Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2002:March:04 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2002/3/4-5 [Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:24020 Activity:high
3/3     Doh.  I missed out on the answer to the "Can we run php on Soda?"
        thread and I can't seem to find an answer on the Soda webpage.
        Are there any plans afoot to implement php on Soda?  --erikred
        \_ For the fifth time, no.  If you want to run php, build it yourself,
           and run it via CGI mechanisms.
           \_ why not?
              \_ Grumble.  From the CSUA FAQ:
                 We expect our members to be at least somewhat computer
                 literate, and to have an interest in learning and
                 experimenting. Because of that, and the fact that our staff
                 are all volunteers, we don't serve the users in the same way
                 someplaces like the [19]OCF does.  This doesn't mean soda is
                 especially unreliable or uncared for, it just means we expect
                 people to be better able to fend for themselves.
                 9. Soda doesn't have XXX installed, could you please install
                 No. Except in special cases, soda staff does not install
                 software on request. Soda is meant to promote a user
                 community, and as such we encourage people to make their
                 own contributions by installing new software. In addition,
                 installing software can be a great learning experience
                 (and is how a number of soda staff got their start). If
                 you wish to install something on soda, just send mail to
                 root asking for the necessary permissions to do so.

                 Furthermore, the majority of sodans don't have php-enabled
                 web pages, so the extra overhead of running php from within
                 Apache (i.e. mod_php) is wasteful.
                 \_ This is a stupid response.  Obviously, mod_php is much
                    more interesting than the CGI version, and a user can't
                    install mod_php.  A decision on whether the small amount
                    of extra resources required for mod_php is worthwhile
                    should be made by the people who run the machine, not
                    some anonymous coward on the MOTD.  (If you can manage
                    to get the people who run the machine to respond to
                    e-mail).  -tom
                    \_ No, it isn't a stupid response.  Saying "please install
                       PHP" is just the beginning...   "OK, but I need the
                       gd charting module!  and the DB access module!  what
                       about the LDAP module?"  ad infinitum  If it were just
                       one "portinstall -P", sure, why not.
                        \_ no it's a stupid response, grumpy root person.
                           it's not like installing software is actually
                           difficult in these days of ports and packages,
                           big freakin' deal.  doesn't anyone enjoy
                           a challenge anymore?
                                \_ sysadmins work for pay these days -ex-vp
                    \_ tom, I'm just parroting the response that root staff
                       gave the last three times this was asked.  Fuck off.
                       - anonymous coward on the MOTD.
        \_ Thank you.  --erikred
        \_ why don't ou just run PHP on ocf?
2002/3/4-5 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:24021 Activity:very high
3/3     Can I run a MUD on soda?  How about a netrek server for me and my
        friends?  Maybe an IRC node, too.  And oh yeah, would it be ok if I
        ran a few p2p clients and the seti/cancer cure/auto-spammer client,
        too?  I can install all this stuff on my own.  I just need access.
        \_ Yes.  By all means.  It will speed your departure. !staff.
        \_ there are other ways to be a hoser.  I am sure you will find them.
        \_ Back in my day we didn't ask permission to install software, we'd
           just break root and install shit.
        \_ Uh, I assume you're being facetious, but except for the filesharing
           stuff (juarez policy) and auto-spammer crap (obvious reasons), why
           the heck not?  I'd keep it off soda, maybe, but the CSUA used
           to run a bunch of public servers (crossfire, netrek, anonymizer,
           whatever.)  If you're willing to put in the time to help maintain
           some machines for the purpose, why should anyone object?  What
           is the CSUA server/hardware situation right now, anyway?  -John
           \_ Yeah, tom or peterm used to run a netrek server on soda.  It
              was back when the lottery scheduler was agoing.  I'm not
              sure how well it would behave on current soda, and I'm not
              sure if there was some policy decision causing it to stop,
              but go for it, duud... --scotsman
                \_ It wasn't me, and I don't think it was peterm.  There is a
                   general policy on daemons, or at least there used to be;
                   you had to have a README letting root know what it was, and
                   root reserved the right to kill it if it was causing
                   problems.  -tom
           \_ Yes I was clowning around.  I thought it was obvious but look
              how many fools took it seriously.  There's no need to troll the
              motd.  People are begging to get trolled around here.  Lighten
              up, folks.  I thought it was easy to get stoned at Cal.
              \_ most motd posters are no longer @ cal.
                 \_ So?  Drugs are everywhere.  Find them.  Get your doctor
                    to prescribe something.  They love doing that.  Drink
                    heavily.  Anything will do.
              \_ So you're saying that was your weak attempt at humor?
                 \_ No.  I'm not saying that at all.  Maybe it was too subtle
                    for you and you feel stupid having responded as if it was
                    a serious post.  I'm guessing you're one of the first 2
                    \_ Nah, I think the guy is responding to the fact that
                       you're acting like a jackass.  *shrug*
2002/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:24022 Activity:high
3/4     Enron/Taliban link explained:
        \_ Uh, there were any surprises in here for you?
        \_ That is a really sad attempt to try to tie the Bush
           administration to Enron.  I don't like Bush that much,
           he just proposed the largest budget in US history.
           But why does the Enron timeline as reported in the
           media always omit the years 1992-2000?
           Do yourself a favor and search for Ron Brown and Enron.
           Wait, you don't know who Ron Brown was?  He was Clinton's
           Commerce Secratary who personally escorted Lay on trade
           mission to India, Africa and the Balkans.   In one case a
           week after Lay cut the DNC a 100,000$ check.  Lay had at
           least a dozen sleep overs in the Clinton's White House.  Oh,
           and what happened to Brown? Well his plane "accidently"
           and what happened to Brown? Well his plane conveniently
           crashed in the mountains of Croatia shortly before he was
           to be subpoened by Congress to testify about Clinton.
                \_ hi, check your facts, Lay never slept over
                   at the clinton white house.  are people going
                   to repeat this over and over until it becomes true? - danh
                                \_  Thanks I retract that then.
           \_ Fucking right wing conspiracy spouting fascist!  Don't bring
              *facts* into this!  We all know Enron only existed during
              Republican administrations.  We know what the meaning of "is"
              is, damn it!
                \_ it is kind of funny how the current administration
                   is pretending they never heard of enron, when
                   enron was bush's biggest contributor and is/was
                   so blatingly pro business first when deciding
                   on policy.
                        \_  What are you refering to?  Last I checked
                            Enron called the Secretary Oneil,
                            but the administration did nothing.  Are you
                            implying the administration should have gone
                            public with info about Enron? It was
                            Robert Rubin (of Long Term Capital Management
                            fame) that wanted government intervention.
                            If there's any lesson to be learned about this,
                            it's that we need to pay more taxes and need
                            bigger federal government.
                            \_ How'd you get *that* lesson from this?  The
                               lesson is "diversify your investments" and "dont
                               believe the hype from management".  These are
                               ancient bits of wisdom people seem to need to
                               re-learn over n over n over....
                                  \_  Being sarcastic...
2002/3/4-5 [Uncategorized] UID:24023 Activity:high
3/4     M$ says that removing exploder will be a death blow:
        \_ They might have to pull their systems off the market....and develop
           new ones!  Think of the market share they'd lose as their
           competitors steal market share!  Right... no competitors.  Well,
           but people _need_ a new product!  Look at how many people are still
           running Win 98!  Oh wait... wrong way.  Um.
        \_ On good hardware it would take an hour to recompile using the
           -D NO_CRAP switch.
           \_ VC++: Error: #define NO_CRAP: unsupported!
                \_ It's coming in a future version.  Just keep buying MS!
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2002:March:04 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>