3 ms·

> You are aware that flock(1) is a thing, right? No. Maybe I heard and even knew what it is, but I never needed it. You know why? My task scheduler supports

> You are aware that flock(1) is a thing, right? No. Maybe I heard and even knew what it is, but I never needed it. You know why? My task scheduler supports running only one instance of the task so I don't need to reinvent the wheel every time I need something to run on schedule. Just 'somebinary args args args', 'run only one instance' and I'm done. > flock - manage locks from shell scripts Well, yep. Reinventing the wheel each other time. Thanks, I have some more important things (like browsing HN) than writing shitty shell scripts.

pengaru 4y ago
[flagged]
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > efore you dig that hole of incompetence any deeper. "Hur-dur! Look at me! Me mighty UNIX wizard! Bow to me!" > running the scheduled commands via sh, it's inherently involving the shell. Welcome to *NIX. Thanks, while you are running shell commands I'm running systems. I'm not interested in writing shell scripts for things what were solved decades ago.
- gsich 4y ago
  Better look into a mirror ... Using cron (or systemd) to ensure only 1 instance is running is a valid approach.
trasz4 4y ago
>Well, yep. Reinventing the wheel each other time. Erm, no - flock(1) is a UNIX tool, a component if you will. It's the exact opposite of reinventing the wheel. Not understanding the operating system you're using is fine, but it's good to at least know what you don't know.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > It's the exact opposite of reinventing the wheel. If I need to write a wrapper script each time I need to run a task on a timer - then it is the proverbial reinventing the wheel. It doesn't matter if you call it a tool, utility or a component. Especially if this was solved decades ago. > Not understanding the operating system you're using is fine Ah, another mighty UNIX wizard here.
  - trasz4 4y ago
    >If I need to write a wrapper script And there's your problem - you don't realize "writing a wrapper script" is actually simpler than messing with config files.
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago
      The 'problem' here is you, serving the machine. I prefer the machine to serve me.
      - winrid 4y ago
        Using utilities included with your OS is not the machine serving you?
        justsomehnguy 4y ago
        Using obsolete utilities for the sake of 'doing the right UNIX way' instead of just ticking a checkbox/adding one line in the task configuration? Come on, I would repeat it again - it was solved for decades. Why do you need to do the things like it's 1976? Why do you insist everyone else should do that way too and abandon the fruits of the digital age?
        winrid 4y ago
        Why would you use something other than cron for many types of tasks? Not everyone needs a distributed system to run a script periodically, they want to actually get things done. :)
ori_b 4y ago
Why is using the composable OS feature reinventing the wheel?

pengaru 4y ago

[flagged]

justsomehnguy 4y ago
> efore you dig that hole of incompetence any deeper. "Hur-dur! Look at me! Me mighty UNIX wizard! Bow to me!" > running the scheduled commands via sh, it's inherently involving the shell. Welcome to *NIX. Thanks, while you are running shell commands I'm running systems. I'm not interested in writing shell scripts for things what were solved decades ago.
gsich 4y ago
Better look into a mirror ... Using cron (or systemd) to ensure only 1 instance is running is a valid approach.

trasz4 4y ago

>Well, yep. Reinventing the wheel each other time. Erm, no - flock(1) is a UNIX tool, a component if you will. It's the exact opposite of reinventing the wheel. Not understanding the operating system you're using is fine, but it's good to at least know what you don't know.

justsomehnguy 4y ago
> It's the exact opposite of reinventing the wheel. If I need to write a wrapper script each time I need to run a task on a timer - then it is the proverbial reinventing the wheel. It doesn't matter if you call it a tool, utility or a component. Especially if this was solved decades ago. > Not understanding the operating system you're using is fine Ah, another mighty UNIX wizard here.
- trasz4 4y ago
  >If I need to write a wrapper script And there's your problem - you don't realize "writing a wrapper script" is actually simpler than messing with config files.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    The 'problem' here is you, serving the machine. I prefer the machine to serve me.
    - winrid 4y ago
      Using utilities included with your OS is not the machine serving you?
      - justsomehnguy 4y ago
        Using obsolete utilities for the sake of 'doing the right UNIX way' instead of just ticking a checkbox/adding one line in the task configuration? Come on, I would repeat it again - it was solved for decades. Why do you need to do the things like it's 1976? Why do you insist everyone else should do that way too and abandon the fruits of the digital age?
        winrid 4y ago
        Why would you use something other than cron for many types of tasks? Not everyone needs a distributed system to run a script periodically, they want to actually get things done. :)

ori_b 4y ago

Why is using the composable OS feature reinventing the wheel?