michaelcampbell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than money, they still require care and feeding. At some age (and I'm getting to that), you just tire of being a sysadm, esp. for "home"/hobby stuff.

Even if it's a static HTML, you need to patch your webserver, OS, and migrate the whole stack to newer versions. This is why I'm scaling down my home infrastructure to SBCs and run everything on Debian with stock package repositories. It reduces tons of burden to something very manageable.

No, you definitely don't. I'm pretty sure no-one has performed one single update on my old server since we installed it in 1996:

http://resworld.eolith.net/staff.html

I don't remember if it is Linux or *BSD now, but I don't even know how you would update a kernel or libraries that old lol

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#318

Post by int_19h »

throwitaway1123 wrote: post #224
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any data to support your assertion that a "great majority"(whatever that means) of users in the present "have great difficulty handling the fact that they need to launch different apps on their computer for different purposes"? Because it seems wildly hyperbolic. We're not in the year 1995 anymore.

> Because it seems wildly hyperbolic. We're not in the year 1995 anymore. That's exactly what I was thinking. We're not in the 90s when people thought AOL and the internet were synonyms.

Yeah; now they think that Chrome is...

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#319

Post by bayindirh »

johnklos wrote: post #267
bayindirh wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, I update the servers and software, but the actual amount of work needed for the site is, quite literally, zero. I think this is what I said? Quoting myself: > Even if it's a static HTML, you need to patch your webserver, OS, and migrate the whole stack to newer versions. I don't think I said "you need to update/patch the webpage itself". Huh. The password masking algorithm changes some words possibly.

I was making the point that the web server can just keep getting updated by virtue of being part of an active server. Separately, the site doesn't need any updating / maintenance. The same person or people who run the servers aren't necessarily the same person or people who make the web sites. People can just as easily have static sites on SDF.org. There'd be no reason for anyone to fret about whether the servers are…

Of course, I'm generally on the side which maintains the servers. Some of these servers happen to be my own servers which stores my own stuff.

BTW, I'm on SDF. I love these guys. They sometimes nuke my TTRSS user, but that's OK. :D

The whole stack, at least in my parlance, means anything and everything between your (static) webpage and hardware. From kernel to the server which serves your page.

IOW, I use stack as in "LAMP" stack. In this case it's only LA, but it's a stack nonetheless.

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#320

Post by bayindirh »

qingcharles wrote: post #317
bayindirh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it's a static HTML, you need to patch your webserver, OS, and migrate the whole stack to newer versions. This is why I'm scaling down my home infrastructure to SBCs and run everything on Debian with stock package repositories. It reduces tons of burden to something very manageable.

No, you definitely don't. I'm pretty sure no-one has performed one single update on my old server since we installed it in 1996: http://resworld.eolith.net/staff.html I don't remember if it is Linux or *BSD now, but I don't even know how you would update a kernel or libraries that old lol

I can say that the server in question is updated at least until 2010. However, some of the software running on it has some (read: quite a few) weaknesses as far as I can see.

...and it has ports open.

Maybe you should give it a backrub, IDK. It's possible to iteratively update that thing AFAICS.

Post reply on HN