Help w/ BNB Survey Script <--

T

-|Turbosyde|-

Hello,
I have the 3.2.2 version of the big nose bird survey script and have a
problem with cookies. When i allow the survey users to view the
results, the cookies work and prevent multiple votes. But when i send
the users to a thank you page (via $JUMP_URL variable), the results
are logged, but a cookie isn't dropped and the user can vote multiple
times. Any suggestions, hints?

http://bignosebird.com/carchive/survey.shtml
 
U

Uri Guttman

-> I have the 3.2.2 version of the big nose bird survey script and have a
-> problem with cookies. When i allow the survey users to view the
-> results, the cookies work and prevent multiple votes. But when i send
-> the users to a thank you page (via $JUMP_URL variable), the results
-> are logged, but a cookie isn't dropped and the user can vote multiple
-> times. Any suggestions, hints?

-> http://bignosebird.com/carchive/survey.shtml

ask the authors for help.

uri
 
U

Uri Guttman

LF> don't you mean "ask the moron authors for help"?

moron authors is always implied when someone asks for help with free
scripts.

uri
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

-|Turbosyde|- said:
I have the 3.2.2 version of the big nose bird survey script and have a
problem with cookies. When i allow the survey users to view the
results, the cookies work and prevent multiple votes. But when i send
the users to a thank you page (via $JUMP_URL variable), the results
are logged, but a cookie isn't dropped and the user can vote multiple
times. Any suggestions, hints?

Browsers can be configured to only accept cookies for the originating
web site. Could it possibly be that you redirect them to some other
site, and that the cookie isn't set for that reason?

That was just a thought. Whatever the explanation is, there is not
much of Perl language in your question, so this group is probably not
the right place to ask, and I doubt that there is any other Usenet
group that provides free support for any CGI script.

Consult the docs. Ask the author. If there is a user forum for the
script you are using, that may be a way to get help.

Good luck.
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Uri said:
LF> don't you mean "ask the moron authors for help"?

moron authors is always implied when someone asks for help
with free scripts.

Does a question from a user make the script's author a moron?? As a
Perl hobbyist, I'm providing a couple of free scripts, and I find
those comments utterly unintelligent.

Is programming skill incompatible with a civil manner?
 
U

Uri Guttman

GH> Does a question from a user make the script's author a moron?? As a
GH> Perl hobbyist, I'm providing a couple of free scripts, and I find
GH> those comments utterly unintelligent.

well, you haven't scanned most free scripts out there. start with matt
wright's and all of the variants from them. and go to the many script
sites and try to find good code. your couple of scripts (however good
they may be) are microscopic drop in the bucket compared to the sea of
crap out there in the free script ocean. and not only are they crap,
they are never maintained, never written using standard modules, never
secure, mostly cut and pasted, use poor coding style, etc. the only
conclusion is that the authors are moron or teenagers or both. and
notice that none of those scrit authors are part of the perl community
where they might learn something, get constructive criticism, contribute
to cpan, etc. they are a sargasso sea with no connecting currents to the
rest of the waters.

GH> Is programming skill incompatible with a civil manner?

nope. but asking for help here for a free script written by someone who
is not around here is uncivil in my book.

uri
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Uri said:
GH> Does a question from a user make the script's author a moron??
As a GH> Perl hobbyist, I'm providing a couple of free scripts, and
I find GH> those comments utterly unintelligent.

well, you haven't scanned most free scripts out there. start with
matt wright's and all of the variants from them. and go to the many
script sites and try to find good code. your couple of scripts
(however good they may be) are microscopic drop in the bucket
compared to the sea of crap out there in the free script ocean. and
not only are they crap, they are never maintained, never written
using standard modules, never secure, mostly cut and pasted, use
poor coding style, etc. the only conclusion is that the authors are
moron or teenagers or both. and notice that none of those scrit
authors are part of the perl community where they might learn
something, get constructive criticism, contribute to cpan, etc.
they are a sargasso sea with no connecting currents to the rest of
the waters.

1) Lori and you said in effect that all authors of free scripts are
morons. That is obviously not true.

2) I'm sure it's true that many of the free scripts are badly written
and provided without support and/or maintenance. Sad, but natural.
That's how it is. And, still, somebody who shares his or her work with
the world is not automatically a moron, even if s/he does not provide
free support etc. in addition to the free code.
 
E

Eric J. Roode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

1) Lori and you said in effect that all authors of free scripts are
morons. That is obviously not true.

It's true to a first-order approximation.
2) I'm sure it's true that many of the free scripts are badly written

I agree with Uri: "most".
and provided without support and/or maintenance. Sad, but natural.

I don't see that as particularly "natural". If one thinks one's code is
good enough and general enough to share with the world at large, I would
think that it's more "natural" to accept constructive criticism for it, and
to provide bug fixes and documentation for it.
That's how it is. And, still, somebody who shares his or her work with
the world is not automatically a moron, even if s/he does not provide
free support etc. in addition to the free code.

I suppose not. But it is pretty moronic to throw non-working code out
there, or code that is inadequately documented, or code that has bugs that
one refuses to fix, or code that is sufficiently confusing that ordinary
people have problems using it.

- --
Eric
$_ = reverse sort $ /. r , qw p ekca lre uJ reh
ts p , map $ _. $ " , qw e p h tona e and print

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPztbGmPeouIeTNHoEQIMwgCdH/yRFLgUgp1cJj6synz36Uc9ENcAoKNr
v+nBdN3509nT1hzvVksV+zZd
=7+Tw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Eric said:
It's true to a first-order approximation.

Even if you turned from _all_ to _approximation_, are you really sure
of that? I'm certainly not.

One of my "free scripts" is provided within a SourceForge project.
There are about 65,000 such projects. Are you telling me that
"approximately" all the free software there is crap, and the
developers morons? ;-)

Two free scripts I'm using are MHonArc (http://www.mhonarc.org) and
Links (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/scripts/links/).

Etc., etc.

To be honest, I don't get it. I don't get it at all.

This is a Usenet group where an open source software (aka Perl) is
discussed. Instead of making such patronizing, generalizing statements
about free scripts and their authors, wouldn't it be much more
appropriate to acknowledge the power implied in the spreading of free
software, and encourage more of the kind?

Don't let your justified indignation with Matt Wright colour all you
say and do!!
I don't see that as particularly "natural". If one thinks one's
code is good enough and general enough to share with the world at
large, I would think that it's more "natural" to accept
constructive criticism for it, and to provide bug fixes and
documentation for it.

I believe that many authors make their software available in the hope
1) it will be useful for others
2) it will be further developed by others
but _without_ being ready to assist, at least not for free.
it is pretty moronic to throw non-working code out there, or code
that is inadequately documented, or code that has bugs that one
refuses to fix, or code that is sufficiently confusing that
ordinary people have problems using it.

Yes, of course. With whom are you discussing now, btw? Reacting to a
precipitate statement is not equal to advocating all sorts of bad
behaviour.
 
T

Tad McClellan

Gunnar Hjalmarsson said:
1) Lori and you said in effect that all authors of free scripts are
morons. That is obviously not true.


That is the problem with "heuristics".

They are only true most of the time, not all of the time.
 
C

Charlton Wilbur

Gunnar Hjalmarsson said:
Even if you turned from _all_ to _approximation_, are you really sure
of that? I'm certainly not.

I'm not prepared to do a formal study, but based on my experience, I'd
say that the moron percentage is *at least* 90%, and probably more
like 96%-97%. Sturgeon was an optimist.
One of my "free scripts" is provided within a SourceForge project.
There are about 65,000 such projects. Are you telling me that
"approximately" all the free software there is crap, and the
developers morons? ;-)

How many of those projects are moribund? How many of them have more
than 2 or 3 active developers? How many of them have made it past a
pre-release Alpha state *and admit it*? How many of them do something
useful, and do it reliably?
This is a Usenet group where an open source software (aka Perl) is
discussed. Instead of making such patronizing, generalizing
statements about free scripts and their authors, wouldn't it be much
more appropriate to acknowledge the power implied in the spreading
of free software, and encourage more of the kind?

The power in the spreading of free software comes from perhaps
200-300, and certainly no more than 1000, good programmers who are
willing to give their work away. The hype of free software comes from
the millions of people who are using the work of the several hundred
for free, and who seem to think that if they give their work away it
will magically achieve the same level of quality. This doesn't happen
unless they're willing to put a substantial amount of work in it;
Linux is not where it is merely because hundreds of people have the
necessary skills to find the bugs in it, but because Linus and company
test and apply the fixes that come in. Someone who releases free
software into the world without taking this into account -- and that
includes people like Matt Wright and the 'maintainers' of the 60,000+
moribund SourceForge projects -- is a moron.

Charlton
 
L

Lori Fleetwood

Does a question from a user make the script's author a moron?? As a
Perl hobbyist, I'm providing a couple of free scripts, and I find
those comments utterly unintelligent.

You missed my point. Uri's pet moron earlier this week was Matt Wright.
Is programming skill incompatible with a civil manner?

In Uri's case the answer seems to be yes.
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Uri said:
open source does not imply good quality

I didn't claim that either. But I believe that the average developer
in open source projects at e.g. SF take more responsibility for their
work than those who you refer to as "script kiddies".
(hell, neither does proprietary). each project/product has to be
judged on its own merit.
Precisely.

and the large repositories of perl scripts are generally full of
crap. have you ever actually looked at them?

Yes, of course I have. And I haven't got too good impression, either.

But I don't live in a world of black and white, so I do think there is
quite a lot of stuff _between_ what you and other Perl 5 purists would
call _good_ scripts, and the scripts that are so poorly written, and
possibly abandoned, that you can fairly consider their authors to be
"morons".
take a look at some of the free script archives (skipping nms and
cpan). pick one topic like i did. scan dozens of scripts and tell
me with a straight face that you think even one is written well.
point me to that code and i will rip it to shreds without raising a
sweat.

Okay, I'll remember that offer. :)
 
T

Tad McClellan

Lori Fleetwood said:
You missed my point.


Your point, as with all trolls, is to stir up controversy.

As far as I can tell, you have never answered a Perl question here,
but you've jumped in several times to complain about folks that
do answer questions here.

If you do not like it here, then do not come here. Pretty simple.
 
L

Lori Fleetwood

Your point, as with all trolls, is to stir up controversy.

Yeah, like that time you chided somebody for thanking you, because in
doing so they didn't strictly adhere to usenet protocol. Isn't it
ironic that a motto of Perl is "there's more than one way to do it",
but so many in clpm are fanatics as to "there's only one way to
usenet"?
 
U

Uri Guttman

LF> Yeah, like that time you chided somebody for thanking you, because in
LF> doing so they didn't strictly adhere to usenet protocol. Isn't it
LF> ironic that a motto of Perl is "there's more than one way to do it",
LF> but so many in clpm are fanatics as to "there's only one way to
LF> usenet"?

you forget that perl and usenet are not the same. usenet is a
communications medium where we all use it and abide by community
rules. perl is a programming language which allows multiple ways to
solve problems (even if most are suboptimal). conflating the two shows
how ignorant you are. please just hang out with moronzilla. she and you
will get along fine.

uri
 
K

Keith Keller

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't know how you've become so good with Perl with one half of your
brain apparently turned off: just because perl and usenet are not the
same does not mean that how people approach the two of them cannot be
compared. You'd probably be a Perl god if you didn't think in such a
linear fashion all the time. Perhaps you know this and the frustration
is why you can be such a d!ckhead at times.

Perhaps you could spend your time answering the OP, since you seem so
offended at efforts not to do so?

- --keith

- --
(e-mail address removed)-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj87/Y8ACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID99ugCfUSghqb3hRJFyycQgc9IRSqxX
tWYAn3r2BGjUs5b9Y637lXLWnAOY3asu
=Q/hh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
L

Lori Fleetwood

Keith said:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1




Perhaps you could spend your time answering the OP, since you seem so
offended at efforts not to do so?

Perhaps you could spend your time answering the OP, since you seem so
offended by someone offended at efforts not to do so?

Go ahead....I dare you to reply ;)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top