12 Mar
2007
12 Mar
'07
5:45 p.m.
The Internet used to have a number of useful features that it no longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
As an example of how 'talk' differs from today's instant messaging systems,
one time I was having trouble with some Internet site -- maybe their
FTP server was down or something, I don't remember. I fingered the host,
found an active user, and 'talk'ed him. He was happy to fill me in on what
was up.
You can't do that any more.
And if you could, it would surely be abused into oblivion by spammers
and phishers.
Usenet, which is decentralized, requires no access credentials, and has
a programmatic interface that allows for sophisticated filtering and
offline reading, has largely been displaced by the network prisons
known as web forums, which require a separate account for each forum,
have a clunky and slow user interface, and are prone to vanishing
when their operator loses interest.
In general, Internet services which were designed to be accessed
programmatically have been replaced with Web services which can only
be used manually.
On the other hand: HTTP actually isn't that bad as a replacement for FTP,
except that uploads are much harder. There's also the problem of machine
parsing the directory listings, but FTP had that problem too, to some extent.
And the network itself is much faster and more reliable than it used to be.
-- Adam
13 Mar
13 Mar
10:41 a.m.
Adam Goldman wrote:
The Internet used to have a number of useful features
that it no longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
It was OK until they let the idiots in ;)
On the other hand: HTTP actually isn't that bad as
a replacement for FTP,
except that uploads are much harder. There's also the problem of machine
parsing the directory listings, but FTP had that problem too, to some extent.
It's a shame that there wasn't a widely-adopted data transfer protocol that
was truly bi-directional. Both FTP and HTTP largely revolve around moving data
in one direction only. Even given the predominant client/server model of the
time, it's a shame that the "main" protocols weren't designed with the
foresight that one day we might want to move just as much stuff *to* a site as
we were taking *from* it.
And the network itself is much faster and more
reliable than it used to be.
Indeed. I was almost about to disagree, but I think it's just that people
accepted the glitches more back in the "old days", so we hear more complaints
now when something does break even though it's actually better than it was.
cheers
Jules
1:44 p.m.
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Adam Goldman wrote:
The Internet used to have a number of useful features
that it no
longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These
protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
Hmm, that's an interesting assertion:
apophis$ which finger
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
If people of the "web browser generation" don't know enough to use
them (on the "other" end, I mean) then you probably don't want to
finger or talk to them anyway. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
2:43 p.m.
On 3/13/07, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Adam Goldman wrote:
The binaries are still around, but see how many hosts you can still
finger or talk to through the myriad of firewalls that have erupted
over the past 10 years.
I've worked at places where inbound _and_ outbound traffic was
restricted to 22, 80, and 443 unless you were running an officially
recognized server. Yes... even 53 - you got DNS via local proxy or
not at all. Don't even ask for 25; you can't come up with a valid
justification why you should be allowed to open an SMTP port on some
external host. Environments like these make problem resolution more
difficult, but there you are.
-ethan
The Internet used to have a number of useful
features that it no
longer does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These
protocols no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
Hmm, that's an interesting assertion:
apophis$ which finger
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there. 
2:44 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Adam Goldman wrote:
It's not so much that the executables are still missing, it's that
people no longer run fingerd and talkd.
Local finger and talk aren't nearly as useful.
Peace... Sridhar
The Internet used to have a number of useful
features that it no longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
Hmm, that's an interesting assertion:
apophis$ which finger
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
If people of the "web browser generation" don't know enough to use
them (on the "other" end, I mean) then you probably don't want to finger
or talk to them anyway. ;) 
2:45 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
apophis$ which finger
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
Yes, actually try to use them across networks. There are these funny
little things on the outside of most organizations called "firewalls",
maybe you've heard of them.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:36 a.m.
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
There is absolutely no need to be a smartass. I make a living
running fairly large networks...and not for clueless organizations
who depend on the crutch of a firewall to implement a secure
network. I use "talk" fairly frequently, it works just fine.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
apophis$ which
finger
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
Yes, actually try to use them across networks. There are these
funny little things on the outside of most organizations called
"firewalls", maybe you've heard of them.
13 Mar
13 Mar
2:53 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Adam Goldman wrote:
The issue's more that in today's security-paranoid atmosphere firewalls tend
to have everything apart from a few basic services (like HTTP and SMTP)
blocked. So the binaries are still there and reasonably widespread - you just
can't use 'em :(
Heck, it's scary how many IT admins don't even know that Usenet exists,
despite a news posting often being a far more efficient way of finding out
information than using the web.
The Internet used to have a number of useful
features that it no longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
Hmm, that's an interesting assertion:
apophis$ which finger
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:40 a.m.
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
I generally don't (and generally won't) use networks that I don't
run, and I'm not a lazy or clueless admin...so I'm used to seeing
things a bit more "open" and functional.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
The issue's more that in today's security-paranoid atmosphere
firewalls tend to have everything apart from a few basic services
(like HTTP and SMTP) blocked. So the binaries are still there and
reasonably widespread - you just can't use 'em :(
12:44 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
I generally don't (and generally won't) use networks that I don't run,
and I'm not a lazy or clueless admin...so I'm used to seeing things a
bit more "open" and functional.
OK, so they're still functional *to you*. But if you take into account the
number of machines on the public network and then look at the number of
machines which are capable of using programs like talk, I suspect the
proportion is absolutely tiny. (which isn't a Good Thing, IMHO)
(I had exactly the same issues with VCRs the other day - they're still useful
*to me*, but planet-wide they're dead as a dodo, superseded by DVD and PVR
technology, so I had to bite my tongue when someone declared them obsolete :-)
[and there's a real danger with people confusing obsolescence with "no longer
any good" - to my mind they're often totally different things]
cheers
J.
/bin/finger
apophis$ which talk
/bin/talk
...looks to me like they're still there.
The issue's more that in today's security-paranoid atmosphere
firewalls tend to have everything apart from a few basic services
(like HTTP and SMTP) blocked. So the binaries are still there and
reasonably widespread - you just can't use 'em :(
5:35 p.m.
On Mar 14, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
OK, so they're still functional *to you*. But if you take into
account the number of machines on the public network and then look
at the number of machines which are capable of using programs like
talk, I suspect the proportion is absolutely tiny. (which isn't a
Good Thing, IMHO)
I agree on both counts. But I really think that, if you look at
the number of people (not the proportion) who used "talk" in, say,
1992, I suspect it's probably a pretty similar number today. At
least, I do, and pretty much everyone else I know who did in 1992
still does. The massive influx of clueless morons has changed the
Internet considerably, to be sure, but the core of what it was is
still there and still works just fine, IF you choose to make use of it.
The issue's more that in today's
security-paranoid atmosphere
firewalls tend to have everything apart from a few basic services
(like HTTP and SMTP) blocked. So the binaries are still there and
reasonably widespread - you just can't use 'em :(
I generally don't
(and generally won't) use networks that I
don't run, and I'm not a lazy or clueless admin...so I'm used to
seeing things a bit more "open" and functional. (I had exactly the same issues with VCRs the other day
- they're
still useful *to me*, but planet-wide they're dead as a dodo,
superseded by DVD and PVR technology, so I had to bite my tongue
when someone declared them obsolete :-)
Indeed, I know how you feel...the same thing happens to me with a
few things that I use that just happen to be "not new" (which, to the
99% of our society that doesn't think, now means "old").
[and there's a real danger with people confusing
obsolescence with
"no longer any good" - to my mind they're often totally different
things]
Yes, that is infuriating. I emailed a question to the
manufacturer of a piece of test equipment that I have here, and the
response was "that product is obsolete". Well that's interesting...I
use it every day, it works great, and the company hasn't released
anything better since then.
Despite what corporations seem to think, true obsolescence is
determined by the USERS and the CUSTOMERS, not the vendors. There's
a big, big difference between "this is obsolete" and "we'd like to
sell you something different now".
Now, of course there's the matter of unreasonably expecting a
company to spend the resources to support a product long after it has
been discontinued. But again, that's not "that product is obsolete",
that's "we don't make that product anymore and we can't spend the
resources to support it". BIG difference.
Infuriating.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
7:22 p.m.
And thusly were the wise words spake by Dave McGuire
Now, of course there's the matter of unreasonably expecting a
company to spend the resources to support a product long after it has
been discontinued. But again, that's not "that product is obsolete",
that's "we don't make that product anymore and we can't spend the
resources to support it". BIG difference.
That's why we have classicmp! :) (Well, at least for
vintage computer support...)
Cheers,
Bryan
13 Mar
13 Mar
11:29 p.m.
On 3/12/07, Adam Goldman <adamg at pobox.com> wrote:
The Internet used to have a number of useful features that it no longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
it's still very much around...
NAME
*finger* -- user information lookup program
SYNOPSIS
*finger* [*-46glmpshoT*] [*user* *...*] [*user at host* *...*]
DESCRIPTION
The *finger* utility displays information about the system users.
Options are:
*-4* Forces *finger* to use IPv4 addresses only.
*-6* Forces *finger* to use IPv6 addresses only.
*-s* Display the user's login name, real name, terminal name and write
status (as a ``*'' before the terminal name if write permission
is denied), idle time, login time, and either office location and
office phone number, or the remote host. If *-o* is given, the
office location and office phone number is printed (the default).
If *-h* is given, the remote host is printed instead.
Idle time is in minutes if it is a single integer, hours and min-
utes if a ``:'' is present, or days if a ``d'' is present.
If it
is an ``*'', the login time indicates the time of last login.
Login time is displayed as the day name if less than 6 days, else
month, day; hours and minutes, unless more than six months ago,
in which case the year is displayed rather than the hours and
minutes.
Unknown devices as well as nonexistent idle and login times are
displayed as single asterisks.
*-h* When used in conjunction with the *-s* option, the name of the
remote host is displayed instead of the office location and
office phone.
*-o* When used in conjunction with the *-s* option, the
office location
and office phone information is displayed instead of the name of
the remote host.
*-g* This option restricts the gecos output to only the users' real
name. It also has the side-effect of restricting the output of
the remote host when used in conjunction with the *-h* option.
*-l* Produce a multi-line format displaying all of the information
described for the *-s* option as well as the user's home directory,
home phone number, login shell, mail status, and the contents of
the files *.forward*, *.plan*, *.project* and *.pubkey*
from the user's
home directory.
If idle time is at least a minute and less than a day, it is pre-
sented in the form ``hh:mm''. Idle times greater than a day are
presented as ``d day[s]hh:mm''.
Phone numbers specified as eleven digits are printed as ``+N-NNN-
NNN-NNNN''. Numbers specified as ten or seven digits are printed
as the appropriate subset of that string. Numbers specified as
five digits are printed as ``xN-NNNN''. Numbers specified as
four digits are printed as ``xNNNN''.
If write permission is denied to the device, the phrase ``(mes-
sages off)'' is appended to the line containing the device name.
One entry per user is displayed with the *-l* option; if a user is
logged on multiple times, terminal information is repeated once
per login.
Mail status is shown as ``No Mail.'' if there is no mail at all,
``Mail last read DDD MMM ## HH:MM YYYY (TZ)'' if the person has
looked at their mailbox since new mail arriving, or ``New mail
received ...'', ``Unread since ...'' if they have new mail.
*-p* Prevent the *-l* option of *finger* from displaying the
contents of
the *.forward*, *.plan*, *.project* and *.pubkey* files.
*-m* Prevent matching of *user* names. *User* is usually a
login name;
however, matching will also be done on the users' real names,
unless the *-m* option is supplied. All name matching performed by
*finger* is case insensitive.
*-T* Disable the piggybacking of data on the initial connection
request. This option is needed to finger hosts with a broken TCP
implementation.
If no options are specified, *finger* defaults to the *-l* style output if
operands are provided, otherwise to the *-s* style. Note that some fields
may be missing, in either format, if information is not available for
them.
If no arguments are specified, *finger* will print an entry for each user
currently logged into the system.
The *finger* utility may be used to look up users on a remote machine. The
format is to specify a *user* as ``user at host'', or ``@host'',
where the
default output format for the former is the *-l* style, and the default
output format for the latter is the *-s* style. The *-l* option
is the only
option that may be passed to a remote machine.
If the file *.nofinger* exists in the user's home directory,
*finger* behaves
as if the user in question does not exist.
The optional *finger.conf(5)* configuration file can be used to specify
aliases. Since *finger* is invoked by *fingerd(8)
<http://www.hmug.org/man/8/fingerd.php>*, aliases will work for
both local and network queries.
ENVIRONMENT
The *finger* utility utilizes the following environment variable, if it
exists:
FINGER This variable may be set with favored options to *finger*.
FILES
/etc/finger.conf alias definition data base
/var/log/lastlog last login data base
SEE ALSO
*chpass(1) <http://www.hmug.org/man/1/chpass.php>*, *w(1)
<http://www.hmug.org/man/1/w.php>*, *who(1)
<http://www.hmug.org/man/1/who.php>*, *finger.conf(5)*, *fingerd(8)
<http://www.hmug.org/man/8/fingerd.php>*
D. Zimmerman, *The* *Finger* *User* *Information* *Protocol*, RFC
1288, December,
1991.
HISTORY
The *finger* command appeared in 3.0BSD.
BUGS
The current FINGER protocol RFC requires that the client keep the connec-
tion fully open until the server closes. This prevents the use of the
optimal three-packet T/TCP exchange. (Servers which depend on this
requirement are bogus but have nonetheless been observed in the Internet
at large.)
NAME *talk* -- talk to another user SYNOPSIS *talk* *person* [*ttyname*]
DESCRIPTION *Talk* is a visual communication program which copies lines from
your ter- minal to that of another user. Options available: *person* If you
wish to talk to someone on your own machine, then *person* is just the
person's login name. If you wish to talk to a user on another host, then *
person* is of the form `user at host'. *ttyname* If you wish to talk to a user
who is logged in more than once, the *ttyname* argument may be used to
indicate the appropriate terminal name, where *ttyname* is of the form
`ttyXX'. When first called, *talk* sends the message Message from
TalkDaemon at his_machine... talk: connection requested by your_name at your_machine.
talk: respond with: talk your_name at your_machine to the user you wish to talk
to. At this point, the recipient of the mes- sage should reply by typing
talk your_name at your_machine It doesn't matter from which machine the
recipient replies, as long as his login-name is the same. Once communication
is established, the two parties may type simultaneously, with their output
appearing in separate windows. Typing control-L `^L' will cause the screen
to be reprinted, while your erase, kill, and word kill characters will
behave normally. To exit, just type your interrupt character; *talk* then
moves the cursor to the bottom of the screen and restores the terminal to
its previous state. Permission to talk may be denied or granted by use of
the *mesg(1) <http://www.hmug.org/man/1/mesg.php>* com- mand. At the outset
talking is allowed. Certain commands, in particular
*nroff(1)<http://www.hmug.org/man/1/nroff.php>
* and *pr(1) <http://www.hmug.org/man/1/pr.php>*, disallow messages in order
to prevent messy output. FILES /etc/hosts to find the recipient's machine
/var/run/utmp to find the recipient's tty SEE ALSO
*mail(1)<http://www.hmug.org/man/1/mail.php>
*, *mesg(1) <http://www.hmug.org/man/1/mesg.php>*,
*who(1)<http://www.hmug.org/man/1/who.php>
*, *write(1) <http://www.hmug.org/man/1/write.php>* BUGS The version of *
talk(1) <http://www.hmug.org/man/1/talk.php>* released with 4.3BSD uses a
protocol that is incompatible with the protocol used in the version released
with 4.2BSD. HISTORY The *talk* command appeared in 4.2BSD. 4.2 Berkeley
Distribution June 6, 1993 4.2 Berkeley Distribution
------------------------------
Mac OS X 10.4 - Generated Fri Apr 29 07:01:07 CDT 2005
BSD July 22, 2002 BSD
------------------------------
Mac OS X 10.4 - Generated Fri Apr 29 06:57:11 CDT 2005
11:30 p.m.
so can someone please provide me their list of vintage archives that still
exist? please? I'd really like to help archive these vintage archives before
they're gone and can't do that without knowing where they are :-( ...thanks!
:-)
14 Mar
14 Mar
4:05 a.m.
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:29 -0700, Hex Star wrote:
On 3/12/07, Adam Goldman <adamg at pobox.com>
wrote:
Was there a reason for posting an entire man page?
Gordon
The Internet used to have a number of useful features that it no longer
does today -- for example, the finger and talk protocols. These protocols
no longer exist on the Internet, mostly due to valid security reasons.
it's still very much around...
NAME
6335
days inactive
6337
days old
14 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
adamg＠pobox.com -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
hexstar＠gmail.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org