Re: slow share = slow scripts?

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:20:59PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Ooooooh... and here I always thought '-f' was how you told it to *not* 
>> mount 'noexec' (which apparently isn't documented?).
> 
> Yes, there are a whole lot of things which don't actually exist in cygwin
> or in mount which are not documented.  In fact, I would hazard a guess that
> there are an infinite number.

Naw, that would imply that there are an infinite number of instructions 
in Cygwin, in which case it wouldn't fit on my hard drive. ;-)

There may be a hippoplex of things, but not an infinite number. :-)

>> Ok, I'm all confused.  :-)
> 
> You're confused by the man page which clearly states what '-f' and
> '--force' do?

Nope, wasn't reading it... I already "knew" what '-f' does, so I didn't 
think about it.

>  Maybe you need to stop using the computer for the day.

Maybe :-)

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.

RE: slow share = slow scripts?

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: mwoehlke
[snip]
> 
> There may be a hippoplex of things, but not an infinite number. :-)
                 ^^^^^^^^^ 

Ok, I'm just as sick as everybody else is with all this hippo bashing, but
that's good comedy.  ;-)

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> From: mwoehlke
> [snip]
>> There may be a hippoplex of things, but not an infinite number. :-)
>                  ^^^^^^^^^ 
> 
> Ok, I'm just as sick as everybody else is with all this hippo bashing, but
> that's good comedy.  ;-)

Glad to oblige! :-D

-- 
Matthew
Feed the hippo. Love the hippo. Run from the hippo.

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:19:35AM -0700, clayne@anodized.com wrote:
>On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:11:09PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Language, please.  Warning #1.
>
>Feel the power.

Oh, I do.

What I never understand about excahanges like this is the logic of
responding to what is suggested as questionable behavior by escalated
and inarguable questionable behavior, i.e., objecting to sarcasm by
resorting to name-calling.

>> (especially when you hadn't previously exposed your misconception) and
>> you surely don't have to send *two* messages explaining your confusion
>> when there really is nothing to be confused about.
>
>Yet we have to tell the guy to get off the computer and imbue user-stupidity
>instead? What purpose does that have? If the purpose is in alienating a fellow
>cygwin user/hacker/future contributor/etc. - then good job.

I actually suggested that he was probably at the end of a long day and
needed to take a break.  I didn't say "stop using the computer forever"
as you are implying.  And, mwoehlke, actually got that.  You might
consider that he's probably sharp enough to fight his own battles.

cgf

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I actually suggested that he was probably at the end of a long day and
> needed to take a break.  I didn't say "stop using the computer forever"
> as you are implying.  And, mwoehlke, actually got that.  You might
> consider that he's probably sharp enough to fight his own battles.

Don't I *wish* it was the end of the day. ;-)

Ok, I'm glad we've got that straightened out; I appreciate it. I'm also 
glad I *didn't* send my original reply. Sheesh, can't the world stop 
long enough for me to write a reply without three other people elbowing 
in? ;-)

...guess I need to throw a few more hippos into the works.

p.s. there's a /reason/ I added TITTTL to my dictionary. :-)

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.

RE: slow share = slow scripts?

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> 
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:19:35AM -0700, clayne@anodized.com wrote:
> >On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:11:09PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> Language, please.  Warning #1.
> >

???  I don't follow.  There's far worse language in the fortune package,
both in quantity and quality, yet you haven't banned (or rather,
unsubscribed) it.

> >Feel the power.
> 
> Oh, I do.
>

Ohhh man oh man clayne, are YOU ever in for the bannin' (well,
unsubscribin') of your life!  You're just lucky that Red Hat's lawyers don't
respond to him anymore!
 
> What I never understand about excahanges like this is the 
> logic of responding to what is suggested as questionable 
> behavior by escalated and inarguable questionable behavior, 
> i.e., objecting to sarcasm by resorting to name-calling.
> 

"Sometimes people do rude or inconsiderate things which, while lacking any
vituperative language can, nonetheless serve as fodder for an aggrieved
reaction.  The original mailer can fall back on "I didn't say anything" but,
in reality, they are just trolls.  I think I'll take a good flame over a
troll any day."

Who said that?

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:06:08PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>From: Christopher Faylor
>>On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:19:35AM -0700, clayne wrote:
>>>On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:11:09PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>Language, please.  Warning #1.
>
>???  I don't follow.

Yes.  I've noticed this trend.

cgf

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:30:58PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I've TITTL'ed this discussion.

Ugh.  I meant TITTTL, of course.  I always miss that extra T.

cgf

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[Igor Peshansky]

On Thu, 25 May 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:30:58PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I've TITTL'ed this discussion.
>
> Ugh.  I meant TITTTL, of course.  I always miss that extra T.

Just in case: <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TITTL>. :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:30:58PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> I've TITTL'ed this discussion.
>> Ugh.  I meant TITTTL, of course.  I always miss that extra T.
> 
> Just in case: <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TITTL>. :-)

:-D :-D

(but aren't you missing TITTH now? ;-))

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[Igor Peshansky]

On Thu, 25 May 2006, mwoehlke wrote:

> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:30:58PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > > I've TITTL'ed this discussion.
> > > Ugh.  I meant TITTTL, of course.  I always miss that extra T.
> >
> > Just in case: <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TITTL>. :-)
>
> :-D :-D
>
> (but aren't you missing TITTH now? ;-))

Perhaps I am, but considering the likelihood that TITTTL will be
misspelled that way, I'm not too worried. :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

TITTTLing...

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:57:03AM -0700, clayne wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:34:10PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Here is what I am talking about:
>>> ~$ mount h:/mwoehlke/src /usr/src
>>> mount: defaulting to '--no-executable' flag for speed since native path
>>>       references a remote share.  Use '-f' option to override.
>>>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> ...neither 'mount --help' or 'man mount' makes *any* mention of this
>>> additional functionality of the '-f' flag.  See?  I'm *not* imagining
>>> things.  :-)
>> The guy was simply stating that he's human and headn't read it yet.  He
>> also pointed out that an implicit behavior was not explicitly
>> documented as such, but more so infered by output when using the
>> --no-executable flag.
>>
>> '  -f, --force                   force mount, don't warn about missing mount
>> point directories '
>>
>> To you guys saying 'get off the computer' [snip potentially offensive bits]
>> Cut people some slack for once - they're on the same side as you trying to
>> achieve the same goals.

Right... We're only human. Sheesh.

> The correct response to someone telling you to use "-f" is to read the
> man page and, when you see that you've had a previous misconception
> about "-f", nod to yourself and get on with your life.  You don't have
> to send email telling us all that you thought "-f" meant something else,
> (especially when you hadn't previously exposed your misconception) and
> you surely don't have to send *two* messages explaining your confusion
> when there really is nothing to be confused about.

I could send a long message about this, but upon further reflection, I 
won't. Instead, I will point out two things.

First, I had *already* read the man page in response to Larry's post.

Second, I replied to Dave Korn *before* I saw your post (not before I 
*read* it... it wasn't there when I wrote my reply to Dave).

Think about it.

Cygwin = MSFTEU. I'm *supposed* to be confused. ;-)

According to the man page, 'mount -f' does X. From *real experience* I 
*know* that it, in fact, does Y. I think we have agreed that this is 
MSFTEU = confusing. Let's not argue about it.

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

mwoehlke wrote:
> According to the man page, 'mount -f' does X. From *real experience* I 
> *know* that it, in fact, does Y. I think we have agreed that this is 
> MSFTEU = confusing. Let's not argue about it.

Ok, good, we aren't. :-) (See other post)

Let's just add "...and does other things (MSFTEU)" to the man page for 
'-f' and be done with it. ;-)

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[Igor Peshansky]

On Thu, 25 May 2006, mwoehlke wrote:

> TITTTLing...
>
> Cygwin = MSFTEU. I'm *supposed* to be confused. ;-)

CYNUX.  How's that for confusion? ;-)

> According to the man page, 'mount -f' does X. From *real experience* I
> *know* that it, in fact, does Y. I think we have agreed that this is
> MSFTEU = confusing. Let's not argue about it.

Again, CYNUX.  Whatever you learned about mount in Linux will not apply to
Cygwin.  You've made the mistake of assuming that it does.  An
understandable mistake, but still not MSFTEU.

FWIW, running "mount -rtfm" produces extremely helpful output. :-D
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: slow share = slow scripts?

[mwoehlke]

Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
>> According to the man page, 'mount -f' does X. From *real experience* I
>> *know* that it, in fact, does Y. I think we have agreed that this is
>> MSFTEU = confusing. Let's not argue about it.
> 
> Again, CYNUX.  Whatever you learned about mount in Linux will not apply to
> Cygwin.  You've made the mistake of assuming that it does.  An
> understandable mistake, but still not MSFTEU.

What does "'-f' also means '-no-no-executable'" have to do with Linux? 
Anyway, *I* thought that "this flag that we tell you does X in fact 
/also/ does Y" was an appropriate use of the acronym. If it isn't, then 
I guess I don't know what is.

> FWIW, running "mount -rtfm" produces extremely helpful output. :-D

Heh... one character different from 'mount -wtf'? ;-)

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.