tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Proposal: Add option to add dates to write(1)


I'm not really thinking anymore about really patching write, but just for
completion. ;-)

> > > Agreed, the complexity might not be worth it, fsvo of "it".  But the
> > > OP's proposal was more complex, requiring agreement between sender
> > > and recipient.  By using ~/.writefmt instead, write locates the
> > > user, attempts to open one file in his home directory and, if
> > > successful, uses the contained string to format the time.  Fallback
> > > is current behavior. It's small, safe, predictable, and
> > > convenient.  
> >
> > so you want write(1) or group tty resp. to have even more permissions
> > than currently. 
> No.  Anyone can read a mode 644 file.  
Thus having permissions in your home directory set.

> > And to fail when network is down because of nfs (home) hanging, ldap
> > hanging, or whatever.
> Not ldap, surely.  who(1) looks in /var.  
Depending on your nss configuration, the system might first look into ldap
for gecos fields.

> *Because* it relies on administrative cooperation, however, I doubt the
> feature you've implemented has general utility.  It is subject to
> being forgotten or ignored because it's nonstandard and because only
> some recipients want it used.  I suspect most operators -- not yours,
> of course -- don't care whether the date appears in the message
> banner.  Certainly in the general case senders don't care a fig about
> the receivers' formatting preferences.  
My patch is not about the general case, but about people having a write
session for days. And if you do so, you have to agree with your communication
partner *anyway* about the terminal you use, and some kind of communication
protocol to be able to read the output.

> That is why I said the receiver should be able to express a preference
> that write respects, something he already does with e.g. mesg(1).  I
> was challenged to come up with a way to do that, a challenge I've
> perhaps taken too seriously, and one definitely made more interesting by
> the skeptical audience.  
That would be optimal, yes.

Regards, Julian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index