Who invented the finger?



Jim Flom wrote:
>> If it's anything like the bugs in my Windows Vista OS, it's rife.


Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Obviously you can't tell the difference between a bug and a feature.


I always though of Rumsfeld as being a walking incarnation of a Windows OS.
 
On Mar 24, 6:38 pm, Les Earnest <[email protected]> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schwartz
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>[email protected] wrote:

>
> >>>Les Earnest did:
> >>>http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2100-1035_11-6168685.html?tag=nl...

>
> >>>I raced in the Norcal/Nevada district in the early-mid 80s. Les (and
> >>>IIRC his wife) was a frequent official at bike racing events. I had
> >>>no idea his day job was so impressive. Thank you Les for coming out
> >>>on weekends to listen to sweaty guys argue over who got 6th place in
> >>>the cat 3 criterium around an industrial park.

>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thre...

>
> >>Les didn't invent the internets, but he knew a lot of the players.

>
> > One of the reasons that thread is so great is the Dave Bailey response to AA:

>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8c2f4571b760e792

>
> Thanks to all for the kind words. However if you read the first article
> carefully you will see that the use of Finger as a blogging service was
> accidental rather than something I planned. Another unplanned use of the
> Plan files was to disseminate public keys for private communications.
> They were used in both ways for about 20 years before the Web came into
> existence in the mid-1990s


I think that unanticipated uses of a tool are usually a sign that it's
a good, flexible tool. You can think of finger as one of the first
(probably THE first, but I'm not nerd-history major) personal-info
publishing tools on any internet, much less the big-I Internet.

One famous, unmentioned use of .plan files was as the primary info
source from id Software about in-development projects. John Carmack
and many of the other main developers had regularly-updated .plan
files, and used them to discuss what they were working on. There were
some famous spats that played out there.

Last updated in 2005, John Carmack's .plan now just has a URL that
points at his irregularly-updated blog:
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/johnc/Recent Updates

id Software is famous for its Doom and Quake games, which pretty much
set the benchmarks for first-person shooters for a decade or so.

> Incidentally, one university reportedly banned the use of Finger under
> that name on the grounds that it was a dirty word. They supposedly chose
> a more politically correct name but I now forget what it was.
>
> -Les Earnest


It takes a rather dirty mind to see "finger," even in its verb form,
primarily as a dirty word. I trust they also banned log files,
nslookup, child processes, kill, daemons...

I sense .projection,
 
On Mar 25, 5:49 pm, "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It takes a rather dirty mind to see "finger," even in its verb form,
> primarily as a dirty word. I trust they also banned log files,
> nslookup, child processes, kill, daemons...


I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".

Bret
 
Bret wrote:
> I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
> 4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
> and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".


If they were worried about the daemons, I wonder what they thought about
the zombies.
 
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:11:05 +0200, Donald Munro <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bret wrote:
>> I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
>> 4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
>> and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".

>
>If they were worried about the daemons, I wonder what they thought about
>the zombies.


I don't know if they backed off from it, but LA County was insisting that all of
its vendors not use cruel words like "Master" and "Slave" to describe the
relationship between various electronic devices. They also prohibited the use of
"Male" and "Female" to describe the connectors used between them.

Ron
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Bret" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 5:49 pm, "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It takes a rather dirty mind to see "finger," even in its verb form,
> > primarily as a dirty word. I trust they also banned log files,
> > nslookup, child processes, kill, daemons...

>
> I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
> 4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
> and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".


A short trip to the dictionary may have helped.
Definition 2 is obviously what the framers had in mind.
Obviously definition 3 was hung on post facto
by a conquering religion. Originally, pagan and
heathen purely meant `heath dweller.' Friday the
thirteenth was once considered lucky.

1. (Gr. Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a
middle place between men and deities in pagan mythology.
The demon kind is of an inmediate nature between the
divine and the human. Sydenham.

2. One's genius; a tutelary spirit or internal voice; as,
the demon of Socrates. [Often written dæmon.]

3. An evil spirit; a devil.
--
Michael Press
 
"Les Earnest" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Incidentally, one university reportedly banned the use of Finger under
> that name on the grounds that it was a dirty word. They supposedly chose a
> more politically correct name but I now forget what it was.


Well, Les, I'm perfectly willing to give you the Finger.
 
On Mar 26, 12:11 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bret wrote:
> > I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
> > 4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
> > and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".

>
> If they were worried about the daemons, I wonder what they thought about
> the zombies.


I believe that computer nerds of all creeds are united in their desire
to kill zombies under all possible circumstances.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 12:11 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bret wrote:
> > > I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
> > > 4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
> > > and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".

> >
> > If they were worried about the daemons, I wonder what they thought about
> > the zombies.

>
> I believe that computer nerds of all creeds are united in their desire
> to kill zombies under all possible circumstances.


Zombies cannot be killed. That is in the definition. It
has already terminated.
--
Michael Press
 
Ryan Cousineau
>> I believe that computer nerds of all creeds are united in their desire
>> to kill zombies under all possible circumstances.


Michael Press wrote:
> Zombies cannot be killed. That is in the definition. It
> has already terminated.


Perhaps he meant prevent instead of kill.

We need to reboot the rbr universe if we want to get rid of our zombies,
although our voodoo priest Schwartz will probably revive them.
 
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:12:30 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>We need to reboot the rbr universe if we want to get rid of our zombies,
>although our voodoo priest Schwartz will probably revive them.


To be clear, to make a Zombie, the Livedrunk group starts with two
kinds of rum; the medical nerd side starts with a dead body.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
* Michael Press <[email protected]> a écrit
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 12:11 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Bret wrote:
>> > > I once worked for a company that sold EDA work stations running BSD
>> > > 4.2. We had a customer in Texas complain about the daemon processes
>> > > and lobbied hard for us to rename them. "Sorry, but we can't do that".
>> >
>> > If they were worried about the daemons, I wonder what they thought about
>> > the zombies.

>>
>> I believe that computer nerds of all creeds are united in their desire
>> to kill zombies under all possible circumstances.

>
> Zombies cannot be killed. That is in the definition. It
> has already terminated.


Right - without getting too tecnical Zombies _must_ exist after
termination so that the process that called them can read their exit
status

They should eventually disappear after the parent checks the exit
status to free up the spot in the process id table

--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
 
Davey Crockett wrote:

> They should eventually disappear after the parent checks the exit
> status to free up the spot in the process id table


But some parents are neglectful and others die young.
 
* Donald Munro <[email protected]> a écrit
> Davey Crockett wrote:
>
>> They should eventually disappear after the parent checks the exit
>> status to free up the spot in the process id table

>
> But some parents are neglectful and others die young.
>


Right you are

But a process whose parent has died is an "orphan" which is quite
different from a "zombie"

--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]