Convert Perl script to C program
Scott J
from prying eyes, and am doing so my using the -M switch. By passing
-MO=C and some filenames, I have successfully created several .c
files. However, I cannot compile the c code. It compiles fine, but
pukes on the link with LNK2001 unresolved external errors. The
errors are mostly related to _perl<yadda> or _Perl<ditto> externals.
My compiler is VC++ 6.0. I have tried adding .obj files from
<perl>\win32\ and <perl>\win32\mini, but got more errors.
Any thoughts as to where the basic externals are defined?
Thanks,
Scott
Tassilo v. Parseval
> I am trying to encrypt several sensitive Perl scripts, to keep them
> from prying eyes, and am doing so my using the -M switch. By passing
> -MO=C and some filenames, I have successfully created several .c
> files. However, I cannot compile the c code. It compiles fine, but
> pukes on the link with LNK2001 unresolved external errors. The
> errors are mostly related to _perl<yadda> or _Perl<ditto> externals.
> My compiler is VC++ 6.0. I have tried adding .obj files from
><perl>\win32\ and <perl>\win32\mini, but got more errors.
Spare yourself these pains. As to yet, there is no really reliant way to
compile Perl down to C and subsequently into machine code. Actually
there's a FAQ dealing with this kind of question:
Found in /usr/share/perl/5.6.1/pod/perlfaq3.pod
How can I hide the source for my Perl program?
For windows however, two non-free options exist: perlapp and perl2exe
(consult Google or so). I can't tell you though how secure this is in
regards to irreversibly hide the code.
Tassilo
--
$_=q!",}])(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus;})(rekcah{lrePbus;})(lreP{rehtonabus;})(rehtona{tsuJbus!;
$_=reverse;s/sub/(reverse"bus").chr(32)/xge;tr~\n~~d;eval;
Tad McClellan
> Subject: Convert Perl script to C program
> I am trying to encrypt several sensitive Perl scripts, to keep them
> from prying eyes
"compiling" and "encrypting" are not at all the same thing!
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
ta...@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
Fredo
"Tad McClellan" <ta...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaov2eo...@magna.augustmail.com...
> Scott J <sjoh...@amfam.com> wrote:
>
> > Subject: Convert Perl script to C program
>
> > I am trying to encrypt several sensitive Perl scripts, to keep them
> > from prying eyes
>
>
> "compiling" and "encrypting" are not at all the same thing!
While that statement is true in one sense, it seems to me, from reading
the whole post, that he really wants to compile it to an executable, as
he described it in the post. Actually, in a way this can be considered a
form of encryption:
(http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=encrypting)
en·crypt (n-krpt)
tr.v. en·crypt·ed, en·crypt·ing, en·crypts
1. To put into code or cipher.
2. Computer Science. To alter (a file, for example) using a secret code
so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties.
Definition number one, where it states "To put into code or cipher."
(although this may not mean code as in a programming language.
Compiling it into a executable:
A) Hides the source "from prying eyes".
B) Alters the file using what can be can considered a secret code
(unless you happen to know EXACTLY step by step how a file is put into
assembly and then into machine code. And I don't just mean the basic
process of it) "so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties"
(unless you can read machine code inside out.)
I guess it depends how you look at it, that a executable can be a mostly
one way encrypted file (well, it cna be decompiled to the assembly
usually, but not everyone can read that.
-Fredo
Fredo
>
> > Subject: Convert Perl script to C program
>
> > I am trying to encrypt several sensitive Perl scripts, to keep them
> > from prying eyes
>
>
> "compiling" and "encrypting" are not at all the same thing!
The "Helpful One" strikes again...
P.S. Did you even read past the first two lines? He perfectly described
what he wanted to do, and I already explained in another post how that
statement of yours can actually be wrong. If you can't really offer
anything to a discussion, then please don't come into it.
Helgi Briem
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:20:39 GMT, "Fredo"
<CptF...@SS.NoSpam> wrote:
>The "Helpful One" strikes again...
>
>P.S. Did you even read past the first two lines? He perfectly described
>what he wanted to do, and I already explained in another post how that
>statement of yours can actually be wrong. If you can't really offer
>anything to a discussion, then please don't come into it.
If you checked his posting history, you would find that
Tad is indeed, en *extremely* helpful person.
You are not.
*plonk*
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is
A: Top posting
Q: What is the most irritating thing on Usenet?
- "Gordon" on apihna
Tad McClellan
> "Tad McClellan" <ta...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnaov2eo...@magna.augustmail.com...
>> Scott J <sjoh...@amfam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Subject: Convert Perl script to C program
>>
>> > I am trying to encrypt several sensitive Perl scripts, to keep them
>> > from prying eyes
>>
>>
>> "compiling" and "encrypting" are not at all the same thing!
>
> The "Helpful One" strikes again...
It would seem so obvious to anyone who knows a bit about security
that I didn't think it would need explaining.
One of the biggest of security bugaboos is a sense of false security,
because then you think you have it "covered" until it becomes
uncovered (ie. when it is too late).
> P.S. Did you even read past the first two lines?
Yes. Compiling is platform specific and I have no experience with
the target platform, so I was unable to help with that part.
> He perfectly described
> what he wanted to do,
Yes, but not *why* he wanted to do it.
My followup was probing to find out what it is that he hopes to protect.
The first step in "securing" something is to decide _what_ it
is that you want to secure against: piracy, unauthorized modification,
discovery of the algorithm or sensitive embedded data (eg. passwords,
CC numbers...).
You also need to assess the "cost" of being compromised so that you
can decide how much to spend on the security measures.
Since he didn't mention any of that, I thought it possible (likely)
that he had fallen prey to a common mistake.
I was just making sure that that was not the case.
> and I already explained in another post
That was posted several hours later than my article you've
quoted here.
You seem to expect that I had already seen it when I wrote
what I wrote.
I cannot see into the future.
And it does not matter what you or I or the dictionary mean by
"encryption", we need to know what the _OP_ meant he said it.
Compiling it to C will only protect it from _some_ prying eyes.
The OP had no such qualification, so I assume it means all prying eyes.
> how that
> statement of yours can actually be wrong.
But not in the context of keeping them from prying eyes.
Compiling does not do that. It only reduces the number of
eyes that can pry.
It also seems a stretch to consider the general public's definition
of the term rather than the "Computer Science" definition of the
term, given that we are posting under the comp.* hierarchy.
Compiling to C does not prevent access by "unauthorized parties".
> If you can't really offer
> anything to a discussion,
Since you seem familiar enough with my posting history to feel
comfortable assigning me a nickname, you have perhaps noticed
that I _am_ helpful more than occasionally.
If someone who had demonstrated clue says something that you
do not understand, you might consider asking for an explanation,
as it seems likely that there was some reason.
> then please don't come into it.
Review your followup, note what it adds to the discussion.
Do you see any irony there?
*plonk*
.Fredo
>
> It would seem so obvious to anyone who knows a bit about security
> that I didn't think it would need explaining.
>
> One of the biggest of security bugaboos is a sense of false security,
> because then you think you have it "covered" until it becomes
> uncovered (ie. when it is too late).
>
>
> > P.S. Did you even read past the first two lines?
>
>
> Yes. Compiling is platform specific and I have no experience with
> the target platform, so I was unable to help with that part.
While that is true, Perl does come with a tool for converting a perl
script to c or cpp files. It may be a third-party tool, don't know for
sure, but I believe it come with Perl.
> > He perfectly described
> > what he wanted to do,
>
>
> Yes, but not *why* he wanted to do it.
Yes he did. I clearly stated he wanted to "keep them from prying eyes",
which would seem to be his reason. I never said it
> My followup was probing to find out what it is that he hopes to
protect.
>
> The first step in "securing" something is to decide _what_ it
> is that you want to secure against: piracy, unauthorized modification,
> discovery of the algorithm or sensitive embedded data (eg. passwords,
> CC numbers...).
Yes but your reply was misleading and actually carries the appearance of
being rude. Forgive me, but seeing as many of your responses in recent
years have been decorated with not so friendly tones, surely you can see
why I responded as such.
> You also need to assess the "cost" of being compromised so that you
> can decide how much to spend on the security measures.
>
> Since he didn't mention any of that, I thought it possible (likely)
> that he had fallen prey to a common mistake.
I wouldn't doubt it. He has the appearance of one who is just learning.
> I was just making sure that that was not the case.
>
>
> > and I already explained in another post
>
>
> That was posted several hours later than my article you've
> quoted here.
>
> You seem to expect that I had already seen it when I wrote
> what I wrote.
>
> I cannot see into the future.
I honestly do not know what you mean here. I replied to you. Most people
would that after you post something, it is typical that you would come
back to see if your post gathered any replies.
> And it does not matter what you or I or the dictionary mean by
> "encryption", we need to know what the _OP_ meant he said it.
>
> Compiling it to C will only protect it from _some_ prying eyes.
>
> The OP had no such qualification, so I assume it means all prying
eyes.
>
>
> > how that
> > statement of yours can actually be wrong.
>
>
> But not in the context of keeping them from prying eyes.
> Compiling does not do that. It only reduces the number of
> eyes that can pry.
>
> It also seems a stretch to consider the general public's definition
> of the term rather than the "Computer Science" definition of the
> term, given that we are posting under the comp.* hierarchy.
>
> Compiling to C does not prevent access by "unauthorized parties".
Well the source is easy enough to read and muck with, but once compiled,
it would really need to be decompiled in some manner to be read
effectively.
> > If you can't really offer
> > anything to a discussion,
>
>
> Since you seem familiar enough with my posting history to feel
> comfortable assigning me a nickname, you have perhaps noticed
> that I _am_ helpful more than occasionally.
Well I do not deny you certainly started out as quite a helpful soul. It
was when you started with the ill toned replies to the less programming
savvy or questions that you've deemed as less relevant to this group.
That brings me to en interesting question. Why was this group created
with the suffix "misc", which indeed is seen as the abbreviation for
"miscellaneous", so strict that everything needs to be a 100% perl
question? Why was it named misc?
Actually from reading the charter for this group, it used to be at one
time called comp.lang.perl, which was deleted (though it still seems to
exist on many groups.) It would seem the biggest cause of the "flood of
newbies" (as someone once put it) is that very name of the group. It
would seem to have been a lot more effect to keep to "use strict" perl
(pun intended) in comp.lang.perl, where this group was derived from. The
name of this group makes little sense in the way it's purpose is
proclaimed by the "regulars".
> If someone who had demonstrated clue says something that you
> do not understand, you might consider asking for an explanation,
> as it seems likely that there was some reason.
>
>
> > then please don't come into it.
>
>
> Review your followup, note what it adds to the discussion.
>
> Do you see any irony there?
Not really. In your short little reply, you had little to offer, but a
misleading reply (to the OP mainly). I seemed like just another one of
your rude posts, and you ending here does little persuade otherwise.
Alan J. Flavell
On Oct 1, .Fredo replied to Tad:
[far too much for comfort]
> > Do you see any irony there?
>
> Not really. In your short little reply, you had little to offer, but a
> misleading reply (to the OP mainly). I seemed like just another one of
> your rude posts, and you ending here does little persuade otherwise.
I could see this coming. A well-earned killfile entry. Please
don't change your posting address.
.Fredo
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.40.02100...@lxplus074.cern.ch...
As usual you happen to perfectly avoid the issue, that happens spans way
passed what you quoted. Actually you've put a new low on "little to
offer". But then again, you, Tad are saint, rgiht? Sorry I forgot.
Bernard El-Hagin
Do you not understand the concept of a killfile? Neither Tad nor Alan
can see your replies, so why bother?
Cheers,
Bernard
--
echo 42|perl -pe '$#="Just another Perl hacker,"'
.Fredo
"Bernard El-Hagin" <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote in
message news:slrnapl76h.1bi....@gdndev25.lido-tech...
So they would have you think. It doesn't take a complete genius to
figure out how to get around those. They need to be taught you just
cannot "plonk" a person and hope that wins the argument. A killfile in
it's self is not a bad thing, but the way it's commonly (mis)used to
cheaply get the last word (especially if the plonker is wrong).
Over recent years, it has become a straight fact the Tad. To deny what
has been going on here for the past years is to deny history.
No one, not even a revered book author, nor an expert programmer, has no
right to display such rudeness when ever they see fit. This is what has
been going on. I have been corresponding via email with various folk
from this group for well over a year now, and this feeling not only felt
by myself.
Bernard El-Hagin
wrote:
>
> "Bernard El-Hagin" <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote in
[...]
>> Do you not understand the concept of a killfile? Neither Tad nor Alan
>> can see your replies, so why bother?
>
> So they would have you think. It doesn't take a complete genius to
> figure out how to get around those. They need to be taught you just
> cannot "plonk" a person and hope that wins the argument. A killfile in
> it's self is not a bad thing, but the way it's commonly (mis)used to
> cheaply get the last word (especially if the plonker is wrong).
Your opinion on the use or misuse of killfiles has no bearing on the
fact that they didn't see your two replies to them.
> Over recent years, it has become a straight fact the Tad.
That sentence makes no sense.
> To deny what has been going on here for the past years is to deny history.
That is a statement which is *always* true no matter what you're
talking about. Think about it.
> No one, not even a revered book author, nor an expert programmer, has no
> right to display such rudeness when ever they see fit. This is what has
> been going on. I have been corresponding via email with various folk
> from this group for well over a year now, and this feeling not only felt
> by myself.
But what's forcing you to keep reading the group, then? Are you a
masochist?
Helgi Briem
<bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote:
>> No one, not even a revered book author, nor an expert programmer, has no
>> right to display such rudeness when ever they see fit. This is what has
>> been going on. I have been corresponding via email with various folk
>> from this group for well over a year now, and this feeling not only felt
>> by myself.
>
>But what's forcing you to keep reading the group, then? Are you a
>masochist?
Ah, but you see, the lurkers support him in e-mail.
I think this is our "friend" Manny Wilco again, aka
Harl, Kamitri, Robin Givens, Al MacHonahey etc etc.
.Fredo
"Bernard El-Hagin" <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote in
> In article <g9Im9.276$3r2.2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, .Fredo
> wrote:
> >
> > "Bernard El-Hagin" <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote
in
>
> [...]
>
> >> Do you not understand the concept of a killfile? Neither Tad nor
Alan
> >> can see your replies, so why bother?
> >
> > So they would have you think. It doesn't take a complete genius to
> > figure out how to get around those. They need to be taught you just
> > cannot "plonk" a person and hope that wins the argument. A killfile
in
> > it's self is not a bad thing, but the way it's commonly (mis)used to
> > cheaply get the last word (especially if the plonker is wrong).
>
>
> Your opinion on the use or misuse of killfiles has no bearing on the
> fact that they didn't see your two replies to them.
You cannot prove they did not see them.
> > Over recent years, it has become a straight fact the Tad.
Opps that should of been:
Over recent years, it has become a straight fact the Tad has a nack
for being quite rude.
> > To deny what has been going on here for the past years is to deny
history.
>
>
> That is a statement which is *always* true no matter what you're
> talking about. Think about it.
Yes, but try thinking about it in *context*.
> > No one, not even a revered book author, nor an expert programmer,
has no
> > right to display such rudeness when ever they see fit. This is what
has
> > been going on. I have been corresponding via email with various folk
> > from this group for well over a year now, and this feeling not only
felt
> > by myself.
>
>
> But what's forcing you to keep reading the group, then? Are you a
> masochist?
Who was forcing Tad and the likes to respond rudely so many times again
and again. I've been ehre and seen so much of it. There really was no
excuse for it. Simple as that.
.Fredo
"Helgi Briem" <he...@decode.is> wrote in message
news:3d9c116f.2078347575@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 07:14:33 +0000 (UTC), Bernard El-Hagin
> <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote:
>
> >> No one, not even a revered book author, nor an expert programmer,
has no
> >> right to display such rudeness when ever they see fit. This is what
has
> >> been going on. I have been corresponding via email with various
folk
> >> from this group for well over a year now, and this feeling not only
felt
> >> by myself.
> >
> >But what's forcing you to keep reading the group, then? Are you a
> >masochist?
>
> Ah, but you see, the lurkers support him in e-mail.
>
> I think this is our "friend" Manny Wilco again, aka
> Harl, Kamitri, Robin Givens, Al MacHonahey etc etc.
It matters not who I am. any person has a right to post under what ever
identity they chose. It's called staying anonymous which is a key thing
about the internet itself.
But the issue here is not about who I am it's about what this group has
come to with such sheer and utter rudeness from such so called
high-stature people like Tad and TomC, who have over the past recent
years, have stooped to posting incredibly rude replies to anyone they
deemed deserving of it.
In fact that sherade you speak of was precisely sparked by such rude
responces. Had it not been for that I most likely not be as fed up as I
currently am at the general attitude displayed in this group over the
years.
I'll even say it again. There is absolutely no excuse or jsutification
for such rude post like those that have been flying around here the past
years. The truth hurts, exspially when it's being right in the faces of
those it pertains to. Obvious symptom is Tad's classic instant
"plonk"ing when confronted with it. He apparently is under the
impression that his precious killfile can mask the truth for him.
-F-r-e-d-o-
"Bernard El-Hagin" <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote in
> In article <g9Im9.276$3r2.2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, .Fredo
> wrote:
> >
> > "Bernard El-Hagin" <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> wrote
in
>
> [...]
> > No one, not even a revered book author, nor an expert programmer,
has no
> > right to display such rudeness when ever they see fit. This is what
has
> > been going on. I have been corresponding via email with various folk
> > from this group for well over a year now, and this feeling not only
felt
> > by myself.
>
>
> But what's forcing you to keep reading the group, then? Are you a
> masochist?
No, becasue I'm interested in Perl.
But sigh, I am obviously just wasting my time, as many of the people in
question will never bring them selves up to the level of admitting their
own faults. some of them have been helpful here, this I do not deny. But
when they are so quick to be rude, and then attempt to block out ANYONE
who trys to confront them with the obvious truth, then there is
something dreadfully wrong. I was only trying to help this group by
bringing this ramped problem out into the open.
But I guess no one really care about what goes on here in this group or
how the so caleld "regulars" set the tone. Being in many other groups
the past years too, I've litterally seen this group get laughed at
behind it's back so many times it's utterly rediculas. Again, if one
care what happens here or the image of this group, then so be it. I will
no longer drop to rock bottom level to deal with the few like Tad who
while being helpful every now and then soil that with arrgance and sheer
rudeness. Until people like him realize they do not own this group, but
everyone using it does, this will never be the "great" group the Perl
books trys to make it out to be.
~Fin~
-Fredo
Alan J. Flavell
> But sigh, I am obviously just wasting my time,
The time you're wasting isn't only your own, while we struggle to find
the common factor to put into the killfile recipe.
MrFFrreeddoo
Thats not my problem. ^
LOL how predictable of you folk. Got no balls to ACTUALLY address the
issue, but like your fellow colleges you barely have enough brains to
snap a short smartass reply. This is exactly the smoldering rudeness
that IS THE ISSUE. If you would look past your incredibly shriveled
penis and attempt to accumulate some more brain cells, you would at
least acknowledge the problem, since it is a fact that there is, or just
be silent about it since you have ZERO to offer anyways. Your kill file
will not silence this overall truth, much less myself.
If you are too feeble minded to accept the truth then don't bother even
posting. I doubt anyone really even cares you figured out how to abuse
your killfile. It's something that runs ramped on Usenet anyways, so
nothing new.
and if you had aforementioned brain capacity, you'd even acknowledge
that the changing of the groups name way back (comp.lang.perl to
comp.lang.perl.misc as stated by the charter for the ladder) is largely
responsible for all the side Perl questions, such as CGI questions and
other things sometimes considered relating to Perl.
but you don't care right? No balls to even address the issue? In fact, I
have a neutered cat that has more balls then the likes of you.
Joe Schaefer
> > On Oct 7, -F-r-e-d-o- inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[...]
> > I will no longer drop to rock bottom level to deal with the few like
> > Tad who while being helpful every now and then soil that with
> > arrgance and sheer rudeness.
OK, start the clock!
> > "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.40.021007...@lxplus075.cern.ch...
> > The time you're wasting isn't only your own, while we struggle to
> > find the common factor to put into the killfile recipe.
> Thats not my problem. ^
Hmm, a clue?
[... tick tick tick ... boom!]
> but you don't care right? No balls to even address the issue? In fact,
> I have a neutered cat that has more balls then the likes of you.
Aha- *now* I get it! You are not a hypocrite. No, actually
you are very clever- by successfully killfiling *yourself*,
you have succeeded where countless others have failed.
Congratulations! That's quite an accomplishment.
--
Joe Schaefer "This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper"
-- T S Eliot
Helgi Briem
<mapSoN.S.S@oderF> wrote:
>"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.40.021007...@lxplus075.cern.ch...
>> On Oct 7, -F-r-e-d-o- inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>>
>> > But sigh, I am obviously just wasting my time,
>>
>> The time you're wasting isn't only your own, while we struggle to
>> find the common factor to put into the killfile recipe.
>
>Thats not my problem. ^
No, you have far more serious problems than that Manfred,
Manny, Fredo, whatever you want to call yourself.
>LOL how predictable of you folk. Got no balls to ACTUALLY
>address the issue,
Everybody has long forgotten what the issue was. We are
going mad from having an annoying whining toddler throwing
tantrums in our newgroup.
Go away, NOW!
Fredo
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 18:28:36 GMT, "MrFFrreeddoo"
> <mapSoN.S.S@oderF> wrote:
>
> >"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.LNX.4.40.021007...@lxplus075.cern.ch...
> >> On Oct 7, -F-r-e-d-o- inscribed on the eternal scroll:
> >>
> >> > But sigh, I am obviously just wasting my time,
> >>
> >> The time you're wasting isn't only your own, while we struggle to
> >> find the common factor to put into the killfile recipe.
> >
> >Thats not my problem. ^
>
> No, you have far more serious problems than that Manfred,
> Manny, Fredo, whatever you want to call yourself.
>
> >LOL how predictable of you folk. Got no balls to ACTUALLY
> >address the issue,
>
> Everybody has long forgotten what the issue was. We are
> going mad from having an annoying whining toddler throwing
> tantrums in our newgroup.
>
> Go away, NOW!
You cna tell me that all you want, and you can try to sway from the real
issue all you want (on that note many of you would make very productive
politicans), but it will NOT make the real issue die. You want me to go
away and stop buggin you guys? Then stop giving me reasons to. Don't be
rude unneedlessly at newbies, etc. Stop denying the *fact* that there is
a problem. Only then will this group be free of the hate and torment
that has beheld it the last serveral years.
Jürgen Exner
> Stop denying
> the *fact* that there is a problem. Only then will this group be free
> of the hate and torment that has beheld it the last serveral years.
Quite right, there is a serious problem here: people are not educated by
their ISPs how to behave in Usenet, ignoring FAQs, ignoring Nettiquette, not
reading for 2 weeks before actively participating, posting off topic, .....
It's like someone coming into an opera hall and first thing those 'newbies'
do is bumping up their boom boxes. No idea why, maybe because they were used
to do so at their family picnic. But do you really expect people to go easy
on those idiots which ignore the basic rules of social behaviour?
Oh, btw, does any of this have anything to do with Perl?
jue
Jilla Villa
> Fredo wrote:
> > Stop denying
> > the *fact* that there is a problem. Only then will this group be free
> > of the hate and torment that has beheld it the last serveral years.
>
> Quite right, there is a serious problem here: people are not educated by
> their ISPs how to behave in Usenet,
With all due respect, it's not the ISP's job. ISP only provides you
with a connection, and mail/news servers. They have tech support yes,
but I have yet to see any sort of rerquirement on an ISP's part to
educate a user.
> ignoring FAQs, ignoring Nettiquette,
The new comers have never been the only ones to ignore Nettiquette,
but with FAQ's, it's an issue in almost every group (or anything)
where new comers are common.
> not
> reading for 2 weeks before actively participating, posting off topic, .....
Such a requirement has always been quite questionable, as one could
read through 2 weeks or more posts via groups.google.com.
> It's like someone coming into an opera hall and first thing those 'newbies'
> do is bumping up their boom boxes.
But the problem is also that the regular visitors of the opera are
also yelling back at the new comers, causing just as much noise.
> No idea why, maybe because they were used
> to do so at their family picnic. But do you really expect people to go easy
> on those idiots which ignore the basic rules of social behaviour?
Point taken, but this definately goes both ways. I sincerly hope you
don't think people like Tom Christianson, Tad, et al, have been good
rolemodels of this preaching? A great example of socially unexceptable
behavoir is the thread titled "HARASSMENT -- Monthly Autoemail".
Tell me, why is it that any new comer may be scorned for ill behavoir,
but those who have been here longer and are better known are have
complete freedom and impunity to exercise what ever ill behavoir they
like (behavoirs that would have everyone jumping on a new comer if
they had done it).
I think this sort of hypocracy is part of the problem as well as those
with non-FAQ-reading-new-comers.
> Oh, btw, does any of this have anything to do with Perl?
This group is mentioned in nearly all Perl related books, and this
topic has to do with this group. A discussion of the group should be
On Topic, shouldn't it?
Alan J. Flavell
> But the problem is also that the regular visitors of the opera are
> also yelling back at the new comers, causing just as much noise.
You do realise that what you're asking for is - silence?
I hope you're taking careful note of all the respondents who are
following that plan.
When you've collected enough of them, you can tell us whether the
policy is working, OK?
As for your criticism of Tad: I never cease to be astonished at the
degree of patience which he manages to bring to his responses in the
face of demonstrations of advanced cluelessness.
Tad McClellan
> Point taken, but this definately goes both ways. I sincerly hope you
> don't think people like Tom Christianson, Tad, et al, have been good
> rolemodels of this preaching? A great example of socially unexceptable
> behavoir is the thread titled "HARASSMENT -- Monthly Autoemail".
I did not participate in that thread.
Do you have an example of where _I_ was rude?
You keep claiming that I frequently am, so it shouldn't be hard
to find one to cite.
Thanks.
Joe Schaefer
> On Oct 17, Jilla Villa inscribed on the eternal scroll:
^^^^^^^^^^^
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.172.197.34
+ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3d76abc6.61075808%40news.erols.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame9.html
+ http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame11.html
Jsut say no.
--
Joe Schaefer "Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't
that a big enough majority in any town?"
--Mark Twain
Fredo
"Joe Schaefer" <joe+u...@sunstarsys.com> wrote in message
news:m3ptu8u...@mumonkan.sunstarsys.com...
> "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes:
>
> > On Oct 17, Jilla Villa inscribed on the eternal scroll:
You still don't get it. This isn't about me. Once again, either address
the issue or don't reply. Simple as that.
Fredo
> Jilla Villa <jilla...@otakumail.com> wrote:
>
> > Point taken, but this definately goes both ways. I sincerly hope you
> > don't think people like Tom Christianson, Tad, et al, have been good
> > rolemodels of this preaching? A great example of socially
unexceptable
> > behavoir is the thread titled "HARASSMENT -- Monthly Autoemail".
>
>
> I did not participate in that thread.
>
> Do you have an example of where _I_ was rude?
>
> You keep claiming that I frequently am, so it shouldn't be hard
> to find one to cite.
Oh I've seen plenty of yours. Just go to groups.google.com and enter:
tad rude
That gives all the proof one needs. The "HARASSMENT -- Monthly
Autoemail" was used to show just how far some of the regulars have gone,
and the depressing fact was that he (Tom C) was the author of one of
some of the most used Perl literature. Of course, why would expect you
to understand the problem you have taken part in augmenting?
Helgi Briem
In fact, apart from the "one off-topic CGI question"
hit and run merchants, there appear to be only 2
totally clueless people here, shouting their heads
off at the opera. Manfred (Manny, Jilla, Al, Jim Rogers,
Robin, Fredo) and his dozens ofother pseudonyms and
"The Horror that Cannot be Named". The Horror
can at least be killfiled as it only changes its mask
a couple of times a year. Manny is hard to killfile
because he is a moving target, as well as being more
annoying than piles. I'm beginning to loathe the little,
umm....beggar.
Islaw
I hae been here most likely longer then you have (I'm a rather quiet
person, and I've found help for problem's using docs/deja-google/etc, so
you wont find too many posts of mine archived), and I've witnessed some
gastly atrosities, one of which is quoted above. Mr Fredo, if you were
really around as long as you claim, you would sure know thatthese folks of
which you denounced have put forth a lot of time and effort to make this
group function. Even if some people can be the most incredibly anal folk
on the planet, there tends to be a REASON for it. The reason here has bene
too many people who have not taken time to find help elsewhere, a method I
have long time used and has served me very well.
Lets end the non sense and get on with life.
P.S. As long as I've been around, I do find it courious as to why exactly
this groups name went from comp.lang.perl to comp.lang.perl.misc. I've
sarch the control-message archives and they basically say it was simply
moving. Thanks for any insight!
-
Islaw
Bart Lateur
>P.S. As long as I've been around, I do find it courious as to why exactly
>this groups name went from comp.lang.perl to comp.lang.perl.misc. I've
>sarch the control-message archives and they basically say it was simply
>moving. Thanks for any insight!
I think it's pretty common if you do a split-up for a group, i.e. here
adding comp.lang.perl.modules, comp.lang.perl.announce, and
comp.lang.perl.tk, that the original group is abandoned and replaced by
a ".misc" group.
Now I don't really have any idea on when all this happened, or where to
search for more info. Google sura wasn't any help.
--
Bart.
Alan J. Flavell
> I think it's pretty common if you do a split-up for a group,
Indeed, and news.newusers.questions would seem a more appropriate
venue to understand this kind of detail about usenet, as it has
nothing "per se" to do with the Perl programming language.
> i.e. here
> adding comp.lang.perl.modules, comp.lang.perl.announce, and
> comp.lang.perl.tk, that the original group is abandoned and replaced by
> a ".misc" group.
Just so.
> Now I don't really have any idea on when all this happened,
It's not as if it hasn't been discussed before. The key would be the
newgroup posting to control.
AIUI this happened at a time when control messages were in a bit of a
mess. But regular checkgroup messages have been distributed in the
intervening years. News-server admins who continue to promote
non-existent groups (at least on the main hierarchies) are doing no
service to their users.
Islaw
> On Oct 20, Bart Lateur inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>
> > I think it's pretty common if you do a split-up for a group,
>
> Indeed, and news.newusers.questions would seem a more appropriate
> venue to understand this kind of detail about usenet, as it has
> nothing "per se" to do with the Perl programming language.
>
> > i.e. here
> > adding comp.lang.perl.modules, comp.lang.perl.announce, and
> > comp.lang.perl.tk, that the original group is abandoned and replaced
by
> > a ".misc" group.
>
> Just so.
True, but I simply wanted to know *why* this group changed from
comp.lang.perl to comp.land.perl.misc! I think I saw this question
earlier in here recently, can't seem to locate it though, and I think it
got lost in the ever growing pile this thread has become. Something that
was said in that post stands out, that part that asks why the "misc"
part? I tend to agree with the poster's suggestion that the "misc" part
alone could be responsible for the side-related posts in here of the
days of yore all the way to present day c.l.p.m.
> > Now I don't really have any idea on when all this happened,
>
> It's not as if it hasn't been discussed before. The key would be the
> newgroup posting to control.
See above: it seems there would be less need for control if the name of
the group was better chosen, or even left as comp.lang.perl.
Is it just me that finds it a bit strange that the main Perl group is
NOT comp.lang.perl, but instead c.l.p.m. If you compare ot other langs
that are more traditionally named, like comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++,
comp.lang.pascal, comp.lang.javascript, comp.lang.python,
comp.lang.cobol, comp.lang.php, etc (see a pattern yet?)
So my ultimate question is: Why was it not left as comp.lang.perl? Yes
you have sub-groups but that doesnt mean the main group needed to be
moved, as other programming groups like some of those listed above also
have subgroups.
Jus' Curious ;p
-
Islaw
Matthew D. Healy
Ok, I know this isn't exactly new. I came across this thread on google's
search site. Something I need to point out is about the "basic rules of
social behaviour" is haven't the regulars here in the past sometimes
almost gone out of their way to voilate this? I cannot begin to list the
amount of time in the past 7 years I've seen innocent people get mauled
by regulars, touting how the newbie has voilated the "basic rules of
social behaviour", but the regulars always given somplete impunity to
sometimes voilate this even more thne any one newbie has. the MONTHLY
AUTOEMAIL thead was mentioned elsewhere is this thread and provides a
good example. If a newbie is gonna be yelled at for violating a rule of
conduct, it is 100 % absolutely hypocritical for a regular to get away
with doing the same. Simple as that.
That said, I have nothign against the regulars in general, as soem of
them are authors of books I make good use of. I jsut feel that many of
them have been out of line many times and gotten away with it.
P.S. Tad in this thread elsewhere mentioned he did not participate iin
this thread. I want to point out that that was a lie, as he did so
twice before that post:
The claim:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnaqt
vjl.3bg.tadmc%40magna.augustmail.com
The Evidence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnaov
2eo.1uh.tadmc%40magna.augustmail.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnapg
k9o.25c.tadmc%40magna.augustmail.com
--
Matthew D. Healy, Ph.D
Tad McClellan
> J rgen Exner wrote:
>> Fredo wrote:
>>> Stop denying
>>> the *fact* that there is a problem.
>> Quite right, there is a serious problem here: people are not educated
>> by their ISPs how to behave in Usenet,
> the MONTHLY
> AUTOEMAIL thead was mentioned elsewhere is this thread and provides a
> good example.
I did not participate in that thread.
> them are authors of books I make good use of. I jsut feel that many of
^^^^
^^^^ heh
> P.S. Tad in this thread elsewhere mentioned he did not participate iin
> this thread.
^^^^
^^^^
I did not say that. You have misquoted me.
> I want to point out that that was a lie,
It was not a lie.
> as he did so
> twice before that post:
That was not in the harrassment thread.
> The claim:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnaqt
> vjl.3bg.tadmc%40magna.augustmail.com
There I claimed:
I did not participate in that thread.
Where "that" was
the thread titled "HARASSMENT -- Monthly Autoemail"
NOT "...this thread" as you have above.
That is, I did not participate in the monthy email harrassment
thread that you are so fond of citing.
> The Evidence:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnaov
> 2eo.1uh.tadmc%40magna.augustmail.com
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnapg
> k9o.25c.tadmc%40magna.augustmail.com
That is evidence that I participated in *this* thread, not *that* thread.
Brian McCauley
re-ignite an old flamewar:
> J rgen Exner wrote:
> > Quite right, there is a serious problem here: people are not educated
> > by their ISPs how to behave in Usenet, ignoring FAQs, ignoring
> > Nettiquette, not reading for 2 weeks before actively participating,
> > posting off topic, ..... It's like someone coming into an opera hall
> > and first thing those 'newbies' do is bumping up their boom boxes. No
> > idea why, maybe because they were used to do so at their family
> > picnic. But do you really expect people to go easy on those idiots
> > which ignore the basic rules of social behaviour?
> Ok, I know this isn't exactly new.
[ snip nothing exactly new or useful from Matthew D. Healy ]
> P.S. Tad in this thread elsewhere mentioned he did not participate iin
> this thread.
No, he said "that" not "this"
> I want to point out that that was a lie
Er, actually if _had_ said "this" it would not only have been a lie but
a liar paradox.
> Matthew D. Healy, Ph.D
That worries me.
--
\\ ( )
. _\\__[oo
.__/ \\ /\@
. l___\\
# ll l\\
###LL LL\\
Joe Schaefer
[...]
> > Matthew D. Healy, Ph.D
>
> That worries me.
It shouldn't, since it was posted by our beloved
imposter (Americans don't write "behaviour"). I've
tried contacting Dr. Healy directly to report this abuse,
but the email address Matthe...@yale.edu is no longer
valid. If anyone knows how to contact him, please do so,
or email me his address so I can notify him.
Thanks.
--
Joe Schaefer "Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon."
-- Alan J. Perlis
Jay Tilton
: Ok, I know this isn't exactly new. I came across this thread on google's
: search site.
...and you decided this issue so desperately needed your intercession
that you had to break a four-year usenet silence to say something.
It boggles the imagination that you could think readers are such fools
that they would believe that.
Posting under made-up names and addresses is irritating. Posting under
the name and abandoned address of a real person is deplorable,
reprehensible, and very likely actionable.
This was tiring six months ago. Time has not made it less so. How
about you just write up your Usenet Manners Reform Manifesto, let a
person competent in English proofread it, then post it somewhere for
future reference.
For those keeping scorefiles, here's an updated list of aliases.
a...@linux.org
bl...@c4.com
cb...@aol.com
chb...@mail.com
chjb,4...@mail.com
chj...@mailnospam.com
chj...@mail.com
cj...@mailno-spam.com
cpt....@s.s.no.spam
cpt....@ss.nospam
cptf...@ss.nospam
cpt-n*fredo@s.s*no*spam
cptn....@s.s.no.spam
de...@nononospam.com
hm...@prodigy.net
hy...@none.none
is...@lnx.sr
is...@w98.sr
jason-...@attbi.net
jilla...@otakumail.com
kmi...@dontspamme.com
mapson.s.s@oderf
ma...@holjar.net
mjo...@email.nospam
robgv@2!s!o!n.net
savage...@yahoo.com
srob...@yahoo.com
srob...@y-a-h-o-o.c-o-m
Islaw
> "Matthew D. Healy" <Matthe...@yale.edu> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I know this isn't exactly new. I came across this thread on
>> google's search site.
>
> ...and you decided this issue so desperately needed your intercession
> that you had to break a four-year usenet silence to say something.
>
> It boggles the imagination that you could think readers are such fools
> that they would believe that.
>
> Posting under made-up names and addresses is irritating. Posting
> under the name and abandoned address of a real person is deplorable,
> reprehensible, and very likely actionable.
>
> This was tiring six months ago. Time has not made it less so. How
> about you just write up your Usenet Manners Reform Manifesto, let a
> person competent in English proofread it, then post it somewhere for
> future reference.
>
> For those keeping scorefiles, here's an updated list of aliases.
>
> is...@lnx.sr
> is...@w98.sr
I'd really like to know how you got my name in this list? I've almsot
never posted here, though I've always been a reader. Not that it's of
much importance. Just thought I'd point that widdle foul up out :)
Helgi Briem
<Matthe...@yale.edu> wrote:
>Ok, I know this isn't exactly new. I came across this thread on google's
>search site. Something I need to point out is about the "basic rules of
>social behaviour" is haven't the regulars here in the past sometimes
>almost gone out of their way to voilate this? I cannot begin to list the
>amount of time in the past 7 years I've seen innocent people get mauled
>by regulars, touting how the newbie has voilated the "basic rules of
>social behaviour", but the regulars always given somplete impunity to
>sometimes voilate this even more thne any one newbie has. the MONTHLY
>AUTOEMAIL thead was mentioned elsewhere is this thread and provides a
>good example. If a newbie is gonna be yelled at for violating a rule of
>conduct, it is 100 % absolutely hypocritical for a regular to get away
>with doing the same. Simple as that.
>
>That said, I have nothign against the regulars in general, as soem of
>them are authors of books I make good use of. I jsut feel that many of
^^^^
>them have been out of line many times and gotten away with it.
Oh, fsck, the troll is back with a new name.
Go away, Manny.
Helgi Briem
wrote:
>> For those keeping scorefiles, here's an updated list of aliases.
>>
>[..Snip rest of list having nothing to do with me..]
>> is...@lnx.sr
>> is...@w98.sr
>
>I'd really like to know how you got my name in this list? I've almsot
^^^^^
>never posted here, though I've always been a reader. Not that it's of
>much importance. Just thought I'd point that widdle foul up out :)
You give yourself away every time, Manny. You're like
a serial rapist who feels compelled to send clues
to the police.
Go away.
Alan J. Flavell
> I'd really like to know how you got my name in this list? I've almsot
"almsot"?
> never posted here, though I've always been a reader.
..and sporadic troll, under various assumed identities, it seems.
Do something constructive, or go away.
--
"I'm an independent virtual web consultant" -
spotted in comp.security.misc
Islaw
> On Nov 20, Islaw inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>
>> I'd really like to know how you got my name in this list? I've almsot
>
> "almsot"?
You can't seriously believe a single typo =='s me to someone else? I can
see how you might think it could of been, however.
>> never posted here, though I've always been a reader.
>
> ..and sporadic troll, under various assumed identities, it seems.
Of which I am not.
> Do something constructive, or go away.
I am always doing something constructive, which would leave me little
time to even want to get into anything like this. It's called having a
life, a job, and a family.
I'll consider my appearance on that list to be an honest mistake. I did
once reply to the one apparently known as "manny" or "fredo", the latter
being the alias I responded to, but that was to point out that the
people he was putting down were in fact some of the most helpful who
have been dealing with newbies, trolls, and the likes. I bid you no hard
feelings, and I hope at least the mistaking me as this troll can be
acknowledged as such or at least left at this. This is all true,
although I have much better things to do then to concentrate on things
like this.
Thank you,
Islaw
P.S. if anyone would like to contact me via email, is...@adexec.com. I
am more then happy to get back to anyone who wishes to contact me.
Joe Schaefer
[Forwarded with permission to comp.lang.perl.misc]
From: Matthew Healy <mdh...@sprynet.com>
Subject: I am Matthew D. Healy
To: joe+u...@sunstarsys.com
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:09:18 -0500
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
I has just come to my attention that somebody has
been using my old Yale University email address
for Usenet postings. I have not been at Yale since
June 1998.