Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?
It's always been my opinion that PowerShell (powerscript?) has been poorly named -- it's a lackluster /shell/ although things like psreadline,powershell_ise,etc make it less awful as a shell on windows but it's great as interpreted (ish -- see DLR/JIT) .NET -- you can compile C# inside of it or call any .NET library you have laying around. It is a scripted programming language .. comparing soley to zsh/bash is a bit like comparing zsh/bash to python/irb with some shortcuts/syntax sugar to make it more "shell"-like. Lee On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > On 08/18/2016 09:28 PM, Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: > > While I tend to prefer Unix-style shells, there are *some* things that > > PowerShell does better. > > > > Here's an example I found on Reddit in the thread about this on /r/linux. > > Both of the following commands find the size and name of the three > largest files > > in a directory. > > > > Bash:ls -l | sed 's/ \+/,/g' | cut -d',' -f 5,9 | sort -g | tail > -3 > > PowerShell: ls -file | sort -pr length | select length, name -l 3 > > > > What seems to be the most noticable difference is that PowerShell, being > an > > object-oriented language, pipes objects instead of raw text. I think > this might > > make many things easier while writing scripts. > > Excellent, let us programmatically parse the contents of `ls`! > > What, exactly, is wrong with the bash command: > find . -maxdepth 1 -printf '%s %p\n'|sort -nr|head -3 > > I will agree that if your godawful bash command was what you had to > compare to PowerShell, then PowerShell would be better... > > But by all means, pick and choose, then compare bad bash to good > PowerShell if you feel it makes your point better. > > As for objects, if you feel you need them you are probably doing > something complex enough to justify an actual scripted programming > language e.g. Python. > But I doubt you have that great a need for an interactive shell. > > -- > Eli Schwartz
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux support in puppet
; VERY cautious about systemd, and I am honestly a little upset about it, I > don't like the idea that Red Hat changing the runlevel space could pressure > us into having to use systemd, I like the Arch runlevel the way it is, and I > think that managing service startup with something like systemd will most > likely be a bad thing. But I have not spent as much time as I should with > systemd to make a final conclusion there. > But regardless, this should support the Arch style runlevel. > > I do think that if it is possible to determine the ordering based on the > requires statements of other services that would be great, or maybe even to > implicitly state the index of the service: > > index => 4, > > would set the value as the 4th thing to start. > -- Lee Burton lbur...@mrow.org 301 910 0246
Re: [arch-general] Syncing the mirrors
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 15:57, Florian Pritz wrote:
> On 02/04/2010 09:42 PM, Lee Burton wrote:
>> It probably is. Perhaps a push-primary solution (much simpler..)
>> combined with a default twice a day sync (just to make sure?) for
>> tier-1 mirrors might work.. the I believe point here is to get ideas
>> out there.
> I'd go for arch master -> mirror with more bandwidth -> rest
> and all run the script I already posted (no pushing) like every 1-5
> minutes. Load should be near 0 and we could have for example
> main.mirrors.archlinux.org point to the fast mirror. If I'm not mistaken
> the script should always try to resync when something doesn't seem to be
> ok (rsync should exit > 0 in that case), but I might have forgotten some
> edge cases.
>
> PS: A mailinglist for mirror stuff (like this discussion) with all
> mirror admins would also be quite nice.
>
> --
> Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewi...@server-speed.net
>
As a mirror admin (mirrors.rit.edu) , I second that request, although
perhaps one low traffic list (mandatory script updates, bulletins,
etc) and one for discussions?
Or perhaps some other scheme entirely.
--
Lee Burton
lbur...@mrow.org
301 910 0246
Re: [arch-general] Syncing the mirrors
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 14:40, Dieter Plaetinck wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:27:14 -0500 > Lee Burton wrote: > >> To make it "multi-tiered" and to reduce load on the primary mirror >> could have slightly more intelligent polling than just checking one >> upstream machine. >> In this example Let: >> Primary = Arch Primary Mirror/Mirrors (updated directly by the >> dbscripts). Tier-1 = Large High-Bandwidth/Traffic mirrors that other >> mirrors mirror off of Tier-2 = Smaller mirrors >> It would then go something like: >> A tier-1 mirror would check against the Primaries once a minute (for >> the md5sum). >> A tier-2 mirror would check against two tier-1 mirrors and see if they >> agree, if they don't it would ask a primary for a tie-break. It would >> then could notify (via an automated email?, perhaps one in a 24-hour >> period? if it's been out of date for XX hours) the mirror owner of the >> out of date mirror? > > seems needlessly complex to me. > Dieter > It probably is. Perhaps a push-primary solution (much simpler..) combined with a default twice a day sync (just to make sure?) for tier-1 mirrors might work.. the I believe point here is to get ideas out there. -- Lee Burton lbur...@mrow.org 301 910 0246
Re: [arch-general] Syncing the mirrors
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:53, Florian Pritz wrote:
> On 02/03/2010 03:12 PM, Lee Burton wrote:
>> As for push mirroring, http://www.debian.org/mirror/push_server is a
>> decent example
>> An identity file with
>> no-port-forwarding,no-X11-forwarding,no-agent-forwarding,no-pty,command="/path/to/mirror/script",from="IPADDRESS"
>> &"
>> Is fairly decent..
> I've talked with someone working on the data distribution system (big
> webcluster) for some big company and he said they haven't had good
> experience with pushing. Polling (often) has yet been the best solution.
> Actually the patch I posted here is quite similar to their system.
>
> PS: Please don't toppost.
> --
> Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewi...@server-speed.net
>
In fact Debian does force commands.. just as you suggested earlier.
I agree that polling is probably a better solution.
To make it "multi-tiered" and to reduce load on the primary mirror
could have slightly more intelligent polling than just checking one
upstream machine.
In this example Let:
Primary = Arch Primary Mirror/Mirrors (updated directly by the dbscripts).
Tier-1 = Large High-Bandwidth/Traffic mirrors that other mirrors mirror off of
Tier-2 = Smaller mirrors
It would then go something like:
A tier-1 mirror would check against the Primaries once a minute (for
the md5sum).
A tier-2 mirror would check against two tier-1 mirrors and see if they
agree, if they don't it would ask a primary for a tie-break. It would
then could notify (via an automated email?, perhaps one in a 24-hour
period? if it's been out of date for XX hours) the mirror owner of the
out of date mirror?
Also I forget, does archlinux/pacman do any sort of GPG checks/signing
with packages?
Apologies on topposting, I hadn't responded to very much list traffic
with this mail client, and have now changed the client's behavior.
--
Lee Burton
lbur...@mrow.org
301 910 0246
Re: [arch-general] Syncing the mirrors
This order can be accomplished by first running rsync without the delete flag. Then rsync over the DB. Then re-run the original rsync with --delete or --delete-after. You could also google for 'atomic rsync' First hit is http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/rsync/rsync-35.2/rsync/support/atomic-rsync As for push mirroring, http://www.debian.org/mirror/push_server is a decent example An identity file with no-port-forwarding,no-X11-forwarding,no-agent-forwarding,no-pty,command="/path/to/mirror/script",from="IPADDRESS" &" Is fairly decent.. --- Lee Burton lbur...@mrow.org 301 910 0246 On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:53, Damjan Georgievski wrote: >>> There's also the problem that some mirrors (most of the ones I've >>> tried) sync the package database before syncing all the packages. >> >> Actually, syncing the db last is not going to improve things: if some >> packages get deleted, they won't be found when updating against the >> old db. > > - download new packages > - update db > - delete old packages > > > > > > > -- > damjan >
Re: [arch-general] Wiki/AUR Mirrors
I am also willing to contribute a AUR/wiki mirror.. not sure how the mysql/db syncing will happen though. On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:38:45AM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 03:30, Stythys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Due to our recent downtime, I wanted to open a discussion about the > > possibility of mirroring the wiki/aur. I'm sure the are many people among > > the community (including myself) who'd be willing to put forth some hosting. > I still have a nice server. I'd be pleased to contribute this way! > > -- > Geoffroy Carrier -- Lee Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpnfK8wTwwjt.pgp Description: PGP signature
