unixnoob

4 ms·

1.
by unixnoob 14y ago
What if I just use userland kill(1) utility? Is it possible to kill all processes under a PGID using kill(1)? Say the PGID I get for sh is 321. If I do kill [signal] 321 that will not kill all the processes having PGID 321? If it
2.
by unixnoob 14y ago
"This is not ... this is the internet." That is exactly the type of conceptual roadblock I was alluding to in my comment. But if you look at what people, not just nerds, want to do over the internet a significant portion (perhaps even the m
3.
by unixnoob 14y ago
I don't know a lot about RetroShare but from what little I know I think they actually had the right approach. It was real peer-to-peer. I'm not thinking about peer-to-peer from an anonymous file sharing perspective. I'm thinking in much b
4.
by unixnoob 14y ago
But won't all the processes in my example have the PGID of sh?
5.
by unixnoob 14y ago
I really don't think it's as big an issue as people make it. People commenting about this in lists and forums and blogs make the issue more complex than it is because they have all sorts of assumptions about how it has to work. But as Rob
6.
by unixnoob 14y ago
Yes. I think most people miss this. For peer-to-peer to succeed I think there needs to be some amount of "re-education". There needs to be a shift in thinking. Many of these things that others are doing for you (email, etc.) can just as
7.
by unixnoob 14y ago
AKAIK it is still possible with most popular email servers to send and recive using only IP addresses (e.g. by placing the address in brackets). DNS is really only optional for email, at least functionally. But I think a lot of people assu
8.
by unixnoob 14y ago
As far as data standards go, I like Ethernet. I guess we all have our own preferences on how to do peer-to-peer. That's just the one I like the most. As for protocols and exchanging public keys, how about face-to-face or by postal letter
9.
by unixnoob 14y ago
I did try out WASTE in 2003. It seemed more like a chat client than something I could run any application over. It was more an application for doing certain defined things accessible in menus (the ones you mentioned) instead of being a gen
10.
by unixnoob 14y ago
Can we separate WebRTC functionality from a complex, bloated, insecure and unreliable web browser? (Assuming we ever get straddled with such a thing.) Can it be captured in a small, simple application?
11.
by unixnoob 14y ago
How about an "open" port with nothing listening on it? What does "open" mean? I think his point is that two nodes should be able to open and then connect on any port they choose, not just TCP 80. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are we say
12.
by unixnoob 14y ago
Done. But still not ready for the "do everything in a graphical web browser" crowd. And that's what tent appears to be aiming at. People who think all connection must be made through a web browser.
13.
by unixnoob 14y ago
OK, total noob question here. Could we achieve the same thing with something like pgrphack from daemontools? pgrphack sh -c "processes" Kill the pid for the sh ("agent") and you thereby kill all the processes? Again, sorry for th