• G (unregistered)

    That first one brings back memories... thought it'd be anonymised more but if TDWTF will take that level then I'd better write up my own submission.

  • Carrie (unregistered)

    Contact the sender =/= reply to this email. The company sends out automated emails without a monitored inbox, but I'm sure they also have contact information.

  • (cs)

    "The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language."

    Case 1 shows that one can write shell scripts (e.g. bash) in any scripting language (e.g. Python).

  • ANON (unregistered)

    They should generate captchas from the passwords and send out these, maybe with reversed letters.

    SSL is definitly to unsecure as we've seen with the heartbleed bug.

  • Whorfin (unregistered)

    A Python script should generate a Bash script, and then run it. Obviously.

  • Jon (unregistered) in reply to ANON
    ANON:
    SSL is definitly to unsecure as we've seen with the heartbleed bug.

    Well, one but, admittedly serious, was found. Earlier versions are secure. New versions are secure. This is open source, and it may contain bugs, as we've seen, but the scrutiny of the Internet experts make it more secure in the long run.

    What do we know about holes in closed source products, exploited by big actors like NSA and China?

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    God, that legit site mail was a tough read...

    And, anyone care to explain the scripts? I'm not very bash/Pyhton-literate. Is the guy trying to print up to 1000 to the console by writing files?

  • mrs.brisby (unregistered) in reply to Jon

    i am not secure, but i want to be.''ignorance will not make me more secure'' no product available will make me completely secure''if i cannot understand the entirety of my system, i can make no claims to it's security'' just because knowledge is denied, does not mean that knowledge is protected.''i am not secure, but i want to be.''

  • Kemp (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    The main issue was that he was writing a Python script that called out to the shell for everything (and, afaik, launched a new shell for every command) rather than just using the built-in Python functions. This was his evidence for Python being slower.

  • That admin guy (unregistered) in reply to G
    G:
    That first one brings back memories... thought it'd be anonymised more but if TDWTF will take that level then I'd better write up my own submission.

    Not so much the TDWTF not anonymizing but the submitter is really vain and wants as many people to know he works there without looking like he is bragging (but failing). Why else do you think the introductory paragraph was filled with so many obvious clues.

  • (cs) in reply to Whorfin
    Whorfin:
    A Python script should generate a Bash script, and then run it. Obviously.

    I once wrote an AWK script that generated another AWK script and a BASH script that did some stuff and then ran the AWK script. I wonder if it's still in use....

  • Scott (unregistered)

    Clearly that first one must have come from the Titan-ic experiment on the other side of the ring. Over here at the more Compact experiment, all of our code is obviously perfect, is very well documented, and no one ever complains about it.

    (some of those claims might be slightly false)

  • G (unregistered) in reply to That admin guy
    That admin guy:
    G:
    That first one brings back memories... thought it'd be anonymised more but if TDWTF will take that level then I'd better write up my own submission.

    Not so much the TDWTF not anonymizing but the submitter is really vain and wants as many people to know he works there without looking like he is bragging (but failing). Why else do you think the introductory paragraph was filled with so many obvious clues.

    As in, TDWTF didn't remove those introductory clues from the original submission. Probably because the WTF doesn't have nearly as much impact without the context.

  • Miriam (unregistered)

    TRWTF is using bash for performance reasons. Normal bourne shell has less overhead and runs even faster!

  • ExceptionHandler (unregistered) in reply to Miriam
    Miriam:
    TRWTF is using bash for performance reasons. Normal bourne shell has less overhead and runs even faster!

    Jason Bourne shell runs faster than normal bourne shell.

  • Matt Damon (unregistered) in reply to ExceptionHandler
    ExceptionHandler:
    Jason Bourne shell runs faster than normal bourne shell.

    And it punches other shells in the face.

  • Regex (unregistered) 
           CALL SYSTEM("echo STARTING NOW...")
       END
  • nmclean (unregistered)

    The physics collaboration could combine their solutions to gain the performance benefits of bash while continuing to benefit from the expressive beauty of python:

    #performance.bash ... while { [ $i -le 1000 ] ; } do python "performance.py" $i i=$[$i+1] done ...

    #performance.py ... i = int(sys.argv[1]) os.system('mkdir '+i) ...

  • lol (unregistered) in reply to Kemp
    Kemp:
    The main issue was that he was writing a Python script that called out to the shell for everything (and, afaik, launched a new shell for every command) rather than just using the built-in Python functions. This was his evidence for Python being slower.

    I took it to be that the Python script shoudn't be used at all - even if it used the native python functions, they'd still end up calling the same code that the bash commands did. The Bash script is the right thing to do in this case, not effectively wrap it up in Python.

  • VP (unregistered) in reply to Carrie

    !=

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)

    #!/usr/bin/env python #performance3.py import os os.system("date") os.system('echo "Starting now..."') os.system('/usr/bin/env/python performance.py'); os.system('echo "Finished!"') os.system('date')

  • GleeMonk (unregistered) in reply to lol
    lol:
    Kemp:
    The main issue was that he was writing a Python script that called out to the shell for everything (and, afaik, launched a new shell for every command) rather than just using the built-in Python functions. This was his evidence for Python being slower.

    I took it to be that the Python script shoudn't be used at all - even if it used the native python functions, they'd still end up calling the same code that the bash commands did. The Bash script is the right thing to do in this case, not effectively wrap it up in Python.

    Yes indeed! That's why I'm developing the bashio C library, to replace the customarily used stdio lib. I can't believe how people have been redirecting their file operations through kernel interfaces, when they could've sent their commands directly to bash all this time.

  • Hasse de great (unregistered) in reply to Roby McAndrew

    My is still in use. My last level was SQL: Bash-> AWK -> AWK -> SQL.

  • nmclean (unregistered) in reply to lol
    lol:
    Kemp:
    The main issue was that he was writing a Python script that called out to the shell for everything (and, afaik, launched a new shell for every command) rather than just using the built-in Python functions. This was his evidence for Python being slower.
    I took it to be that the Python script shoudn't be used at all - even if it used the native python functions, they'd still end up calling the same code that the bash commands did. The Bash script is the right thing to do in this case, not effectively wrap it up in Python.
    If the functionality exists with native python functions, there is no strong reason to choose one over the other. Bash only becomes the more clearly straightforward option when you're wrapping other shell commands (for which the os.system approach would be the only option in python). The native python functions don't wrap shell commands -- os.mkdir calls the native C mkdir() function for instance.
  • iWantToKeepAnon (unregistered) in reply to Jon
    Jon:
    ANON:
    SSL is definitly to unsecure as we've seen with the heartbleed bug.

    Well, one but, admittedly serious, was found. Earlier versions are secure. New versions are secure. This is open source, and it may contain bugs, as we've seen, but the scrutiny of the Internet experts make it more secure in the long run.

    What do we know about holes in closed source products, exploited by big actors like NSA and China?

    WWWWOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!

  • Tilda (unregistered)
    One day, a physicist two doors next to me
    That's a strange way of saying "two doors away from me". Do high energy physicists have a warped sense of proximity?
  • mara (unregistered) in reply to Tilda
    Tilda:
    One day, a physicist two doors next to me
    That's a strange way of saying "two doors away from me". Do high energy physicists have a warped sense of proximity?

    All physicists think space is warped.

  • Chris P. Peterson (unregistered)

    (1) If those were the only 2 expected uses for python vs bash, then bash wins. But if there was more than than, someone should bash the idiot supporting bash.

    (2) Automated email thing looks like a govt or govt subcontractor. They often force you to add this. Complete BS, but we are talking about the govt here.

    (3) The secure email password delivery method was funny as shit. This guy should also be bashed.

    (4) I'll be creeped out the rest of the day on that one.

  • (cs) in reply to mara
    mara:
    Tilda:
    One day, a physicist two doors next to me
    That's a strange way of saying "two doors away from me". Do high energy physicists have a warped sense of proximity?

    All physicists think space is warped.

    It wasn't bloody well warped till you stupid clumsy physicists got it out to play with it. I'm not lending you my universe again.

  • (cs) in reply to Tilda
    Tilda:
    One day, a physicist two doors next to me
    That's a strange way of saying "two doors away from me". Do high energy physicists have a warped sense of proximity?

    It's as opposed to, "94 doors away from me on the other side of the hall."

  • anonymous (unregistered)
    Any response to this e-mail address will not be seen. ... If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender.
    These are actually not contradicting. They're a little confusing since they are referring to two different senders. The first is referring to the e-mail address from which Chase Bank sent the e-mail. The second is referring to a sender who, in error, forwarded that message to you, and suggests letting them know that they shouldn't be forwarding e-mails that contain private banking information.
  • anonymous (unregistered)

    Aside from the B.S. about his IP address... just HOW did they get his e-mail address?

  • Dvorak The Explorer (unregistered)

    What has been seen cannot be unseen.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Damon
    Matt Damon:
    ExceptionHandler:
    Jason Bourne shell runs faster than normal bourne shell.
    And it punches other shells in the face.
    But only if they won't leave it alone.
  • a nonny mouse (unregistered)

    oversaw != overlooked

  • (cs)

    I would also like to have someone at my fingertips.

  • Foozbar (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    Not sure if somebody answered this already (couldn't find any answer), but what python does when you call it like that is to run bash (or another shell) with the arguments.

    Shell is afaik the only "programming language" that is used to parse a command line. All other languages either execute a shell to do it, or require an array of arguments.

    He's actually got a point that bash is fast (at least starting up), because for every command he executes in python, he's starting a new shell. Or the disk is a very slow network file system.

  • Physicists and Programmers... (unregistered)

    Remember, this is also the bunch that presents history-making results in Comic Sans.

  • Herr Otto Flick (unregistered) in reply to Kemp
    Kemp:
    The main issue was that he was writing a Python script that called out to the shell for everything (and, afaik, launched a new shell for every command) rather than just using the built-in Python functions. This was his evidence for Python being slower.

    ^^^ TRWTF

  • (cs)

    This is how you get black holes, people! Is that what you want? Black holes?

  • Bruce W (unregistered)

    Everything in life should be "more total automatically" and I know my fiends will thank me when, "Live support will call your friends live".

  • (cs) in reply to Roby McAndrew
    Roby McAndrew:
    Whorfin:
    A Python script should generate a Bash script, and then run it. Obviously.

    I once wrote an AWK script that generated another AWK script and a BASH script that did some stuff and then ran the AWK script. I wonder if it's still in use....

    Bragging is allowed here.

  • Sam (unregistered)
    If you sent an email through this method, it is secure.
    Whenever you see that magic phrase, "is secure", you know you are dealing with a marketdroid or someone else who does not understand computer security.

    There is never any computer system that is secure. There is only more secure or less secure. And even then, it is a question of the strength of defenses against the probability of threats.

    But, yeah, email is not secure. At least he got that right. And promptly forgot it.

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to Kemp
    Kemp:
    The main issue was that he was writing a Python script that called out to the shell for everything (and, afaik, launched a new shell for every command) rather than just using the built-in Python functions. This was his evidence for Python being slower.
    Reminds me of a guy who had an axe to grind and wanted to "benchmark" an expensive mini-mainframe ($500,000) sold by my employer. He hated our company and wanted to prove we were crap. So of course the sales droids welcomed him into the fold and let him run his "demo".

    Incredibly, our system took three or four seconds to read or write each database record! He gleefully took these results and ran off to write his trash article for some geek magazine.

    After he was gone, I analyzed the code he left behind. He had deliberately created a database with only one sector allocated for storage. Then, as he wrote a million records, the database automatically allocated extensions as needed. Yeah, this took awhile. Especially when he kept deliberately fragmenting the data.

    Any competent DBA (of that era) would have known to ask the expected total data size, and allocated contiguous space somewhat larger. This guy just did it the slowest possible way so he could prove how bad we were.

  • Kent (unregistered)

    I'm sure glad the bash advocate is one of the geniuses protecting us all from artificial black holes!

    Although, if he's wrong, at least he'll be closer to the event horizon than most of us. :)

  • the way this website is pretty boring. (unregistered)

    The real wtf is that this website is still around spewing unfunny boring articles. Pls go, stay go.

  • Ted (unregistered)

    Also, if you use your radio-controlled bulldozer to push a broom across the back porch, it ends up being less satisfactory than just picking up the broom and sweeping it yourself.

  • John (unregistered)

    Years ago I was getting medical document faxes from a hospital which included a note that said something like "please call this number at our cost if you have received this in error".

    I called a couple of times but they always refused to accept the long distance changes.

  • Javelin (unregistered) in reply to Paul
    Paul:
    He had deliberately created a database with only one sector allocated for storage. Then, as he wrote a million records, the database automatically allocated extensions as needed. Yeah, this took awhile. Especially when he kept deliberately fragmenting the data.

    Any competent DBA (of that era) would have known to ask the expected total data size, and allocated contiguous space somewhat larger. This guy just did it the slowest possible way so he could prove how bad we were.

    By stress-testing the storage system that way, it could be a genuinely interesting benchmark.

    Provided, of course, that he makes it clear that that's what it's doing. And runs exactly the benchmark on all competing systems, and reports all the results together.

    He did do all those things... right?

  • Javelin (unregistered) in reply to Javelin

    "...exactly the same benchmark..."

Leave a comment on “Best of Email: Brains, Security, Robots, and a Risky Click”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article