1. 57
  1.  

  2. 21

    Hey, look! It’s @jcs’s other social network.

    1. 11

      While this may seem nostalgic for some folks, I was entirely unaware of this feature[1] and am excited to see how it unfolds. So far it seems to just be a landrush for short names.

      [1] https://linux.die.net/man/1/finger (Search for “plan”)

      1. 2

        Already linked below (above?) but thought will link it here, too - if nothing else, this one is more up-to-date :^)

        https://man.openbsd.org/finger.1

      2. 11

        Can we get integration with the weekly “what are you doing this week?” threads? That would be cool.

        1. 11

          It would also be neat if lobste.rs hosted a finger server. For example finger fs111@lobste.rs could return some of the information found on https://lobste.rs/u/fs111. Maybe users profiles also have a “plan” section for “what are you doing this week” answers? Not sure the utility of all this, but the idea tickles me!

          1. 5

            Well, there’s this at least:

            finger lobsters@typed-hole.org
            
            1. 4

              That would be really cool indeed

          2. 6

            What is this site about exactly ? I miss the point ^^”

            1. 12

              It’s like an interactive telephone book, you can index all of the users of the domain with “finger @plan.cat” and you can look up for a sepecific user like “finger glitch@plan.cat.

              1. 5

                It would be awesome if mail providers started to provide finger so you can quickly have information about someone (which would be, of course, the information the want to make public)

                1. 3

                  Most servers started to close the finger port for incoming connections in the late ’90s because the protocol was a great way of enumerating the valid accounts on the system. If your mail provider enables it then you can find all of the addresses that will work and that makes sending spam to that provider a lot easier.

                  I first saw finger in 2000 and even then it only worked on the local network and was blocked at the firewall for the machines that hosted a web server / email.

                  1. 3

                    I have writing PIM in my “TODO one day”, and it would be nice feature to add.

                2. 3

                  It’s a social network from way back when: https://linux.die.net/man/1/finger

                  1. 2

                    Back in Days of Yore, before the internet went mainstream and security Got Serious, most UNIX systems supported a protocol called finger.

                    You could say finger feoh@gnu.org and, if I updated my .plan file, see what I had written there and, depending on the server, maybe even what I was running on the machine at the moment.

                    People took advantage of this for all kinds of strange and wonderful things, including internet connected coffee and soda machines where you could [finger them for status].

                    This site resurrects the protocol but gives you a place to advertise your status without opening up a security hole in workstations you actually use/care about, and in its own way creates a kind of social network :)

                    1. 1

                      Were you going to link something at [finger them for status]?

                  2. 6

                    The site isn’t listening on ports 22 or 514. They expect us to set our .plan files over HTTPS?

                    1. 5

                      Yes. Either via UI or curl.

                    2. 4

                      Wow that brings memories back, we used to always have .plan and .project files in college for the finger command.

                      1. 3

                        Unfortunately, I believe this domain runs afoul of the rules for the .cat domain

                        1. 10

                          The non-user-generated content is translated into Catalan if your browser’s language is set to “ca”.

                          1. 1

                            so does https://www.nyan.cat/ and that has been around for 10 years. I guess nobody really cares?

                            1. 2

                              https://twitter.com/huy/status/373161206317477888?t=3pap76DQ2Dk7n4tHMZz69Q&s=19

                              They do seem to audit periodically (this is a tweet from the creator of nyan.cat).

                              1. 1

                                https://www.nyan.cat is available in catalan, if you use the menu in the upper left corner of the page. But I bet nobody really cares :)

                            2. 2

                              this was a quiet little corner of the internet until yesterday :)

                              1. 2

                                Why does it keep telling me my login is invalid?

                                1. 5

                                  you have to use your username, not your email address; this hit me too, a few times.

                                  1. 3

                                    Thanks!

                                2. 2

                                  I realize that bringing this up may bog us down in some frustrating discourse about political correctness, but I do think that a serious barrier to bringing back finger is its name. Juvenile jokes about fingering someone are inevitable (“oh, when I said I want to finger her, I just meant the social network!”), and may contribute to a hostile environment for people with vulvas at a point in history where we should really know better.

                                  If people are serious about bringing back the finger protocol, as some have become serious about resurrecting gopher, can we prioritize the “name” alias, or rewrite it in Rust and call it something clever and self-referential like “digits” that less closely resembles a sex act in English?

                                  1. 11

                                    or rewrite it in Rust and call it something clever and self-referential like “digits” that less closely resembles a sex act in English?

                                    Or we could just be a little less jumpy about things in general. Especially as “finger” also has relevant and entirely non-sexual etymology as well:

                                    The term “finger” has a definition of “to snitch” or “to identify”

                                    FWIW I don’t like the phrase political correctness, as it’s been diluted beyond useful meaning. I’d argue that this isn’t a case of it, either: properly, it refers to whether a fact is politically safe to express or act upon. “Is Lysenkoism correct, Comrade?” “It doesn’t matter; it’s politically correct.”

                                    So I think the real issue here is of what constitutes hypersensitivity to sexual terms - or even terms that could be interpreted as sexual; I’d be willing to bet that the author(s) of finger intended it as a double entendre.

                                    1. 3

                                      I don’t think this is about jumpiness as much as it is caring about people who have an experience different than your own.

                                      There’s no question there’s a group of people to whom language around “fingering” causes discomfort and/or painful memories. I’m not sure what the size of that group is (maybe it’s small!), but it’s also unquestionably disproportionately women.

                                      Since we’re trying to make software a more welcoming place for underrepresented groups, like women, it seems to me that @skyfaller is asking if this is a conversation we should have.

                                      Meanwhile, it seems to me that you’re saying (a) you can’t imagine being in that group of people and that group of people should get over it, and moreover (b) the conversation is illegitimate.

                                      The problem with the internet is how many people are now reachable. Is it hypersensitivity if you cause many thousands of people distress, even if the denominator is much much larger? If choosing your words empathetically is akin to censorship to you (Lysenkoism, comrade), I don’t know what to say. (edit: I’m sorry, I misread; I see you’re saying it’s not this. If anything I guess I just take issue with calling it hypersensitivity as opposed to discussing how much we should be sensitive.)

                                      1. 9

                                        The problem with the internet is how many people are now reachable. Is it hypersensitivity if you cause many thousands of people distress, even if the denominator is much much larger?

                                        It’s hypersensitivity to be caused distress by the word finger. I’m sorry, but it’s silly to pretend otherwise.

                                        1. 2

                                          Another “I can’t imagine this bothering me” vote.

                                          1. 3

                                            But this reasoning is circular without some objectivity. You must be making some value judgments yourself without consulting an opinion panel, or “having a discussion”.

                                        2. 4

                                          If people get offended by something, I most certainly don’t care.

                                          1. 3

                                            I will first say that I love your thoughtfulness and your willingness to reconsider in the middle of a discussion. That’s what this should all be about. Kudos.

                                            That being said, my inner Izzit jumped at this:

                                            I’m not sure what the size of that group is (maybe it’s small!), but it’s also unquestionably disproportionately women.

                                            Is it though? Can ‘men’ (whatever that means) not get fingered?

                                            It does not invalidate your point that we need to be thoughtful and conscious in our language, but even when arguing for thoughtfulness, we can still be blind to our own bias (or ‘blind to our own view of reality shaped by our own lived experiences’).

                                            All that to say - let’s have these discussions, but go out of our way to have them with people actually affected, whose version of reality looks nothing like ours - with humility.

                                            Side story - probably unrelated: I feel violated when anyone on my team uses the word “bang”. I honestly feel enraged and it takes everything in my power to not throw my computer across the room anytime I’m invited to “bang this out with someone,” or when a team member relates how they solved a problem by staying up late and “banging it out.”

                                            I have not said anything to these people. I probably never will. For reasons that you may or may not be able to imagine, based on your own lived experiences.

                                            I honestly have no idea if they are aware of what it sounds like. I know for a fact they are not thinking of me (intending to get a reaction out of me, or how it would make me - or anyone else - feel).

                                            1. 3

                                              All that to say - let’s have these discussions, but go out of our way to have them with people actually affected, whose version of reality looks nothing like ours - with humility.

                                              This should be printed on a shirt. You make an excellent point about my own biases and assumptions even in an attempt to try and be thoughtful about it in my personal vacuum. :+1:

                                            2. 3

                                              If anything I guess I just take issue with calling it hypersensitivity as opposed to discussing how much we should be sensitive.

                                              Yes, this is the conversation I think we need to have: what is a desirable level of sensitivity, and when does it tip over to being excessive? The answer will be different for different people in different communities, but it should be an ongoing conversation that changes with the times, and doesn’t assume that because something has always been accepted that it should continue to be acceptable (and perhaps allows for language to move the other direction as well, e.g. if slurs like “queer” are reclaimed as words one can take pride in).

                                              Elsewhere in this thread, @david_chisnall lists other utilities that also lend themselves to double entendres:

                                              In contrast, finger always led to people making fingering jokes (mind you, with touch, unzip, mount, fsck, and so on, the UNIX command line doesn’t really provide a shortage of input for a dirty mind).

                                              I’ve seen t-shirts etc. that use these utility names to refer to sexual acts, but I will admit that for whatever reason these others did not set off alarm bells for me in quite the same way as finger. If I were god emperor of command line utilities, I might rename finger and leave the rest alone. Are there people who find one of these other utility names more troubling, and find finger to be acceptable?

                                              How do we decide when a name needs to be changed, or when the change is worth the effort / inconvenience? Is there a meaningful difference between many people experiencing mild discomfort and a few people experiencing extreme distress? How many people have to experience an issue, and how severe must that issue be, before we seriously discuss changing a name? How much should we care about how the worst people in a community behave vs. more common behavior? There will always be someone who finds something objectionable about anything, so we cannot take action on every objection, but it also doesn’t seem like we should ignore all objections.

                                              How do we weigh the current community vs. an aspirational community we hope to have? I think one important piece of context is that programming has been something of a boy’s club for decades, and if the profession wants to be more inclusive and welcoming, it perhaps should err on the side of being more sensitive. The absence of objections could be a sort of survivorship bias.

                                              I also think it’s worth taking a stand in favor of caring about people’s feelings, instead of making it cool to be cruel. Many people have an attitude of “fsck your feelings” until it’s their feelings that are hurt, and then they demand blood. We shouldn’t be ruled by people who refuse to consider any feelings they don’t share, any more than we should be ruled by puritans who object to everything.

                                          2. 2

                                            That angle is certainly one that’s been brought up time and again. And then you get questions about whether terms like domain driven design might also be problematic. I’m not sure where the line should be, and I don’t think I have the standing to weigh in very much.

                                            Sometimes, it’s easy for me to see. For example, it is super clear to me that we should not refer to hacked-up solutions as (racial-slur)-rigged.

                                            I do also tend to think that if people are saying that “finger” and “domain driven design” make it challenging for them to participate in the community, IMO we should just believe them and swap out the terms for different ones without the same issue.

                                            But ideally, I’d like to have a heuristic to identify these terms before they actually make a person feel excluded, and I have a hard time identifying such a thing in the last two cases. I don’t like the idea of waiting till someone is uncomfortable participating because I repeated a term of art.

                                            I know that I just need to accept that discomfort as a privilege (it sure beats feeling being afraid to participate!) but I still want to spot a way to be better.

                                            1. 6

                                              I was really confused by the domain-drive design thing. First I clicked on the link to see what ‘domain’ meant that caused problems for folks, only to discover that it was the TLA, DDD, that was the problem. The person in the Twitter thread was claiming that this was a bra size, which confused me because I was under the impression that it was not. So I then ended up bra sizes on Wikipedia, and it turns out that we were both right: it isn’t in my locale: DDD in US sizes is called E in the UK (and it’s called F more commonly in the USA). So we have a thing whose name is completely fine, whose initialism happens to be the same as a locale-specific size for bras (but only in parts of the US) and this is a problem because porn apparently decides to use DDD to mean ‘big breasts’ (ignoring the fact that this is a ratio measurement and has nothing to do with absolute size, only the relative size of the cup and the band size). So the chain from the thing to the offensive thing is four long. Given a chain that long, I suspect I could link any word in any alphabet to a term that some people would find offensive.

                                              In contrast, finger always led to people making fingering jokes (mind you, with touch, unzip, mount, fsck, and so on, the UNIX command line doesn’t really provide a shortage of input for a dirty mind).

                                              1. 4

                                                Given a chain that long, I suspect I could link any word in any alphabet to a term that some people would find offensive.

                                                I don’t know the details of this specific case, but if someone is taking offense at the result of a chain that long, it’s reasonable to infer that they’re choosing to take offense.

                                                1. 1

                                                  I don’t know the details of this specific case, but if someone is taking offense at the result of a chain that long, it’s reasonable to infer that they’re choosing to take offense.

                                                  This is very close to getting political, but it’s not about choosing to take offence. Imagine being a non-dude, coming into a computer club where all young-isch dudes are talking about fingering each others and others (you can probably imagine the jokes). None of it is probably intended to offend anyone, and none of the comments or jokes will offend you…but being constantly surrounded by it will eventually just wear you down.

                                                  TL;DR it’s not necessarily offensive, it’s inconsiderate and it’s just a part of everything else that is inconsiderate out on the internet.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    This is very close to getting political, but it’s not about choosing to take offence.

                                                    Sure; I was referring to taking offense at Domain Driven Design because its acronym is also a bra size in some countries.

                                                    I think a reasonable person could object to a utility with a name that’s a double entendre. I think at the point where you’re offended by Domain Driven Design, though, you’re looking for something to be offended by.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      Sure; I was referring to taking offense at Domain Driven Design because its acronym is also a bra size in some countries.

                                                      Ah, I must have misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry about that.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        No offense taken ;)

                                                        Seriously, lobste.rs has to be about the only place on the public Internet I feel comfortable actually discussing topics like these, in part because people tend to assume good intent and act politely ❤️

                                                2. 1

                                                  It’s very common IME for American neo-puritans to assume that their own parochial, contingent cultural anxieties do and should apply unconditionally to the rest of the world. A form of cultural imperialism, I would say.

                                                  I’m very much on board with attempting to empathize with people with lived experiences different from the majority demographic in a community, but does that mean that a single person from a morally-privileged group gets an unconditional veto over anything they object to?

                                                3. 2

                                                  But ideally, I’d like to have a heuristic to identify these terms before they actually make a person feel excluded

                                                  I don’t think that’s possible, since many of these are based on intentional mis-readings, or terms whose underlying language has dramatically shifted, or taking things out of context etc.

                                                  The only thing one can do is either make a change, or stay silent in the face of a request for one. Making that call is hard and will depend on how many spoons you have when it comes in, honestly.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    many of these are based on intentional mis-readings

                                                    I think I’m missing a reference here, because I am not aware of a situation where someone intentionally misread something and then felt excluded on that basis, let alone many of them. But I’m specifically referring to situations where someone wants to participate and feels uncomfortable doing so because of the language being used by others. Bad faith misreadings are entirely different.

                                                    Making that call is hard and will depend on how many spoons you have

                                                    Is that an auto-correct error? If not, can you tell me what “how many spoons” means in this context or point me to an explanation? I’m a native US English speaker, and that is new to me.

                                                    I recognize that I’m engaging in wishful thinking. It doesn’t seem like a bad wish, though, to want to be smart enough to identify exclusionary things before they make someone feel excluded.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Thank you. That’s much less crass than the idiom I usually use to reference that same thing. I plan to adopt that.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          I have taken to using the term “koalas” after Ze Frank’s “koalas in the rain” song.

                                                  2. 1

                                                    Sometimes, it’s easy for me to see. For example, it is super clear to me that we should not refer to hacked-up solutions as (racial-slur)-rigged.

                                                    I had to Google that one - the only “rigged” phrase I knew already was jury-rigged, and I was wondering how anyone could find it offensive.

                                                    Agreed that’s it’s pretty clear that the extreme cases like those are easy; it’s drawing a line between accidental exclusion and hysteria that’s difficult.

                                                    Ironically, the term hysteria itself used to be deeply misogynistic; the root word is “hystera”, that is, “uterus”.

                                                    1. 2

                                                      I’m sorry to have made you google that but simultaneously glad that it wasn’t already in your vocabulary. I learned it from my supervisor at my first job in high school. When he was informed by more senior management that it wasn’t acceptable, he replaced it with the term “afro engineering”. IIRC he was given his walking papers shortly thereafter for a completely unrelated reason. The state of that part of the world at the time was that as long as you weren’t literally using the n-word, you weren’t being racist.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        I’m sorry to have made you google that but simultaneously glad that it wasn’t already in your vocabulary

                                                        Probably just because I’m Australian. We have our own collection of similarly vile racial terms, just aimed at Aborigines :(

                                                      2. 1

                                                        The term “jerry-rigged” (or “jerry-built”) is the only other such form I know of, which I used to think was connected to the slang (slur?) term for Germans, but apparently it predates Germans being referred to as “Jerry” (circa WW1).

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Wikipedia has the etymology of this one, it’s a nautical term and has nothing to do with any group referred to as Jerry - the jerry variant is a more modern corruption. I learned something actually - I thought a Jurry Rig was a Napoleonic-era naval term, but apparently it’s a couple of hundred years older.

                                                  3. 1

                                                    Who’s going to be the first one to upload a binary to their .plan file?

                                                    1. 1

                                                      Is anybody excited about this using twtxt?