Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list
On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:42:49 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41, Camaleón <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I just tried tinyurl with wget and got the same IP address (and 200
>>> response) as you. I didn't check the links, though.
>> Then? Are you still getting trouble to reach the tinyurl web site? If
>> yes, there could be a filter/proxy in between of you and the website,
>> that is, your ISP.
> I didn't try the links.
You said (sic) "The tinyurl server is giving a 500 error."
> There is a point when I don't care about being
> right or wrong, I made my say and I'll not argue over trivial things
> with people who I'd really rather get along with.
Fine, but doing so in a public (and mostly technical) mailing list
generates other people reply to your "considerations" about a web service
that has been there providing a useful service since years.
>>> No, this is not a matter of preference.
>> Sure it is. Nobody can force a user to use one or other method to post
>> into this list. You can follow the link or not, that's up to you, but
>> blaming someone -that is trying to help you- for using tinyurl (or any
>> other of those URL shortening services) is like an overreaction.
> I'm not trying to force anyone, nor am I making blame. I am giving
> tangible arguments in favour of my position. If someone wishes to
> disregard my arguments, even if it is to my detriment and the detriment
> of the fine archives, so be it.
You are charging against Tinyurl and blaming over it because of some
obscure privacy concerns you have... but you are writing on a public
mailing list, you use Gmail and you still worry about privacy? That makes
>>> There is no reason to pipe the links through some third party service
>>> that is unreliable and may, either through malice stupidity or
>>> hacking, compromise either the user's ability to connect to the site
>>> or perform undesirable actions (tracking, advertising, drive-by
>>> malware). Could TinyURL never be hacked? Sold? Forget to pay their
>>> hosting bill? Hardware failure? Network failure?
>> Oh, come on! That argument is very flawed. Should we stop of using
>> Gmail e-mail service because of the same? >:-)
> Strawman. Gmail or any other email provider is providing an essential
> service: at most we could replace Gmail with a different email provider.
> That is not a link that can be taken out of the chain. Tinyurl, though,
> adds redundant links to the chain and they provide absolutely no
> benefit. So why use them? What is the benefit?
I used the Gmail argument because is a service that you are using but
apparently you are also much worried about your privacy. That's an
oxymoron. Probably by using Gmail's e-mail service you are being more
watched than by following a tinyurl link.
>> Tinyurl, bit.ly and such have its use (mostly for twitter and sending
>> SMS messages that enforce you a policy of limited characters) but using
>> them in a mailing list is something is only up to the poster, not me,
>> nor you... there is no one point in Debian mailing list netiquette
>> stating the opposite.
> I don't read the Debian list on Twitter nor via SMS. Do you really
> believe that is such a viable use case that the benefits of a shorter
> URL outweigh the detriment?
I believe there is nothing wrong in using them. Heck, this is the web!
Most of the "plain" URIs are not available anymore because people closes
their sites and they stop caring about making a redirect to the new ones.
Links dead, regardless of the usage of URL shortening services or no.
>>> What advantage exists at all to use tinyURL?
>> It does not have to exist any.
> So why use it?
To make a bunch of text short. To give the reader some sort of usability
(there are e-mail clients that do not wrap well a long formatted URL or
they even broke the full link). To provide "clarity" to the whole message.
There is a saying that says: "When the wise man points at the moon, the
idiot looks at the finger". In brief, I think that Tinyurl is no the main