On 29/11/2022 20:13, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-11-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Drop him in your filter. Do not repeat his message.
>
> Lack of intelligent responses noted. The two of you are welcome to dwell in
> the fog of Official Truth.
>
> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed,
> (hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins,
> most of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken
>

The problem with your conspiracy theories, is that there is no doubt
that whatever the realities of climate, and Covid, it is extremely
obvious that the pudding has been massively overegged to create a
climate of fear in which taxpayer money can be pocketed and more
centralised political power can be wielded.

And that is why people leap to 'cancel' your sources.

While they may not be 100% factual, there is too much of a grain of
truth in them and people don't like being taken for a ride, but even
less do they like to admit it.

Its another example of Boolean one-dimensional ArtStudent™ thinking. A
theory must be true or false.

Whereas a more nuanced analysis shows that given a theory that is almost
metaphysical in its inability to be either proven or disproven, people
will simply take advantage of it to advance their careers, bank
balances, political profile and moral rectitude irrespective of its
truth content.

Covid is real, Covid was, and still is, a killer. The vaccines probably
helped until it had mutated to a more benign form. The vaccines were
also extremely profitable when mandated by governments. The vaccines
also had side effects in a minority of patients.

Climate change is real. Some of it may well be caused by fractional
changes in CO2, the data suggests that the vast majority of it is not.
But scary man made climate change that mandates usage of solutions that
solve a problem of green virtuosity and make vast government mandated
profits, but singularly fail to generate the reliable 24x7 cheap energy
that we have build a society upon, are the result.

In short take the grain of truth. drop it in the hot fat of 'maybe,
could be, precautionary principle' and ArtStudent™ Virtue signalling and
you have a wonderful moral, emotional, popcorn narrative that always
seems to result in a government mandating the use of a product that
generates, er , billions in profits, at the taxpayers expense. And
increases the power and importance of government.

Note how the Marxist dialectic method of bait and switch moves the
argument from, say, one of developing a scepticism that all of the
(disputed as well) climate change is in fact man made, to one of
*denying that the climate is changing at all*, and thereby justifying
the use of cancel culture.

Just as a true narcissist denies that they are in fact abnormal - it is
the rest of the world that is out of step with them - so it is that the
truly mind fucked, who believe what they read in the liberal papers that
is written by the PR departments off big commercial entities and their
arms length advocates, refuse to believe that they have been conned,
because they know they are smarter than average.

Which of course is why these complicated and seemingly arrangements of
pure bovine excrement work.

As we used to say at the bottom of the large organisation I did my
apprenticeship in, bullshit baffles brains. But leaves the less
intellectually endowed unmoved. Because they consider that nearly all
academic knowledge is bullshit anyway, and they are not far wrong in
that, sometimes.

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 11/29/22 21:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 30.11.22 um 05:04 schrieb 26C.Z969:
>> On 11/29/22 5:06 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
>>> evidence really means.
>>
>> "Evidence" can be spun any way you want.
>
> You are uneducated: *QED*
>

Cheap comment.
As for me I may not be as well-educated as many others but on
the other hand I have 85 years of experience and haven't belived
in the non-scientific political crap you are posting in over 40 years.

bliss - “Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am... Agaom...

On 2022-11-30, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:

> The Truth does NOT set people free - UNDERSTANDING
> those truths does ... and said "understanding" is
> hostage to skilled manipulators.

Complexity is a weapon. (The KISS principle is a countermeasure.)

> But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with
> Linux/Bash ......

Come on over to alt.folklore.computers for some _real_ thread drift. :-)

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-11-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Or is it rather that you are one of the half educated who think that
> 'scientific evidence;' actually means something, or can be proven to
> make something true?

Their brains have been washed. Not going to get deeply into it here since
it has nothing to do with Linux.

The wonderful thing is I don't have to give a rat's ass what such people
think or what they want, or accept the propaganda they swallow without
question as "fact" or "science".
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/30/22 12:57 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-11-30, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>
>> The Truth does NOT set people free - UNDERSTANDING
>> those truths does ... and said "understanding" is
>> hostage to skilled manipulators.
>
> Complexity is a weapon. (The KISS principle is a countermeasure.)

But be CAREFUL how you simplify ... you might leave
out the most important bits .....

>> But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with
>> Linux/Bash ......
>
> Come on over to alt.folklore.computers for some _real_ thread drift. :-)

Been there, seen it :-)

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war.
I just wanted to mention that there's nothing "holy"
about Bash and there's only JUST so much reason to
try and delve its syntactic mysteries. Other solutions,
far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out there.

If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
whatever.

26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>
> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
> whatever.

Ohh where's all the fun in that? But with Bash you at least do
those experiments during development. With Python the experiment
is done every time you try to run a script you found on the web and
discover it requires some older/newer version (maybe a minor
version, as has been my experience). Or when you upgrade the
interpreter and discover all the stuff they've now broken in your
own scripts. No thanks!

I get that if you're appauled by Bash as a programming language,
there are other options that you might like better. I'm not
appauled though, and I expect that anyone who is would have
discovered Python or other alternatives for themselves anyway.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2022-12-01, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:

> On 11/30/22 12:57 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2022-11-30, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Truth does NOT set people free - UNDERSTANDING
>>> those truths does ... and said "understanding" is
>>> hostage to skilled manipulators.
>>
>> Complexity is a weapon. (The KISS principle is a countermeasure.)
>
> But be CAREFUL how you simplify ... you might leave
> out the most important bits .....
>
>>> But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with
>>> Linux/Bash ......
>>
>> Come on over to alt.folklore.computers for some _real_ thread drift. :-)
>
> Been there, seen it :-)
>
> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war.
> I just wanted to mention that there's nothing "holy"
> about Bash and there's only JUST so much reason to
> try and delve its syntactic mysteries. Other solutions,
> far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out there.
>
> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
> whatever.

It could be worse. You could be trying to write
Windows batch files. <shudder>

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 01/12/2022 05:50, 26C.Z969 wrote:
> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>   make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>   whatever.

Hurrah for some *context*

I understand C well. I dont know bash well.

My coding is no longer for large corportations who need to set and
adhere to standards.

Ergo, if a bash 5 liner dont work, I fire up a compiler.

Is there anyone here who does NOT understand or be able to bug fix
reasonable C code?

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 01/12/2022 00:46, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-11-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Or is it rather that you are one of the half educated who think that
>> 'scientific evidence;' actually means something, or can be proven to
>> make something true?
>
> Their brains have been washed. Not going to get deeply into it here since
> it has nothing to do with Linux.
>
> The wonderful thing is I don't have to give a rat's ass what such people
> think or what they want, or accept the propaganda they swallow without
> question as "fact" or "science".
>

The problem I have with your links, with respect, Roger, is that the
solution is not to believe that, instead of this. In the end these are
all *narratives*. The Climate change narrative or the global conspiracy
narrative, to explain the climate change narrative!

The problem is really that we here - the pioneers of global social media
on Usenet, should have realised by now that it takes half an hour of
relatively low skilled work to type in a a load of utter bullshit that
is, philosophically speaking, a plausible explanation for why things are
the way they are.

The fact is that the truth is not a narrative. A narratives is a more,
or indeed less, faithful reduction of the world into a simplified model
that should explain at least one aspect of it.

If my example seems opaque, consider a statue, and then a JPEG 2D image
of it from one viewpoint.

That is highly compressed and extremely bigoted in that it shows only
one side of the statue.

Even a hologram doesn't get the fine detail.

The real and only *fact*, is that even our so called 'facts' are only
approximations to the truth, and when it comes to our inferences - our
theories about why those facts exist - we are into the most
philosophically shaky ground of all.

The problem we have, is that to the ArtStudent™ mind, there is only one
Truth, and *he is in possession of it*. This is justified by BandarLogIcL

'we all say it, so it must be true'.

The only justification I have ever found of a particular narrative
against any other narrative, is that for whatever purposes you have in
mind, it works *better*.
That is the *sole* justification of science. It *works*.

BUT, and this is the chilling (fact) I want you to consider, other
narratives for other purposes also work. *IF THEY ARE BELIEVED*.

Marketing comprised of total and utter bullshit *WORKS* to sell product.
Promises based on hopeless fantasies and impossible economics *WORK* to
get shysters and fraudsters elected to world governments.

God theories *WORK* to replace the sense of futility, that no one cares
and that life is a meaningless exercise in battling huge odds only to
die anyway, with a comfortable warm sense of purpose, so that even if
*you* don't, someone somewhere does know, and care, and it's all
happening for a good reason.

Ergo Roger, I want to to consider first of all that the truth per se may
be out there, but not where we can arrive at it.

Ergo, in the meantime we have to make do with narratives. And wise men
do not consider that narratives - any narratives, including
scientifically tested narratives - have any demonstrable truth content.
This is especially true of narratives that require belief, and offer no
proof.
To embrace one narrative to the exclusion of all others, is to arrive at
certainty - the certainty of faith and belief, at the expense of ever
trying to discover more.
The superior man, to use the I-ching phrase, never considers himself in
possession of the Truth. He is, rather, surrounded by possibilities and
probabilities, and therefore his strategy is not to declaim the One True
Truth, but to explore those possibilities strategically, and test them
against what he knows to be true, to at least eliminate the more
egregious falsehoods.

Ergo whilst one should not believe one's government's narratives,
designed as they are solely to win elections, one may be just as
misinformed by the marketing bullshit of big companies like Pfizer,
trumpeting the merits of their anti COVID drugs, or the big companies
manufacturing pointless windmills, claiming they are a remedy against
'climate change;', itself just another emtionally loaded narrative that
claims to be the One True Truth,.

Eschew belief in all of it. It is as pointless as arguing over what the
Best Computer Language Is. Without specifying what its is best *for*.

I have advanced a more sophisticated and very alternative narrative,
that renewable energy and climate change whilst they were originally
based on very very sketchy extrapolation of some fairly well tested
science, have become an emotional narrative that is completely
ascientific, that is being used to sell product, get politicians elected
and make journalists richer.. and to an extent the same happened with
COVID. The grain of reasonably established fact, that there was a new
killer virus out there, was used to construct a much larger and more
emotional narrative of lockdowns and PPE, of vaccines and treatment
options. All of which is to a greater or lesser extent questionable as
to its efficacy, and attendant risk.

I read today that a teenager fell to its death while taking a selfie on
a cliff. Missing from the narrative was the statement that it had *drunk
nearly a pint of water before hand* This proving the extreme dangers of
water-drinking to the general public.

Which shows Coca Cola missed a trick here.

With respect to all narratives, remember Korzybski

The map, is not the territory.

What happens in our heads is not reality, even though we think it is, it
is pictures and stories constructed by ourselves based on brief
experiences we have of the world.

It behoves us not to get to ensnared in our own constructions. Or other
peoples.

In order to discredit the proposition that 'the vast majority of all
climate change post WWII is down to increased CO2, one merely need find
reliable and not to 'adjusted' temeparture records - satellites are good
- harder to fake - and overlay that on a graph of CO2 rise, for which
Mauna Loa is the definitive source.

What you see is wildly fluctuating temperatures rocketing up, falling,
stabilising then slowly increasing...that bear *absolutely no relation
whatsoever* to the smooth and steady increase of atmospheric carbon
dioxide year upon year.
Whatever is causing the climate to change - which it always has done,
since the start of the present interstadial in the ice age we are
currently in - it most certainly is not a modest increase in CO2. There
is simply no correlation.
Ergo one infers that Climate change is no longer scientific, but is a
political and commercial narrative, alone. Or at least that narrative
hasn't been refuted (yet) by the facts, such as they seem to be.
What's under the bed, is not the climate bogeyman, it is simply greedy
little mice making a living. Maybe.

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war. I just wanted to
> mention that there's nothing "holy" about Bash and there's only
> JUST so much reason to try and delve its syntactic mysteries.
> Other solutions, far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out
> there.

What you should have taken away from this long thread is that your
hubris blinded you to the fact that not everyone shares your dislike
for Bash nor your love of Python. And that this is *very much* a
subjective aspect in most ways, even moreso than a technical one.

You subjectively feel that python is "more comprehensible/easy" than
Bash. In many ways it is simply a matter of how much knowledge about
one vs. the other any individual possesses. Someone who knows a good
part of Bash's syntax (and can lookup the rest in the manpage) but
knows little python is not ever going to consider python to be "more
comprehensible/easy".

The result of your post was always going to fall out as "those who
already subjectively agree will agree, those who do not already
subjectively agree will disagree" -- and no one is likely to change
sides.

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>
>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>> whatever.
>
> Ohh where's all the fun in that? But with Bash you at least do
> those experiments during development. With Python the experiment
> is done every time you try to run a script you found on the web and
> discover it requires some older/newer version (maybe a minor
> version, as has been my experience). Or when you upgrade the
> interpreter and discover all the stuff they've now broken in your
> own scripts. No thanks!
>
> I get that if you're appauled by Bash as a programming language,
> there are other options that you might like better. I'm not
> appauled though, and I expect that anyone who is would have
> discovered Python or other alternatives for themselves anyway.
>

I think that the problem is that Bash is not a programming language it's a
script language intended to do stuff that you would otherwise do from the CLI.

One of my latest bash scripts, among other things had to take a list of files
of the form "somestuff-p*.dat" but not if there is a "-H" before the ".dat",
where after p there is a parameter value that goes from .5 to 10 in irregular
interval, run them in increasing param order through a program and collect the
result in a file:

ls somestuff-p*.dat |grep -v -e -H | sort -k 1.12 -n|xargs -n1 dostuff >> file.out

I have no idea how to do that in any programming language I know, well not
without wasting a lot of time...

Writing programs in bash is like doing statistical analysis in Excel, people
do that but it's not the way to go.

G

On 2022-12-01, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
> On 11/30/22 12:57 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-11-30, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Truth does NOT set people free - UNDERSTANDING
>>> those truths does ... and said "understanding" is
>>> hostage to skilled manipulators.
>>
>> Complexity is a weapon. (The KISS principle is a countermeasure.)
>
> But be CAREFUL how you simplify ... you might leave
> out the most important bits .....
>
>>> But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with
>>> Linux/Bash ......
>>
>> Come on over to alt.folklore.computers for some _real_ thread drift. :-)
>
> Been there, seen it :-)
>
> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war.
> I just wanted to mention that there's nothing "holy"
> about Bash and there's only JUST so much reason to
> try and delve its syntactic mysteries. Other solutions,
> far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out there.
>
> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
> whatever.

Mea culpa, I just commented on the links in a sig, whether I agree or
disagree, I enjoyed reading them.

As it's been pointed, I started an off-topic discussion.

I apologize for that and will endeavour to not do it again.

pH in Aptos

On 12/1/22 2:30 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>
>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>> whatever.
>
> Ohh where's all the fun in that?

To a point I very much understand ... but some of us
do this for a LIVING ..... the boss expects working
product within a certain timeframe ............

Linux/Unix are hard-working systems ... the backbone
of pretty much everything. My job is to put it to work.

> But with Bash you at least do
> those experiments during development. With Python the experiment
> is done every time you try to run a script you found on the web and
> discover it requires some older/newer version (maybe a minor
> version, as has been my experience). Or when you upgrade the
> interpreter and discover all the stuff they've now broken in your
> own scripts. No thanks!

From long experience, I've rarely had the kinds of
problems you describe. The biggie was P2 to P3. Since
then if you stick to the more 'established' lib routines,
preferably not ones from a rarely-visited GitHub site,
you generally will not have issues. What you find on
GitHub or beyond ... well ... they're usually intended
as "examples" and you WILL have to re-tweak them to
suit your purposes. Same goes for 'C'/Pascal/Java or
anything for any other language.

> I get that if you're appauled by Bash as a programming language,
> there are other options that you might like better. I'm not
> appauled though, and I expect that anyone who is would have
> discovered Python or other alternatives for themselves anyway.

Bash is perfectly good, for what it's perfectly good
for. If you can do it simply and 'clearly' in Bash then
go that way. I have many Bash scripts that do good work.
But, as I said, there comes a POINT where the time/complexity
IN just isn't worth it anymore. That's where you should -
unless after 'fun' - look elsewhere. There's nothing 'holy'
about Bash/ksh/csh/etc ... they're just the simple shells
that were writ very early in Unix/Linux development.

I found out that Bash and ksh have faux "tcp devices"
with which you can send and receive with a running
background service. I use this in a number of scripts.
However the syntax is RIDICULOUS, in NO way obvious
or self-documenting or anything else that's good.
It IS much more compact than a Python or 'C' equiv
and lets a stupid script play in the big leagues to
a degree - but that's about it.

A brief example : ordinary viruses/malware/ransomware
aren't very bright. They're writ to go for low-hanging
fruit. Shares/drives that are not mounted - well,
it's not something they're going to waste megabytes
of code looking for and fiddling with unless you're
a huge bank or important letter agency. That's not the
business model.

SO ... I wrote a Bash script to do mirror backups,
but none of the local/smb drives really needed to be
exposed all the time. The script is mostly near-repeating
units, a little section for each share to be backed-up
(about a dozen).

My script commands a service (in 'C') to create a
temporary share - and we back up from that. The issue
is that if your script has a problem the 'temporary'
share remains open and vulnerable. The process manages
those shares - and, as included in the command you
send from Bash, you limit the max time said share
will continue to exist. If your script can't close
it then the service WILL.

This is a use for the faux TCP device.

But no documentation makes HOW to do that in Bash
"obvious" to anyone who comes behind - it's just
a jumble of arbitrary characters and redirects -
and frankly I forget how it really works most of
the time. If I was going to do it again I'd use
Python instead of Bash for purposes of clarity
and self-doc.

In fact ..............

On 12/1/22 9:34 AM, G wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>>> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>>> whatever.
>>
>> Ohh where's all the fun in that? But with Bash you at least do
>> those experiments during development. With Python the experiment
>> is done every time you try to run a script you found on the web and
>> discover it requires some older/newer version (maybe a minor
>> version, as has been my experience). Or when you upgrade the
>> interpreter and discover all the stuff they've now broken in your
>> own scripts. No thanks!
>>
>> I get that if you're appauled by Bash as a programming language,
>> there are other options that you might like better. I'm not
>> appauled though, and I expect that anyone who is would have
>> discovered Python or other alternatives for themselves anyway.
>>
>
> I think that the problem is that Bash is not a programming language it's a
> script language intended to do stuff that you would otherwise do from the CLI.

Exactly. It's good for what it's good for. It wasn't really
intended to be a "programming language", just a low-level
substitute for manually-entered commands ... a lot like the
DOS/Winders batch-file interpreter. They HAVE extended it
over the years, but the simplistic model means those tweaks
had to be squeezed-in ... nothing pretty there. I've had
to scrap complex apps that had fallen victim to "feature
creep".

C-shell IS a little more like a programming language - you
can go further, more easily, more clearly. Alas it's not
USED nearly as much as Bash/ksh and thus the docs/forums/etc
are not as extensive. Finding YOUR solution may just be
more time than you can afford and I've run into "you can't
get there from here" issues more than once.

> One of my latest bash scripts, among other things had to take a list of files
> of the form "somestuff-p*.dat" but not if there is a "-H" before the ".dat",
> where after p there is a parameter value that goes from .5 to 10 in irregular
> interval, run them in increasing param order through a program and collect the
> result in a file:
>
> ls somestuff-p*.dat |grep -v -e -H | sort -k 1.12 -n|xargs -n1 dostuff >> file.out
>
> I have no idea how to do that in any programming language I know, well not
> without wasting a lot of time...

Fairly easy. "ls" is an os.walk() loop (more useful/reliable
than globs), one or two lines will emulate grep discrimination,
another one or two will sort and another few will save the
results anywhere you want. I know because I've just been writing
an app that does basically all of what you described. You can
also do 'hybrid' solutions where a higher-level language runs
the CL utilities and then parses the results. I've got a
large-ish status-reporting app that takes that route. Why
re-invent the wheel ?

Thing is, Python (and a LOT of other languages) are built
out of 'C' routines at their base. Python is just an
friendlier front-end for 'C' - the complexity is hidden,
but SOMEBODY did the hard work. They rarely get due credit.

> Writing programs in bash is like doing statistical analysis in Excel, people
> do that but it's not the way to go.

People write all kinds of horrible stuff for Excel that
really, NEVER, should be done like that. Tons of macros
and formulas that MS will obsolete soon (just to create
the illusion of "progress" and need to blow $$$ on the
latest version IMHO) ... and NOBODY coming later has a
hope in hell of figuring out how the things work - they'll
have to re-write their own horror sheet from scratch IF
they have the skills. I quit playing the MS game a long
time ago - I'll do it in 'C' or Python or Pascal instead.
Delphi/Lazarus are especially good if you need a nice
smart GUI quick.

On 12/1/22 5:59 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/12/2022 00:46, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2022-11-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Or is it rather that you are one of the half educated who think that
>>> 'scientific evidence;' actually means something, or can be proven to
>>> make something true?
>>
>> Their brains have been washed. Not going to get deeply into it here since
>> it has nothing to do with Linux.
>>
>> The wonderful thing is I don't have to give a rat's ass what such people
>> think or what they want, or accept the propaganda they swallow without
>> question as "fact" or "science".
>
> The problem I have with your links, with respect, Roger, is that the
> solution is not to believe that, instead of this. In the end these are
> all *narratives*. The Climate change narrative or the global conspiracy
> narrative, to explain the climate change narrative!

Somewhere in here I wrote that The Truth does NOT set
you free - UNDERSTANDING the truth does, but those
"narrative" people re-combine all the little factoids,
'truths', according to a script designed to lead/mis-lead
for political/economic ends. "Narrative" = DisInformation.

On 12/1/22 5:59 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/12/2022 05:50, 26C.Z969 wrote:
>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>>    make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>>    whatever.
>
> Hurrah for some *context*
>
> I understand C well. I dont know bash well.

Then by all means use 'C' ... whatever works best
for YOU, whatever makes YOU most productive and
happy.

As I said elsewhere, indeed in the thread title, I'm
not out to say Bash or any of the other Good-'Ole
shells are BAD ... just that they have certain practical
limits. Just because you CAN - after days/weeks of
effort - craft an incomprehensible bash script that
CAN do the job doesn't mean you SHOULD (unless you're
merely in it for the 'fun').

>
> My coding is no longer for large corportations who need to set and
> adhere to standards.

I still have to meet certain expected timetables ... not
practical to figure out how to do an incomprehensible and
oft undocumentable bash script when it can be done in
hours or minutes in a higher-level, more comprehensive,
better-known language. I do have that PWE ... I want my
successors to at least have some hope they can adjust
my work later on to fit new needs.

> Ergo, if a bash 5 liner dont work, I fire up a compiler.
>
> Is there anyone here who does NOT understand or be able to bug fix
> reasonable C code?

A *lot* of people these days DO NOT do 'C' ... yet call
themselves 'programmers'/sysprogs and collect the paycheck.
That's the horrible truth.

I've encountered sci-fi books/movies where people have
tech that almost seems 'magic' - but they've long since
forgotten how it actually WORKS. 'C' underlies EVERYTHING,
but fewer and fewer bother to learn how it works. It's
all just 'magic'. Those stories never turn out well ....

Lots of "underlying tech" has become 'magic'. Know how to
make iron from ore ? I do, but only a handful outside the
(largely offshored) industry do. How many actually know
how to farm food ? How to plant/care/harvest/process ?
If the infrastructure implodes do they know how to harness
a horse/mule to pull a plow ? Worrisome. Vlad CAN implode
the infrastructure - and Biden & pals seem intent on the
same thing to "punish" the horrible awful West.

Of all the languages, Python IS by far the most popular
and well-known - and the documentation is just massive.
It's the replacement for the BASIC from the old days.

I found a GW-BASIC for Linux btw ... it's a very good
clone. Looking, well, it really CAN do almost anything
we expect today and is "structurable" to a degree also
for aesthetics. There really was never anything so "wrong"
about BASIC ... it's just that too many people wrote too
much "spaghetti code" ....

(I did find a way to properly use "spaghetti code" once
to greatly simplify a data-entry app on a Psion Organizer.
Think "rungs on a ladder". Discovered that the recipients
were STILL using it over a decade later - but I never
got PAID for it, a volunteer job :-)

I usually use three languages - 'C', Python and Pascal.
There's always fun remembering which has to use semicolons
at the ends and which doesn't. Do you "=" or ":=" ?
Do strings start with [1] or [0] by default ? Shifting back
and forth is an amusing hoot - but each HAS ITS PLACE.

On 12/1/22 8:23 AM, Rich wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war. I just wanted to
>> mention that there's nothing "holy" about Bash and there's only
>> JUST so much reason to try and delve its syntactic mysteries.
>> Other solutions, far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out
>> there.
>
> What you should have taken away from this long thread is that your
> hubris blinded you to the fact that not everyone shares your dislike

Hmm ... a fanatic ............

I do not dislike Bash, not in the least. I have many
bash scripts. BUT .... there IS a point where you
should use something else.

Or is that too agnostic/heretical for you ?

On 12/1/22 3:53 PM, pH wrote:
> On 2022-12-01, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>> On 11/30/22 12:57 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-30, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Truth does NOT set people free - UNDERSTANDING
>>>> those truths does ... and said "understanding" is
>>>> hostage to skilled manipulators.
>>>
>>> Complexity is a weapon. (The KISS principle is a countermeasure.)
>>
>> But be CAREFUL how you simplify ... you might leave
>> out the most important bits .....
>>
>>>> But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with
>>>> Linux/Bash ......
>>>
>>> Come on over to alt.folklore.computers for some _real_ thread drift. :-)
>>
>> Been there, seen it :-)
>>
>> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war.
>> I just wanted to mention that there's nothing "holy"
>> about Bash and there's only JUST so much reason to
>> try and delve its syntactic mysteries. Other solutions,
>> far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out there.
>>
>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>> whatever.
>
>
> Mea culpa, I just commented on the links in a sig, whether I agree or
> disagree, I enjoyed reading them.
>
> As it's been pointed, I started an off-topic discussion.
>
> I apologize for that and will endeavour to not do it again.
>
> pH in Aptos

No major problem.

The thread IS about bash and the other olde-tyme
shells. They're good for what they're good for -
however there IS a point ..... unless you're in it
for the fun (or masochism).

Just because you can (eventually) do it in bash does
not mean you SHOULD do it in bash.

I have to consider Those Who Will Come After. A very
very obscure bash script does NOT help there. Far better
to do it in a better known, well-documented, language.

Oh sure, some old COBOL jockeys can make a few $$$ in
retirement maintaining software writ in the 60's and
(more than you'd think) still in use. But this really
isn't a good excuse for using super-obscure code.

On 11/30/22 4:32 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 05:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 30.11.22 um 05:04 schrieb 26C.Z969:
>>> On 11/29/22 5:06 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
>>>> evidence really means.
>>>
>>>     "Evidence" can be spun any way you want.
>>
>> You are uneducated: *QED*
>>
> You are overeducated *QED*.

Should "educated" have been in quotes ? :-)

Well, everybody has their opinions - but how well
can they defend said opinions ?

But yea, "truths" - which are usually "factoids",
CAN be spun any way you want. Arrange and re-arrange,
put some in, hide others ... whatever creates the
"narrative" you're trying to sell.

Some time back, for quite a long time actually, there
was a little website for something called "The Society
For The Elimination Of Truth". It contained a number of
amusing, oft incomprehensible, articles promoting the
death of Truth for whatever reasons. The THING though
is that I now feel they WON the war .........

I coined the term "Dali-Verse" .... and I'll stick by
it as an apt description of the Now.

On 02/12/2022 07:21, 26C.Z969 wrote:
> Some time back, for quite a long time actually, there
>   was a little website for something called "The Society
>   For The Elimination Of Truth". It contained a number of
>   amusing, oft incomprehensible, articles promoting the
>   death of Truth for whatever reasons. The THING though
>   is that I now feel they WON the war .........

I think the thing to realise, is that the clearest understanding as to
what is going on - and it led me to the study of philosophy, and there I
found an answer, is that there are in the human psyche two opposing
worldviews, broadly characterised as rational, or material, and the
idealistic )Which I parody as 'ArtStudent™).

Science is founded - was founded - there are attempts to turn it into
idealism - on the assumption that there us somewhere out there a
situation that represents 'whatever is the case' and the nearer we get
to understanding it the nearer we are to Truth, and that we establish
its reliability by testing it, and if it predicts the right answer we
end up with time independent differential equations which we call 'Laws
of Nature', and these represent the nearest we can get to the Truth.

By contrast, the ArtStudent™ notes that everything we do and say and
think is a narrative. Even science, and knows that narratives are
context dependent (autre temps autre moeurs) and how you arrive at facts
is also culturally and language dependent.

From there it is only a short step for a third rate mind to assume that
the FACTS THEMSELVES are malleable and are in fact only a reflection on
what you BELIEVE. So that facts *as you understand them have no basis in
external reality*, but in fact external reality itself, is no more than
a projection of what you believe it to be*, and so by changing what
people believe, the world itself changes. Magic, in short is possible.
If you act like a chick, dress like a chick, think like a chick then
you *are* a chick, even with fucking great dangly things between your
legs.

This is what philosophy calls 'idealism'. People who adhere to this will
say that indeed, people do not react to reality, but only to what they
believe., They are massively concerned with what might or might not be
going on in peoples minds - racism sexism, etc. etc and will condone any
actual behaviour as long as it's done *for the right reasons*.

"I believed it was the right thing to do" was our PM Tiny Bliars final
justification for going to war armed with a dossier that basically had
been rewritten to tell lies to parliament

People who adhere to this are constantly doing opinion polls to say that
'97% of scientists believe' '75% of people under 35 think' and so on.

The whole thrust of their efforts is not to arrive at an objective
truth, but to change everyone's subjective truth. So they scour Wiki etc
for anything that supports their narrative and cancel anything that
opposes it. It is essentially the modern equivalent of religion.

"Believe in Renewable Energy and gender morphism, and we will be saved"

One finally arrives at an understanding that in theory both views might
be correct, but in practice we have what mostly works, at least with the
physical world - science - and we have what doesn't work, except on
people's minds - Magic.

There is another theory (Transcendental idealism) that combines the two
and works better than either, but outside of philosophy and occasionally
theoretical quantum physics, no one uses it.

In the end, societries that end up being run by people who claim moral
superiority, and the power to change reality by interacting with the
supernatural, fail when faced with physical events beyond their control.
Where are the Mayans today? clipping the hedges on the Cancun hotel
gardens, or scratching a living in the jungle in a shack with a pig and
three hens and a corn patch. Not building pyramids to the gods. All the
human sacrifices in the world, all the denial and all the cancel culture
could no more change the climate for them, than the Christian church
could halt the spread of the black death that killed 50% of Europe in
the 14th century.

Which is why hitherto, we separated the 'lords spiritual' - the priests
and purveyors of comforting bullshit in charge of men's beliefs - from
the 'lords temporal' - the judges and politicians who formed pragmatic
enforceable laws that worked.

Today they are inextricably combined, and everything one reads in the
mainstream media is a *moral* issue.

London Fire service is, we are told, institutionally sexist and racist.

No mention is made was to whether they are effective at *fighting fires*.
Hell, give me a racist any day that rescues me from smoke inhalation
against a morally superior woke fireman who decides that health and
safety preclude him from entering my burning house.

Climate change is not a science issue, it is a *moral* issue
Renewable energy is not an engineering solution, it is a *moral* solution.
Nuclear power is not a solution because it is *immoral*.

Bullshit baffles brains.
When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.

The flag has dropped on all this idealistic bullshit. WE are now facing
a real serious crisis - not in climate, but in energy production.

Everything we have, depends on cheap energy. It cannot be done without it.
We have one source of actual cheap energy (nuclear), and one 'moral'
energy source (mediaeval windmills).

One WORKS, One is the MORAL CHOICE.

The Art Students are in charge, and they know that what will keep them
in power is the MORAL CHOICE. Because their power rests, like the Mayan
priests, on the support and trust of the common people in their
narrative and their power.

There is no guarantee that civilisation will survive. If enough people
are stupid enough to believe in all the bullshit the latter day priests
are telling them - bullshit the priests dare not change, because that
would be to admit that it was after all, just bullshit, then we will all
go down together.

There is no climate emergency. There is however a real energy crisis,
caused in part by the increasing scarcity and cost of extraction of
fossil fuels, and made infinitely worse by the adoption of the
completely wrong solution - unsustainable so called 'renewable' energy.
They would be more honest to simply sacrifice people an an altar to the
gods and burn them for fuel.

Bloody Art Students.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
> On 12/1/22 8:23 AM, Rich wrote:
>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war. I just wanted to
>>> mention that there's nothing "holy" about Bash and there's only
>>> JUST so much reason to try and delve its syntactic mysteries.
>>> Other solutions, far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out
>>> there.
>>
>> What you should have taken away from this long thread is that your
>> hubris blinded you to the fact that not everyone shares your dislike
>
> Hmm ... a fanatic ............

Interesting -- where in my post did you discover this "belief" of
yours. I'm not a Bash fanatic -- I use it when it makes sense, and
switch to something else when it does not.

> I do not dislike Bash, not in the least. I have many
> bash scripts. BUT .... there IS a point where you
> should use something else.
>
> Or is that too agnostic/heretical for you ?

Nope -- and that is your statement now, after you've perused the
responses and changed your stance.

But your original post, and sadly a majority of your responses throughout
this thread, was simply advocating replacing one fanatical attachment
(to Bash) with a different fanatical attachment (Python).

It is only very recent posts where your wording has shifted to your
current "use it where it makes sense to do so, but don't try to twist
it to fit something it isn't suitable for".

Which, I might note, is also very true of your favorite Python. There
are likely some specific problems where a different language is even
more suitable than your present favorite and a switch would be better
there than trying to beat Python to fit that problem. Note there are
less examples of these for Python than there are examples of problems
better suited for something other than Bash.

On 12/2/22 9:17 AM, Rich wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>> On 12/1/22 8:23 AM, Rich wrote:
>>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>> Anyway, I didn't mean to start a broad flame-war. I just wanted to
>>>> mention that there's nothing "holy" about Bash and there's only
>>>> JUST so much reason to try and delve its syntactic mysteries.
>>>> Other solutions, far more comprehensible/easy solutions, ARE out
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> What you should have taken away from this long thread is that your
>>> hubris blinded you to the fact that not everyone shares your dislike
>>
>> Hmm ... a fanatic ............
>
> Interesting -- where in my post did you discover this "belief" of
> yours. I'm not a Bash fanatic -- I use it when it makes sense, and
> switch to something else when it does not.
>
>> I do not dislike Bash, not in the least. I have many
>> bash scripts. BUT .... there IS a point where you
>> should use something else.
>>
>> Or is that too agnostic/heretical for you ?
>
> Nope -- and that is your statement now, after you've perused the
> responses and changed your stance.

Didn't change a thing. Trace back to my OP and you'll
see that.

Note my thread title as well, "Bashing Bash JUST A BIT",
yet your previous post sounds like I'd be putting Santa's
favorite puppy in the gas chamber.

Bash is NOT good for everything. It was never meant to
be a programming language. There COMES A POINT where you
forget about trying to whip bash into something it isn't
and use more appropriate means for the task.

> But your original post, and sadly a majority of your responses throughout
> this thread, was simply advocating replacing one fanatical attachment
> (to Bash) with a different fanatical attachment (Python).

Python isn't good for everything either. Mr. Natural
is very fond of 'C' and I encourage him to use that
once bash was no longer right for the job. 'C' is
much better than Python FOR CERTAIN NEEDS.

> It is only very recent posts where your wording has shifted to your
> current "use it where it makes sense to do so, but don't try to twist
> it to fit something it isn't suitable for".

Nope, same message straight off.

Python IS a good go-to however, and I've listed
the reasons. It's a big improvement over bash for
almost anything.

Or are you scared of snakes ? :-)

> Which, I might note, is also very true of your favorite Python. There
> are likely some specific problems where a different language is even
> more suitable than your present favorite and a switch would be better
> there than trying to beat Python to fit that problem. Note there are
> less examples of these for Python than there are examples of problems
> better suited for something other than Bash.
>

On 2022-11-30 06:44, 26C.Z969 wrote:
> On 11/28/22 4:10 PM, 8c065a96 wrote:
>> On 2022-11-27 10:19 PM, 26C.Z969 wrote:
>>> On 11/27/22 3:56 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>>>>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>>>>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>>>>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>>>>> documented too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>>>>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>>>>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>>>>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>>>>> documenting than bash.
>>>>
>>>> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
>>>> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
>>>> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
>>>> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
>>>> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
>>>> mine.
>>>
>>>
>>>    Well, by all means use Python3 ... that should
>>>    give you good compatibility for at least a decade.
>>>    In some ways there's a weird advantage to Python2
>>>    now that it's "dead" - no longer being extended/
>>>    changed - but I suspect it is going to creep out
>>>    of the picture fairly soon now. In Winders I think
>>>    you have to manually install it, and they keep
>>>    trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>>>
>>>    [...]
>>
>>> they keep trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>>
>> No they don't?
>
>   The MAKERS of Python2 generally don't, but
>   others DO - "NO SECURITY UPDATES !!! DON'T
>   USE PYTHON2 !!!" .....
>
>   Just don't use it where said updates are gonna
>   be especially relevant .......
>
>   And, come on, not TOO difficult to update to
>   Python3 .......

openSUSE Leap is on Python 2.7

--
Cheers, Carlos.

26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
> On 12/1/22 2:30 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda
>>> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for
>>> whatever.
>>
>> Ohh where's all the fun in that?
>
>
> To a point I very much understand ... but some of us
> do this for a LIVING ..... the boss expects working
> product within a certain timeframe ............
>
> Linux/Unix are hard-working systems ... the backbone
> of pretty much everything. My job is to put it to work.

Yes well that's where I'd point out the long-term compatibility
issues with Python, as indeed I did.

>> But with Bash you at least do
>> those experiments during development. With Python the experiment
>> is done every time you try to run a script you found on the web and
>> discover it requires some older/newer version (maybe a minor
>> version, as has been my experience). Or when you upgrade the
>> interpreter and discover all the stuff they've now broken in your
>> own scripts. No thanks!
>
> From long experience, I've rarely had the kinds of
> problems you describe. The biggie was P2 to P3.

Well as I said before then, it's a matter of personal
opinion/experience. If Bash does what you want and you don't find
it that hard to write/read, then it has proven better at long-term
compatibility than Python, so still seems a good choice for me. I
don't see how everyone needs to be converted to the way of the
Python just because some people don't like Bash.

> Since
> then if you stick to the more 'established' lib routines,
> preferably not ones from a rarely-visited GitHub site,
> you generally will not have issues. What you find on
> GitHub or beyond ... well ... they're usually intended
> as "examples" and you WILL have to re-tweak them to
> suit your purposes. Same goes for 'C'/Pascal/Java or
> anything for any other language.

Not needing to find libraries and figure out the associated
functions is one benefit of Bash in my book. Although Python can
call external programs, and you can make libraries for Bash, so
it's not a clear distiction. Bash is just better geared for using
external programs, so if speed isn't as issue (best to go
straight to a compiled language if it is), it's easier, and
actually I'd propose less error-prone if you're working on such
scripts intermittently.

>> I get that if you're appauled by Bash as a programming language,
>> there are other options that you might like better. I'm not
>> appauled though, and I expect that anyone who is would have
>> discovered Python or other alternatives for themselves anyway.
>
> My script commands a service (in 'C') to create a
> temporary share - and we back up from that. The issue
> is that if your script has a problem the 'temporary'
> share remains open and vulnerable. The process manages
> those shares - and, as included in the command you
> send from Bash, you limit the max time said share
> will continue to exist. If your script can't close
> it then the service WILL.
>
> This is a use for the faux TCP device.
>
> But no documentation makes HOW to do that in Bash
> "obvious" to anyone who comes behind - it's just
> a jumble of arbitrary characters and redirects -
> and frankly I forget how it really works most of
> the time. If I was going to do it again I'd use
> Python instead of Bash for purposes of clarity
> and self-doc.

Which I'd suggest is a consequence of TCP being on the fringe of
applications for Bash. It's again an individual case of pros and
cons. No built-in floating-point math or multi-dimensional arrays
are other things that come to mind, and where that's a limiting
factor then I'd take it as cause to use C instead, but Python or
other scripting languages would be another option if it was worth
the complication of becoming familiar with them.

I don't see how this is anything special to Python vs Bash though.
It sounds now as if you're making a point of them as if it should
suit everyone to go and learn Python, even if only one script in
ten that they encounter might require something that's truely
awkward or poorly documented in Bash. It's just the same old
"this language is better because look how much easier to do _this_
specific thing" argument that can be applied between any two
languages, and only really serves to start an argument.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 12/2/22 3:02 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2022-11-30 06:44, 26C.Z969 wrote:
>> On 11/28/22 4:10 PM, 8c065a96 wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-27 10:19 PM, 26C.Z969 wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/22 3:56 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>>>>>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>>>>>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>>>>>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>>>>>> documented too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>>>>>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>>>>>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>>>>>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>>>>>> documenting than bash.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
>>>>> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
>>>>> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
>>>>> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
>>>>> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
>>>>> mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Well, by all means use Python3 ... that should
>>>>    give you good compatibility for at least a decade.
>>>>    In some ways there's a weird advantage to Python2
>>>>    now that it's "dead" - no longer being extended/
>>>>    changed - but I suspect it is going to creep out
>>>>    of the picture fairly soon now. In Winders I think
>>>>    you have to manually install it, and they keep
>>>>    trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>>>>
>>>>    [...]
>>>
>>>> they keep trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>>>
>>> No they don't?
>>
>>    The MAKERS of Python2 generally don't, but
>>    others DO - "NO SECURITY UPDATES !!! DON'T
>>    USE PYTHON2 !!!" .....
>>
>>    Just don't use it where said updates are gonna
>>    be especially relevant .......
>>
>>    And, come on, not TOO difficult to update to
>>    Python3 .......
>
>
> openSUSE Leap is on Python 2.7

Fine with me - though, IMHO, they really ought to
consider the update. At some point the lack of
security updates WILL catch up with them.

I used to promote OpenSUSE as a Cadillac system, but
recently they screwed me by disappearing 'older'
system utilities I made considerable use of and
even went to a stupid version of ffmpeg (TRIED to
install the better version but the dependencies
were just TOO ... so I scrapped it and went to
Debian). No more OpenSUSE for me. Somebody there
is making bad decisions. I'm slowly changing all
my Ubuntu Server boxes over to Debian too because
the bizzare Ubuntisms are getting out of hand and
now they want to sell you a bunch of online services
and it's taking too long to forcibly remove all that
crap.