Hi all, since ~Friday I've been experiencing serious performance (pages take a minute or two to load) and sometimes connectivity (connection reset) issues. For example, posting this node has taken at least five minutes so far for exactly those two reasons. I'm somewhat certain it's not just me because it's happened from a few different locations. I've experienced similar issues for the past year or so, but much more intermittently. Is something going on?
If you look at Saints in our Book, you will find that there is systemic discrimination against younger monks.
Most "Saints" have been here since 2002 and there is a standard deviation of 3. If I remember correctly from the stats class I took twice, that means, I'm probably being screwed. The Median User Since Year (MUSY) is even less than the average (AUSY), but still in year 2002. This indicates a central tendency and predominance of Saints that locked eyes on their future spouse over spilled punch cards; spare me.
If PM is to survive and enter the prefigurative age, we are going to need link. Empower the younger generation to carry on the torch!
First, I love PerlMonks. It's the very first community I really felt a kinship with on the internet back in the day when CGI was king and Perl was it's handmaiden. And PerlMonks is still a great resource for connecting with people who really love and appreciate Perl and, more importantly, love sharing their love for the craft of Perl programming.
But I have to say that I think it's success has come despite the aging, creaking interface that is PerlMonks. Now, I don't want to be too harsh. In fact, I suppose part of PerlMonk's charm now is its aging, creaking interface. And I'm more than happy to put up with it and forego StackOverflow for certain questions simply because this is much more of community and it's less transactional than StackOverflow. There's lots of really cool people here and if you are going to be a proper Perl programmer and truly understand the culture of Perl, being on PerlMonks is kind of a requirement.
I also want to be careful not to crap on the people who operate this site. It still works good enough and I am grateful for the people who operate it. So thank you!
That said, every time I come to PerlMonks I have to wonder why the PerlMonks interface is frozen in 2001. Is it lack of resources? Lack of manpower? Lack of interest? Was the original PerlMonks code written in such a way to make it nearly impossible to upgrade the interface? A little bit of all of the above?
And from a marketing perspective, does sticking with an older interface contribute negatively to the perception that Perl is programming language of the past? I'm willing to bet a lot of potential new Perl programmers, who don't yet have the wisdom of the more seasoned folks around here, abandoned this site because of the interface. It's a shame because PerlMonks is just a totally awesome place.
And look, I'm not calling for a total overhaul. But even minor improvements would be great like not having to type HTML into the textareas or having to refresh the page to see new chatbox messages.
Yes, PerlMonks is good enough, but I keep wondering what holds it back from becoming just a little bit better. Any insight to satisfy my curiousity is appreciated so I can quit wondering.
I've made several attempts to front-page "Turning very larger numbers into an array of bits" ([id://1181114]) without success.
Each time, I've checked "FrontPage" and clicked "moderate"; some processing appears to occur;
then the page is displayed with "FrontPage" unchecked: no errors or warnings are emitted.
The page is currently approved.
It appears correctly (as far as I can tell) in: SoPW; RAT; and Newest Nodes.
I can access the page from all of those places.
It does not appear on the Front Page (i.e. it's not just some issue with the "FrontPage" checkbox display).
Other than that, it appears to be functioning normally:
I have no problems viewing it; I've voted on it; I've voted on a reply; I've replied to it myself.
The nodelets are displaying without the usual small font and blue border at the moment, just plain text, still aligned at the right of the page, web inspector isn't showing any errors. Did something change?
PerlMonks forms used to specify a maximum password length of 8 characters while it was possible to give yourself a 10-character password by bypassing these forms. Now the forms specify a maximum password length of 10 characters.
I must have missed something. It must be so. I don't want to believe that it took three f***ing years to increase the password length by just two characters and call that "case closed". I don't want to believe that after 7.5 years, perlmonks still stores passwords unhashed, unsalted in plain text.
But still, there is a link to What's my password? on the login form, it still requires just a username or a mail address, and it sends me my password in plain text in an unencrypted mail, together with my username!
You or someone else has requested a password for your username or e-mail
Before you freak out, take a few deep breaths and remember that it's YOU
and not THEM who is getting this password.
Here's your info:
human name: Alexander Foken
love, the management
WHAT THE F**K?!
Yes, I took a deep breath. Several. I slowly counted to 100. Several times.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
7.5 years and nothing relevant has changed. Perlmonks passwords are obviously still stored in plain text, or in a form that can be decrypted on the server, which is as bad as plain text.
That's a login system that would make the worst amateurs blush.
People have been told for years to avoid MD5 hashes because they are insecure. People have been told for years to salt hashes with long, random salts, and to use really expensive hash functions, like bcrypt or PBKDF2.
Yet, perlmonks still uses plain text passwords, 7.5 years after many, if not all, passwords have been copied by some script kiddies? And to add insult to injury, perlmonks happily sends out login name and password in plain text. No traces of a time-limited one-time link for setting a new password. No trace of even the simplest way, sending out one mail with the username, and a second one with the password.
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)
Why is this post (or indeed, any of these:______) which asks a generic question in the title, and only provides the specific information to what that question relates, inside the body of the post, deemed completely acceptable;
Whilst this entirely similar post requires godly intervention, involving implications of stupidity, laziness and more besides, in a sustained attack?
Not to mention drawing the inevitable attentions of the bandwagon joiners.
(I mean something, other than the originator of the latter post.)
For ancillary demerits I'll also ask the question: Does anyone look for old answers to their questions by doing a title-only search? You know, rather than a Super Search or Site specific google search.
(If you follow that last link please note that this post is not found!)
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
When the "created" page appeared, I followed the link to the start of the thread: "how to improve: use MODULE VERSION LIST" (id://1179107).
This appeared but, when I scrolled down, my post was nowhere to be seen.
I went to Newest Nodes and a post by me was at the top of the Notes list.
I followed that link "Reaped: Re^3: how to improve: use MODULE VERSION LIST (id://1179154) but found an orphaned page
(i.e. no "in reply to" or "in thread" links at the top).
The page also had no content.
It did have what appeared to be the correct title ("Re^3: how to improve: use MODULE VERSION LIST"): small consolation.
I went back to the tab where I'd created my response.
I hit the back button and the content of my response was there
BUT it said "by 1nickt"
followed by "on Jan 08, 2017 at 09:00 AEDT ( #1179146=note: print w/replies, xml )".
Note, that ID (1179146) is different from the one in Newest Nodes (1179154).
I followed that link:
it was an earlier reply by 1nickt to a different node in the same thread.
Hitting the back button again (on the tab where I'd created my response)
took me back to my final edit prior to posting.
I've saved the content:
I can post it again when the problem's fixed.