Their replies are only obtuse because you fail to see that you’re being made fun of for having such a ridiculous pedantic position about this. “Terminal” does not mean shell when you read the Telnet RFC. It means TTY. A human to machine interface. MUDs implement the Telnet protocol and provide a remote TTY. What’s running on the terminal is absolutely irrelevant.
Can you show the exact line in the RFC or IANA port reservations that says it has to implement a shell login interface with the Telnet protocol if it’s on port 23? Because I can’t find it. Nothing says that anywhere.
I literally already did. And it is not merely the RFC which specifies it. The RFC defines the protocol and really leaves it open-ended for any sort of implementation.
What defines port 23/tcp is the longstanding usage and the original understanding of a "remote terminal" or NVT. In 1983 when the IETF described the NVT, it was simply understood that a terminal, or "canonical console", was a method to access a timesharing system and log in as a user. If you went to a "terminal lab" or you sat down at a desk with a "terminal" or "teletype" or any of its predecessors, you were preparing to log in and do some programming or data processing.
There were literally no terminal labs where you would sit down and begin playing Centipede, Asteroids, or PONG. Those were completely different concepts of "consoles" and "cabinets" and the IETF did not stutter when they defined an NVT.
Every Unix implementation, every router and network device, practically anything with an Internet connection implemented a "shell" login on port 23 or it did not. There were plenty of systems with /usr/games and a plethora of leisure-time activities, but surprisingly they did not default to using port 23/tcp. It has been long-standing tradition, and convention, that the TELNETD service operating on 23/tcp is what a user expects to find when they connect.
MUD admins and wizards who put their servers on 23/tcp necessarily needed another way to log in and manage their server. I am surprised that they were so easily able to usurp telnetd if this was the status quo. Was sshd already established for them or something? Did they just resort to rlogin instead? I'm genuinely clueless and curious how it was so easy to usurp 23/tcp and use it for MUDs.
Because my community often ran them clandestinely, and we always ran them unprivileged, so there would literally be no way for the server to start on port <1024 -- it never ever had root access! If your MUD ran on port 23, that's dangerous because at some point, somewhere, some time, it enjoyed root access, and hopefully dropped that UID 0 immediately after the bind()!
This is not ok I totally agree with you, but still, I would rather just block the ads, and not buy their products or support them.
There is a side-effect in terms of privacy: you send a fake click request every single time, you also actually disclose to adnetworks which page you are visiting and incidentally your whole browsing history (not through referrers, but because click URLs have a unique click IDs to match).
Somebody deeply hurt this person and their anti-women stance is so bitterly apparent in their writing that they felt the need to write something not worth reading.
IMO social media is not a type of source I have to participate in order to get information. I can read the far right’s opinion though actual sources and news aggregators without Twitter at all.
To continue the analogy, I need not go to a Nazi bar to read the headlines of the local newspaper to see what the latest propaganda is.
I agree that participation is not nessecary as I mentioned. But I find the way people comment and the back and forth on twitter interesting data. From the raw feelings or nation state bots pushing certain narratives, I personally find it informative viewing the platform where these interactions happen beyond divorced headlines.
95% of it is garbage, but as a member of a targeted class of people I like to see what angles they are coming for us from way ahead of time.
You’re bringing a Reddit analogy to HN and they are not equivalents. On HN there is no downvote. Something unwelcome gets flagged for review. After sufficient flagging the content is removed not just buried. It’s not calling it “stupid” it’s saying “hey buddy maybe this isn’t the right place for this.”
You can’t seem to depolarize yourself from extremes. You call your original post “highly intelligent” and equate any disagreements as being shouted “stupid” at like those are the only two options here or something when they are not.
That's where they are prevalent. It's just mimicking its training set. If you use LLMs as Q&A oracles or code generators the emoji output is less frequent.
A DevOps crew? Mainframes aren’t something that are just part of some random web app project in a company. A System Administration team would be the likely maintainer. But a lot of mainframes are designed to be run with very little manual maintenance these days.
They’re also wildly different architecturally from your typical rack of x86 servers, which is why the initial reaction to Linux running on a mainframe sounded stupid at first. When I worked at IBM in the 2010s, a Linux Zserver felt more like a VM running inside the mainframe than anything else. There were abstractions of the mainframe components that intentionally leaked into the Linux side that were interesting. I knew very little about traditional mainframe software development at the time, so I was very fascinated by how it all worked.
reply