Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 13:28, Camaleón <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:42:49 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41, Camaleón <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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."
Right, at the beginning of the thread.
>> 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.
I mentioned problems with the service, both here-and-now problems and
potential issues about the future. That does not mean that I intend to
debate the subject for three days over tens of posts.
>> 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
> no sense.
Feel free to ignore the privacy aspects if they don't concern you. How
about the ability to mask a malicious link? How about adding redundant
layers to an already tenuous HTTP connection? How about the future
viability of the links when the shortening service has a server
failure, or goes out of business, is bought, or hacked, or shut down
> 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.
I use Gmail for public mailing lists. I have my private and business
mail at my own domain dotancohen.com.
> 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.
That's a red herring argument. Do you also not wear a seatbelt because
we are all going to die anyway? Same argument.
>> 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.
The shortening services do not provide clarity. Here is a clear URL:
You know where it is going, and the topic under discussion. You might
recognize the domain name if it is a common one and base your trust on
that. I'll open links to http://debian.org, but I won't open links to
http://debian.on.nimp.org and seeing the URL is critical in that
Here is a non-clear URL:
Where does that go? Yes, I know about the "preview feature". I still
have to invoke tinyurl to invoke the "preview feature".
> 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
> question here.
I counter with the saying "When the sage lifts his book, the slave
lowers his pen". Tinyurl gives no benefit and [causes problems || has
the potential to cause problems].