6 ms·

> A 10 Line Wi-Fi SSID Sniffer > #!/usr/bin/env python Yeah. I bet it's even being run on an OS that they didn't write themselves.

bjornsing 14y ago
Yeah, this totally sucks. Show me the assembly and tell me that's 10 lines. 10 x86 instructions, that's my total attention span. :)
adlpz 14y ago
There is a point where it is reasonable, there is a point where it is not. Look, a complete X graphical environment with one bash line! $ startx
gngeal 14y ago
Unless you smelt your own silicon for the transistors and ICs, it's cheating!
sergiotapia 14y ago
I kind of agree with @adlpz on this. It's like saying, "Serve a website with 1 line of code!" and then running `sudo service apache start`. Technically correct, but highly misleading. Either way, I hope you realize I'm not being snarky here - just wanted to share my point of view on this. OP's article was great, that's a ridiculously powerful library.
- mseebach 14y ago
  Meh. Strictly speaking you are correct, but deconstructing it, it means that we can never say anything is easy (N lines of codes for small N's being synonymous with 'easy'). Yes, it's actually bloody easy to serve a website, and that's a good thing, and if someone didn't know it was possible, it's been helpful to write that 'tutorial'. All members of the "Do X in N lines or M minutes" meme are examples of stringing together one or more powerful libraries.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > Technically correct, but highly misleading. Who exactly would be mislead by this? It's April 1st, but was anyone really tricked into thinking a full packet sniffer was written in 10 lines?
- MereInterest 14y ago
  For me, getting the first working example running is often the biggest step. Up until then, you don't know whether what you are doing will work at all. After that, you can start fiddling with it and changing bits and pieces. Saying "Serve a website with 1 line of code!" and then starting apache with that 1 line is useful, because I can then go from there to changing configurations. Fewer lines for the rough draft => fewer places to mess up in unknown ways.

bjornsing 14y ago

Yeah, this totally sucks. Show me the assembly and tell me that's 10 lines. 10 x86 instructions, that's my total attention span. :)

adlpz 14y ago

There is a point where it is reasonable, there is a point where it is not. Look, a complete X graphical environment with one bash line! $ startx

gngeal 14y ago

Unless you smelt your own silicon for the transistors and ICs, it's cheating!

sergiotapia 14y ago

I kind of agree with @adlpz on this. It's like saying, "Serve a website with 1 line of code!" and then running `sudo service apache start`. Technically correct, but highly misleading. Either way, I hope you realize I'm not being snarky here - just wanted to share my point of view on this. OP's article was great, that's a ridiculously powerful library.

mseebach 14y ago
Meh. Strictly speaking you are correct, but deconstructing it, it means that we can never say anything is easy (N lines of codes for small N's being synonymous with 'easy'). Yes, it's actually bloody easy to serve a website, and that's a good thing, and if someone didn't know it was possible, it's been helpful to write that 'tutorial'. All members of the "Do X in N lines or M minutes" meme are examples of stringing together one or more powerful libraries.
darkarmani 14y ago
> Technically correct, but highly misleading. Who exactly would be mislead by this? It's April 1st, but was anyone really tricked into thinking a full packet sniffer was written in 10 lines?
MereInterest 14y ago
For me, getting the first working example running is often the biggest step. Up until then, you don't know whether what you are doing will work at all. After that, you can start fiddling with it and changing bits and pieces. Saying "Serve a website with 1 line of code!" and then starting apache with that 1 line is useful, because I can then go from there to changing configurations. Fewer lines for the rough draft => fewer places to mess up in unknown ways.