[sf-lug] Thanks!: Re: ... list_members -f sf-lug | ...

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):

> On somewhat similar note, find(1) and dd(1) are rather gross aberrations
> in Unix, etc., regarding "standard" syntax.

I've gotten lost in GNU find's man page for days, and been grateful I
brought along a crust of bread. 

The big functional difference between it and dd, in the 'man page sucks'
area, is that basic functionality of dd is so well known and obvious
that you scarce need the man page.   Trying to go without the GNU find
man page is more of a challenge.

[root keyring:]

> Not necessarily.  And much like the mail command shown earlier in
> pipeline, that need not be run as root.

Clearly (and doing it in /etc/crontab is more straightforward than with
'su'), but that introduces an extra layer of baroqueness that I'd rather
do without.  Also, I class this as a system cron job; system jobs should
IMO not rely on non-system users.  (I could create a system non-root
user, but, again, baroqueness.)

Nothing we're doing in the job is the least bit dangerous, so running it
with root authority doesn't bother me in the least.

> Yes, shared secret - low tech start, but can also be usefully utilized
> to effectively bootstrap other authentication/security (e.g. when one of
> two users hasn't already generated their PGP key for keysigning event,
> or the highly common case, a user's initial temporary password).

Are you sure you can't validate my key
(http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/rick-moen-publickey.gpg) through a
reasonable-sized chain of signatures?  At one point, it was highly
connected via Drew Streib and Ted T'so's keys, among others frequently
in other people's webs of trust.

> Thanks, and yes, tested, looks perfectly fine!  :-)
> I was able to snag the file via http and decrypt it without problem.

You _could_ add it to your rsync job, if you prefer.  As you know.

> [OT]
> >>>Bleah Fitzgerald.  ;->
> >>someone wearing a _The Great Gatsby_ F. Scott Fitzgerald t-shirt
> >It was always considered an unfilmable novel (the Redford/Farrow
> Unfilmable - as if that would stop Hollywood ...
> Unfilmable movie of an unreadable book.  ;-)

One of the least well understood but ubiquitous truths of the movie
industry is that, once they own the rights to the title and characters, 
they have no obligation to make a faithful obligation, and often you
should be grateful they didn't.

The best movie adaptation of John Buchan's short adventure novel 'The
Thirty-Nine Steps' isn't Hitchcock's much-praised but dreadful 1935 one
that threw out almost the entire Buchan story line, but rather a 1978
one that is much closer _but_, like Hitchcock's, discarded Buchan's
conclusion that was suspenseful in print but completely uncinematic.

There's a joke told about your choice of famous author -- let's say
Elmore Leonard -- walking down the street with a friend who says
'Hollywood completely destroyed your novel _Get Shorty_ -- in response
to which Leonard points to a nearby bookstore's display window and says 
'No they didn't.  There it is, right there.'