My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Mar 31, 2006 21:42 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688)
Parent article: My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Jesus christ. How many of these "my top 10 tools" articles are we going to publish? This has to be the fourth or fifth one.

to post comments

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Mar 31, 2006 23:32 UTC (Fri) by just_call_me_fred (guest, #31886) [Link] (9 responses)

I accept your freedom of speech & may agree with your underlying premise but there is no need to blaspheme. If you don't like the title, don't read the article.

Stephen Riley

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 1, 2006 4:26 UTC (Sat) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] (8 responses)

> but there is no need to blaspheme.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

blasphemy

Posted Apr 3, 2006 5:15 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (7 responses)

> I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have an idea you are being deliberately obtuse.

Not always a blasphemy

Posted Apr 3, 2006 21:47 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (4 responses)

Hi Jonathan,

Not necessarily. Not in all Christian countries or Christian churches is it a blasphemy to "take the name of God in vain", i.e. to mention God's name in an unwarranted situation. It does indeed appear in Exodus 20:7, but Exodus is full of odd commandments. E.g. Exodus 21:17 says: "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death", something which few people would accept today. Or Exodus 22:18: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live."

Good Catholics routinely "take the name of God in vain", using holy names as interjections, and do not think it is a blasphemy. Eastern Orthodox practitioners as well. For example, 'Jesús' is a popular name in Spain as is 'Christos' in Greece. So don't take it as an offense: it's just a matter of different sensibilities and as a foreigner it's hard to get used to it.

No ambiguity, therefore claiming ignorance is disingenuous.

Posted Apr 4, 2006 2:36 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (3 responses)

I do not disagree about the degree of offence one ought to take at the
use of the name of Jesus -- I'm not at all religious myself, but I have
worked alongside people of most (I almost wrote 'all') religious
backgrounds and I'm well aware that it's common in Roman Catholic
tradition to swear in the name of Christ (and for Protestants to frown
severely in response).

On the other hand there is no ambiguity here. The first poster used a
religious name out of context and the second described it as blasphemy;
it is obvious what was referred to and I think it is disingenous, and
therefore rude in itself, for the first poster then to claim ignorance.

Blasphemy can be many things

Posted Apr 4, 2006 7:02 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

I'm not religious either, and I cannot speak for TwoTimeGrime, but for us with a Catholic background blasphemy does not mean "taking God's name in vain", but rather "assigning evil attributes to God" or sometimes "denying the existence of God". Catholic blasphemies consist of rich metaphors involving holy people, the Messiah or even God, which I will not reproduce here since they are seriously insulting.

I was genuinely surprised to see how seriously US protestants take offence at the sole mention of God's name as an interjection: there is a wide cultural gap here. It is true that e.g. the Wikipedia cleary states that this behavior can be considered blasphemy; but, you know, information is not knowledge. For me the key was to realize that there are euphemisms for God's names, which in Spanish are reserved for human waste and those blasphemies referred above.

No ambiguity, therefore claiming ignorance is disingenuous.

Posted Apr 9, 2006 2:32 UTC (Sun) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] (1 responses)

> On the other hand there is no ambiguity here. The first poster used a
> religious name out of context and the second described it as blasphemy;
> it is obvious what was referred to and I think it is disingenous, and
> therefore rude in itself, for the first poster then to claim ignorance.

Please don't be elitist. Not everyone knows all there is about every religion. I haven't had the opportunity to work alongside people of most religious backgrounds like you so I don't know as much about different religions.

I didn't know what part of my post he thought was blaspheming and so far he seems unwilling to respond and clarify for me. I didn't know that the saying I used was a religious saying and that it would offend. I thought it was just a saying since I hear it on TV shows and its used by friends who speak english. After reading this thread and googling I was able to figure out that "Jesus christ" was a central religious figure in christianity. Where I come from everyone is Buddist. I have lived in the USA, in San Francisco, for a few years but never looked into local religion. Even my country's religion isn't something I follow. I can't know everything.

You are a fortunate philosopher :-)

Posted Apr 10, 2006 1:17 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> Please don't be elitist. Not everyone knows all there
> is about every religion.

Do forgive my presumption. And I thought I was being so
'culturally sensitive' :-/

> After reading this thread and googling I was able to
> figure out that "Jesus christ" was a central religious
> figure in christianity.

Errr... okay. I'm incredulous, but at least for the sake
of argument I will take your word for it that you didn't
already know. I suppose I was aware that *some* people
in the universe have never been touched by Christian
evangelism, nor had a need to learn the basics of Western
history, but it comes as a *big* surprise that someone
with such a solid technical education and good grasp of
colloquial English as yourself would have missed out, at
least on the historical aspect.

FWIW I think you're very fortunate, if extremely unusual :-)

blasphemy

Posted Apr 4, 2006 15:24 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (1 responses)

It actually took me a few seconds to realise he meant that "jesus christ" with "blasphemy". But then, I come from a catholic and a european background, so I don't count "using the name of some deity or said deities relatives and saints as interjections" as "blasphemy".

But what do you know, some of you USians are just girlies or victims of "political correctness".

This aside, I actually like those "sysadmins toolkit"-articles, it gets a perspective on how different people work ("what, you use Satan!" -- SCNR).

blasphemy

Posted Apr 6, 2006 1:25 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> you USians are just girlies

Ooooh! Now he thinks I'm an American!

Jon's informal statistics for subscribers a few months ago showed less
than half were from the USA. As far as I'm concerned that's a good
thing. While there's an obvious and unavoidable bias in favour of
English on this site (as in most global fora), apart from that everyone
makes an effort towards cultural sensitivity. If that's "political
correctness", why then I am proud to be politically correct and everyone
here has a right to be proud likewise.

I had a Protestant upbringing, which may explain why I was quick to
pounce on TwoTimeGrime's profession of ignorance above, but I maintain
that the intended meaning was clear from the context.

The sense of "blasphemy" meaning to use a holy name profanely or "in
vain", is an old-testament notion (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12) and
certainly not restricted to the English language. I'll concede that this
usage may indeed be restricted to cultures with strong Protestant or
Jewish influence.

FYI I am not from the USA and have never visited either American
continent. I am overweight, have a ponytail and sometimes a goatee, and
depending on the weather I may be seen in Doc Martens, sandals (but never
with socks!) or in Fair-Trade "No Sweat" sneakers made in a unionised
factory in a third-world country.

http://www.nosweatapparel.com/

> "what, you use Satan!"

OK, I'll laugh now :-)

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/blasphemy.html

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 1, 2006 2:47 UTC (Sat) by jmmc (guest, #34939) [Link] (3 responses)

sir/maam - in moments of weakness, I've taken the name of 'ol JC (and his Pop, to be fair) in vain many a time as much as anybody, but this place, time and reason does not warrant, imho. Go hit /. if you want to take such a surly tone...oh come on, I jest... ;)

seriously, and not to come off as too glib, the 'my sysadmin toolbox' series is one of the first things I read when I see them posted (ed. take note). They're a short read, to the point and each one has mentioned a program I'd never heard of before. I've been administering a half-dozen Linux boxen (Slackware/LAMP stack) for about seven years now, and I'm always interested to hear what other SysAdmins use to solve/attack/resolve issues in Linux. I enjoy the series.

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 1, 2006 4:51 UTC (Sat) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] (2 responses)

> I've taken the name of 'ol JC (and his Pop, to be fair) in vain many
> a time as much as anybody, but this place, time and reason does not
> warrant, imho.

I'm not sure what taken a name in vain means. English is not my mother tounge. Unless that is a fancy way of saying written.

> seriously, and not to come off as too glib, the 'my sysadmin toolbox'
> series is one of the first things I read when I see them posted (ed.
> take note).

I didn't know it was a series. I like it and find it useful too but I notice that there is some overlap when they are posted. A lot of people like the same tools which makes the list a little less useful. Several people have mentioned how useful SSH is. That's like listing how useful 'ls' is. It would be nice if people who write new articles for the series could make sure that their list of tools is something that hasn't been mentioned before. Even if they list just one tool they use a lot and hasn't been discussed before, and write more extensively about it, I think it would have more value than writing two sentences saying that they use GNU Emacs.

I guess this is the wrong forum for this. I'll email the Linux.com people. Maybe they can encourage a bit more variety in the series.

> Go hit /. if you want to take such a surly tone...oh come on, I jest... ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean to make this place seem like Slashdot. :-) I left that place years ago.

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 3, 2006 1:33 UTC (Mon) by jmmc (guest, #34939) [Link] (1 responses)

> I didn't know it was a series. I like it and find it useful
> too but I notice that there is some overlap when they are posted.

really ? Perhaps, but if so I haven't noticed, maybe due to how the articles are spaced out.

> A lot of people like the same tools which makes the list a little less useful.

Not really, at least to me. I think you're exaggerating.

imho, if there is some so-called 'overlap', so what ?! That way I see it, Linux.com asks Linux folks what they use to admin their systems, and the folks reply. Period. End of story. I don't think a lot of editing goes into it and I don't it's the goal of the articles to reveal some 'never been used before' tool to wow the GNU/Linux crowd.

Curious, were you upset that LWN continues to link to these 'Toolbox' articles, or more upset with the content itself (which would be something to take up over at Linux.com) ?

My sysadmin toolbox (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 23, 2006 15:00 UTC (Sun) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link]

>> A lot of people like the same tools which makes the list a little less useful.

>Not really, at least to me. I think you're exaggerating.

Not exaggerating. OpenSSH covered yet again in the last two issues: http://lwn.net/Articles/179944/ and http://lwn.net/Articles/180951/

Not only that but one of them covering obvious basic usage like remote running of commands. One article even had a two sentence paragraph about ping. He mentioned two alternatives saying they were "better versions with more options" but didn't say anything else about them.

I would really like to see more discussion of one or two tools rather than listing one tool. In the latest article the person talks about tripwire. I'd like to see a my sysadmin toolbox article where they talk more about that tool.

> Curious, were you upset that LWN continues to link to these 'Toolbox'
> articles, or more upset with the content itself (which would be something
> to take up over at Linux.com) ?

Somewhat both. I see these articles as being "me too" articles. Like on usenet when someone says "post your power bash prompt" and 80% of the people have the same prompt that does the same thing. I see that happening to a smaller degree in these articles. By extension I was getting annoyed that LWN was still linking to them.