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

Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

thejh.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 272 posts

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#221

Post by cmsj »

nitrogen wrote: post #187
laumars wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just bad administration as even on Windows, you can easily disable them ( msconfig ). With Linux, this isn't even an issue unless you're blindly installing dozens of daemons (which, again, can easily be disabled) as Linux doesn't have hundreds of application launchers that install themselves like Windows does (again, daemons being the exception). The only example I can think of where you might run into problem…

This may have been true 5-10 years ago, but modern desktops are removing the ability to manage services, sessions, and startup apps easily and clearly.

To be fair, some of this is driven by real needs. People want fast boots, so you have to work tightly in parallel. That requires a clear and complex dependency graph. That requires significantly more than some symlinks in /etc/rc?.d/. Also as distros aim to pare down their default installs, you end up in a situation where there is very little that you actually can disable without breaking your ability to boot.

Furthermore, given typical CPU/RAM overheads on modern hardware, disabling something that takes a fraction of a second to start and consumes almost no RAM can seem slightly pointless!

I'm not familiar with systemd, but upstart takes a similar approach to sysvinit - don't want something to start? Just move it out of /etc/init/ like you would have rm'd the symlink in /etc/rc?.d/ :)

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#222

Post by cmsj »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #109
rytis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really sad, especially when something like Chef-client is also installed in a similar fashion [0], one would expect these guys to know better: sudo true && curl -L https://www.opscode.com/chef/install.sh | sudo bash [0] http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Installing+Omnibus+Chef...

Know better... in order to do what? They also provide an APT repository, which you can choose to use instead of the curl command. The curl command exists solely for convenience, because it autodetects your OS, distro version, and automatically registers the right APT repository for you if you're on Debian. As I've mentioned here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508680 ), people often freak out at curl commands…

Allow me to show you a viable proposal for an alternative:

http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/man8/apturl.8.ht...

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#223

Post by cmsj »

perlgeek wrote: post #71
cmsj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, what is confusing? If you select text it always goes into the selection buffer. If you also press the clipboard copy shortcut (so, Ctrl-C most of the time, sometimes Ctrl-Shift-C in a terminal) the selection is copied into the clipboard buffer. Ctrl-V (or, again, sometimes Ctrl-Shift-V in a terminal) pastes the clipboard buffer. Middle mouse button (or shift-Insert) pastes the selection buffer. Is th…

Firefox causes additional confusion by rebinding Ctrl+Insert to what Ctrl+v usually does (copying the clipboard buffer, not the selection buffer). Also there are some cases where javascript which selects text for you causes very unintuitive behavior wrt selection buffer.

Just one more reason to abandon the extraordinary towering failure that is Firefox ;)

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#224

Post by apotheon »

fein wrote: post #199
dredmorbius wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With Linux, this isn't even an issue That's a problem systemd is trying very hard to solve. /sarcasm SysV init may be old, crufty, and inelegant, but it's reasonably straightforward to parse and troubleshoot manually (and BSD-style rc inits are even more straightforward). Making the bootstrap process nondeterministic strikes me as tremendously unwise.

I agree here. I really enjoyed the explicit control granted by sysV. The switch to systemd just seems like fixing something that isn't broken. I will probably be proved wrong as systemd matures, but right now it's just not the case.

> I will probably be proved wrong as systemd matures, but right now it's just not the case.

Yeah . . . I doubt it. I made the switch to FreeBSD as my primary OS of choice back in 2005 or 2006 without being 100% certain why I decided to try to live on BSD Unix pretty much full-time right then (there were reasons, but I think the timing of the migration was largely whim). I never even missed the Linux world for the next half decade or so. I then tried living with Debian again for a while (long story why), and I discovered that everything of substance that had gone on in the Linux world since then seemed almost tailor-made to annoy the shit out of me. It was a real shock that destroyed the fondness I still harbored for Debian.

I poked around at some other Linux distributions I hadn't tried, or handn't used in years, and discovered they were even worse -- and systemd is sorta the apotheosis (no relation) of exactly the sort of nondeterministic, "the software knows better than the user" BS that I remembered with severe loathing from my distant past primarily using (and fixing, for a living) MS Windows. Between Red Hat developers like Drepper and Poettering, the agenda of Canonical and Ubuntu, and the GNU project's strange synthesis of superficially opposed concepts like stagnation and invidious undermining of anything related to the (so-called) Unix philosophy of system design, I ultimately came to the conclusion that outside of a professional capacity (that is, writing code and/or managing servers, and that only if I'm paid) I'm simply not interested in screwing around with Linux-based systems any longer.

Your tolerance may be higher than mine but, given your comment about what you dislike about systemd, I rather suspect you'll only grow more frustrated with the direction of Linux development community efforts over time. You might want to think about diversifying your OS experience in the near future (if you haven't already) so you have a place to ready and waiting for you to go when the Linux world has finally pushed you to the point of just wanting to escape.

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#225

Post by cmsj »

eli wrote: post #20
cmsj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was expecting it to be done with Javascript, which is, afaik, how the horrible websites that tack a URL and a "this quote came from blah" attribution, work. I hate all of this stuff and it is greatly saddening that browser vendors are not protecting us from it. It's like the pop-up-on-click days of old and it must stop. If I select some text and copy it, I am taking a very explicit action. I am giving the computer…

That's a pretty narrow view. Sometimes I want a site to capture selections or right-click (think: WYSIWYG editor widget). Your beef is with the site owners who put that obnoxious stuff on their site, not with the browser that displays it. There is no limit to the number of ways a site owner can do dumb and annoying things to their readers.

No my beef is with my web browsers for allowing obnoxious things to happen. They take stands on things like blocking popups, why not clipboard interference and context menu blocking?

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#226

Post by apotheon »

laumars wrote: post #218
fein wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree here. I really enjoyed the explicit control granted by sysV. The switch to systemd just seems like fixing something that isn't broken. I will probably be proved wrong as systemd matures, but right now it's just not the case.

100% both those comments. I used to be a huge ArchLinux fan but them switching away from their rc.conf model to systemd felt like a real kick in the teeth.

Yeah . . . it looks like Arch has gotten to the point where it just kinda violates all the points of the so-called Arch Way wholesale, even worse than the mainstream (supposedly) Unix-like OSes tend to violate the so-called Unix Philosophy these days.

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#227

Post by cmsj »

theon144 wrote: post #86
cmsj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was expecting it to be done with Javascript, which is, afaik, how the horrible websites that tack a URL and a "this quote came from blah" attribution, work. I hate all of this stuff and it is greatly saddening that browser vendors are not protecting us from it. It's like the pop-up-on-click days of old and it must stop. If I select some text and copy it, I am taking a very explicit action. I am giving the computer…

>If I select some text and copy it, I am taking a very explicit action. I am giving the computer a very explicit instruction. There is no room for interpretation. It must not disobey me! From the point of view of the browser, it very explicitly does what you told it to, without interpretation, obediently. The problem is that yours and the browser's opinions differ on what you intended to do.

Then it needs to adjust its worldview to match mine. It showed me some text, I selected the text it showed me. If its simple layout engine thinks I saw some text that was rendered hundreds of pixels outside the viewable area, that is its bug, not mine.

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#228

Post by cmsj »

dllthomas wrote: post #172
qu4z-2 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a sad world we live in where some people don't have sl installed.

sl is horrible - I don't need to waste however many seconds just because I mistyped something.

I always install sl because it helps me. If I'm frustrated from typing too quickly/angrily to even get "ls" right, the little train breaks me out of my fugue state and I have to laugh and shout "choo choo!" in the office :D

Re: Don't Copy-Paste from Website to Terminal

#229

Post by lmm »

TheJH_ wrote: post #99
Tyr42 wrote: post #63

Actually, since I tried to copy it by triple clicking, which selects one line (at least, I expect it to. It's what sublime text does). That didn't copy any of the malicious text, and it just stopped between the clone and the url.

I feared someone would do that. :D Well, it'd be easy to work around this if you have JS enabled... without it, it would probably not be so easy to trick you into copying multiple lines.

Even normal selection "stuck" funnily; I could tell there was something between the clone and the rest of it. Again, possible to mitigate I'm sure.
Post reply on HN