 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:39:11 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> For what it's worth, most *nix shells and comand line utilities also
> have a conniption when it comes to spaces in file names.
Not if you properly escape them or put the filename in quotes. That's a
pretty standard practice.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:45:42 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-08-31 13:50, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:19:45 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> What I *do* have an issue with is MS deciding that *I* can't get stuff
>>> done with my own PC because "most" end-users don't need that feature.
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Format a >16GB USB drive with FAT32.
That's what exfat is for, among other things (larger file sizes, too).
Surprisingly, you also cant' format a > 16 GB USB drive with FAT16,
either.
That's not MS "deciding" what you can/can't do, that's a limitation of a
filesystem created in about 1996. You really want to complain about the
limitations in a filesystem created ~20 years ago?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/2/2013 9:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It doesn't really seem reasonable to me to hold the OS producer
> responsible for not being able to do - as you call it - "semi-abnormal
> things".
>
> If the filter is behavioural, then of course it can't tell the difference
> between a diagnostic tool and actual malicious traffic. Tell me, how
> would *you* code the software to tell the difference between
> "legitimately" wonky behaviour, and actually malicious behaviour?
>
> Jim
>
The number of "botnets" around hasn't changes much, like, at all, so,
the whole entirely reason for putting such a filter in, in the first
place, is totally meaningless, which makes having it.. what? A good
idea? lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:06:35 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The number of "botnets" around hasn't changes much, like, at all, so,
> the whole entirely reason for putting such a filter in, in the first
> place, is totally meaningless, which makes having it.. what? A good
> idea? lol
That's like saying that not everyone follows the law, so we should get
rid of all laws.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> > For what it's worth, most *nix shells and comand line utilities also
> > have a conniption when it comes to spaces in file names.
> Not if you properly escape them or put the filename in quotes. That's a
> pretty standard practice.
When specifying file names on the command line using wildcards, the shell
will pass file names with spaces in them to the program appropriately.
In shell scripts, however, special care has to be taken to not make
command-line parameters (or even files retrieved using eg. file name
patterns) with spaces in them break the script.
A very common mistake is to write $* in the script to get all the command
line parameters. This will break it for parameters with spaces in them,
as the command where that expansion is used will see them as separate
parameters. The syntax for doing that properly is "$@".
You see this mistake being made all the time, even within high-profile
programs and tools that should know better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/3/2013 11:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:06:35 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The number of "botnets" around hasn't changes much, like, at all, so,
>> the whole entirely reason for putting such a filter in, in the first
>> place, is totally meaningless, which makes having it.. what? A good
>> idea? lol
>
> That's like saying that not everyone follows the law, so we should get
> rid of all laws.
>
> Jim
>
Its more like insisting that you build walls around the city, and place
armed guards at each entry, on the theory that it will stop you from
being invaded, while the "invaders", have.. tanks, bombers, cruise
missiles..
What is the point of a law that can't be enforced? Its different if it
can be. But, if all it does is turn your computer into the TSA...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:49:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 11:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:06:35 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The number of "botnets" around hasn't changes much, like, at all, so,
>>> the whole entirely reason for putting such a filter in, in the first
>>> place, is totally meaningless, which makes having it.. what? A good
>>> idea? lol
>>
>> That's like saying that not everyone follows the law, so we should get
>> rid of all laws.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Its more like insisting that you build walls around the city, and place
> armed guards at each entry, on the theory that it will stop you from
> being invaded, while the "invaders", have.. tanks, bombers, cruise
> missiles..
Well, no, because the open ports are just another door.
> What is the point of a law that can't be enforced? Its different if it
> can be. But, if all it does is turn your computer into the TSA...
That's not what I said, though. I didn't say anything about the laws
being enforceable or not.
So let's try again:
Murder is illegal. We don't have a zero murder rate. Should we get rid
of laws that make murder illegal?
Speeding is illegal. People still speed. Should we get rid of speed
laws?
Now....
Suppose we take out the measures that prevent the non-standard behaviour
that you're trying to use. Does the number of botnets /increase/ because
there's a new option? Perhaps it does - so then it could be argued that
those limitations are helpful (just like anti-murder/speeding laws have
some utility, even if they don't prevent 100% of violations).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-09-03 13:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:45:42 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Le 2013-08-31 13:50, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:19:45 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I *do* have an issue with is MS deciding that *I* can't get stuff
>>>> done with my own PC because "most" end-users don't need that feature.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> Format a >16GB USB drive with FAT32.
>
> That's what exfat is for, among other things (larger file sizes, too).
>
> Surprisingly, you also cant' format a > 16 GB USB drive with FAT16,
> either.
>
> That's not MS "deciding" what you can/can't do, that's a limitation of a
> filesystem created in about 1996. You really want to complain about the
> limitations in a filesystem created ~20 years ago?
>
> Jim
>
FAT32 can go up to 2TB with 512b sectors and 16TB with 4k sectors.
There are lots of utilities that will allow you to format a disk >16GB
with FAT32, but Windows insists on allowing only NTFS for anything
greater than 16GB.
So it is indeed Microsoft adopting a "Father knows best" attitude.
And, yes I want to complain about it, when the only way to recover a
$150,000 network appliance is by booting a recovery utility off a USB
device to reinstall the OS on the appliance itself.
Of course, this is one of the things you find out at 2am, when the only
thing you have lying around is a 512GB external drive and 3 levels of
management are looking over your shoulder, wondering if you're serious
when you tell them you need a DOS 6.0 bootable floppy to run the
BootitNG toolkit to reformat the drive.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, most *nix shells and comand line utilities also
>>> have a conniption when it comes to spaces in file names.
>
>> Not if you properly escape them or put the filename in quotes. That's a
>> pretty standard practice.
>
> When specifying file names on the command line using wildcards, the shell
> will pass file names with spaces in them to the program appropriately.
>
> In shell scripts, however, special care has to be taken to not make
> command-line parameters (or even files retrieved using eg. file name
> patterns) with spaces in them break the script.
>
> A very common mistake is to write $* in the script to get all the command
> line parameters. This will break it for parameters with spaces in them,
> as the command where that expansion is used will see them as separate
> parameters. The syntax for doing that properly is "$@".
>
> You see this mistake being made all the time, even within high-profile
> programs and tools that should know better.
>
Bingo!
If you remember, a few months ago, I was ranting about a very expensive
commercial network monitoring software suite that specifically mentioned
NOT using spaces in directory names for exactly that reason.
Unfortunately the Windows port of that software suite is installed under
C:\Program files, so they require that the disk have short file names
enabled, so that they can use C:\PROGRA~1 instead.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 09:35:45 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> If you remember, a few months ago, I was ranting about a very expensive
> commercial network monitoring software suite that specifically mentioned
> NOT using spaces in directory names for exactly that reason.
>
> Unfortunately the Windows port of that software suite is installed under
> C:\Program files, so they require that the disk have short file names
> enabled, so that they can use C:\PROGRA~1 instead.
I don't see how that's an OS issue, though.
How's the shell supposed to know if you mean a space in a filename or a
space between parameters unless you tell it which you mean?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
