Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #34919 > unrolled thread

python-daemon

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  python-daemon n8felton@gmail.com - 2012-12-16 07:26 -0800
    Re: python-daemon rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-12-16 08:59 -0800
      Re: python-daemon Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 07:25 +1100
        Re: python-daemon rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-12-16 14:18 -0800
          Re: python-daemon Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 17:16 +1100
            Re: python-daemon rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-12-16 23:25 -0800
              Re: python-daemon Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 18:33 +1100
                Re: python-daemon rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-12-16 23:59 -0800
      Re: python-daemon Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-12-17 12:18 +0000

#34919 — python-daemon

Hello all. Got a question for anyone out there that is willing to help. Looking to make a Python Daemon, Google searches lead me to http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-daemon. My question is 2 part. 1) pip install python-daemon downloads version 1.6, but the site states that 1.5.5 is the latest version. Anyone know why this is? 2) With python-daemon having been last uploaded in 2010, is anyone aware if there is a better implementation for python daemons, or is this still considered current?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#34920

On 12/16/2012 08:26 AM, n8felton@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all. Got a question for anyone out there that is willing to
> help. Looking to make a Python Daemon, Google searches lead me to
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-daemon. My question is 2 part. 1)
> pip install python-daemon downloads version 1.6, but the site states
> that 1.5.5 is the latest version. Anyone know why this is? 2) With
> python-daemon having been last uploaded in 2010, is anyone aware if
> there is a better implementation for python daemons, or is this still
> considered current?

The author of the python-daemon package I believe is Ben Finney, 
who sometimes posts here.  Sadly, I think he is a member of a group 
of people here who say they filter out and ignore all messages posted 
from Google Groups (which would include yours and mine).  

If you get no other good answers here, you could try emailing him
directly at ben+python@benfinney.id.au, which is the address on 
a recent post from him.

Or you could repost from other than GG if you don't mind being a 
tool of someone else's political agenda.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34948

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:59 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 08:26 AM, n8felton@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hello all. Got a question for anyone out there that is willing to
>> help. Looking to make a Python Daemon, Google searches lead me to
>> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-daemon. My question is 2 part. 1)
>> pip install python-daemon downloads version 1.6, but the site states
>> that 1.5.5 is the latest version. Anyone know why this is? 2) With
>> python-daemon having been last uploaded in 2010, is anyone aware if
>> there is a better implementation for python daemons, or is this still
>> considered current?
>
> The author of the python-daemon package I believe is Ben Finney,
> who sometimes posts here.  Sadly, I think he is a member of a group
> of people here who say they filter out and ignore all messages posted
> from Google Groups (which would include yours and mine).
>
> If you get no other good answers here, you could try emailing him
> directly at ben+python@benfinney.id.au, which is the address on
> a recent post from him.

More courteous would be to NOT post an unsolicited email to a poster's
address gleaned (by someone else) from a mailing list, but to look for
contact details in the package itself. I haven't looked, so it may
well be that there are none, but if there's an official contact point
for the package, that would be a very good start.

If your post is swallowed by someone's twit filter, that probably
means that you're doing something twittish. Switching to direct mail
isn't going to win you any friends :) Switching your newsgroup client,
however, will have all the same benefits; so do you want to be a tool
of the anti-Google-Groups propaganda, or of the
anti-anti-Google-Groups propaganda?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34950

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>[...]
> If your post is swallowed by someone's twit filter, that probably
> means that you're doing something twittish. Switching to direct mail
> isn't going to win you any friends :) Switching your newsgroup client,
> however, will have all the same benefits; so do you want to be a tool
> of the anti-Google-Groups propaganda, or of the
> anti-anti-Google-Groups propaganda?

The contents of a twit filter can be just as good an indication
of a twit reader as a twit poster.

And as was pointed out the last time this subject came up, no,
other clients do not "have all the same benefits" [as GG].

Rather than continue this twit-for-twat noise I've tried to 
provide something a little more constructive at 

  http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34956

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>[...]
>> If your post is swallowed by someone's twit filter, that probably
>> means that you're doing something twittish. Switching to direct mail
>> isn't going to win you any friends :) Switching your newsgroup client,
>> however, will have all the same benefits; so do you want to be a tool
>> of the anti-Google-Groups propaganda, or of the
>> anti-anti-Google-Groups propaganda?
>
> The contents of a twit filter can be just as good an indication
> of a twit reader as a twit poster.
>
> And as was pointed out the last time this subject came up, no,
> other clients do not "have all the same benefits" [as GG].
>
> Rather than continue this twit-for-twat noise I've tried to
> provide something a little more constructive at
>
>   http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython

All you've said is the exact same things that have already been said,
including that not everyone will see your post if you use Google
Groups. Why use something that unnecessarily restricts your audience,
when non-restrictive posting methods work just fine?

Anyway. This debate isn't going away; I have no strong side in it, I'm
just informing people of the fact that posting from GG will reduce
your potential response sources.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34959

On 12/16/2012 11:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> If your post is swallowed by someone's twit filter, that probably
>>> means that you're doing something twittish. Switching to direct mail
>>> isn't going to win you any friends :) Switching your newsgroup client,
>>> however, will have all the same benefits; so do you want to be a tool
>>> of the anti-Google-Groups propaganda, or of the
>>> anti-anti-Google-Groups propaganda?
>>
>> The contents of a twit filter can be just as good an indication
>> of a twit reader as a twit poster.
>>
>> And as was pointed out the last time this subject came up, no,
>> other clients do not "have all the same benefits" [as GG].
>>
>> Rather than continue this twit-for-twat noise I've tried to
>> provide something a little more constructive at
>>
>>   http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython
> 
> All you've said is the exact same things that have already been said,
> including that not everyone will see your post if you use Google
> Groups. Why use something that unnecessarily restricts your audience,
> when non-restrictive posting methods work just fine?

I keep saying them because people like you keep saying (in
effect) that there is no difference in clients (in terms
of usability, convenience, setup effort and other factors
that vary on a person-by-person basis.)  I even wrote that 
above, right in the post you're replying to:
 
  >> no, other clients do not "have all the same benefits"

and yet you respond that other "posting methods work just fine"
Again, that may be true for you and your definition of "fine", 
and maybe even for many people but it is not true for everyone,

As you say, all this has been said before and if you need to 
refresh your memory, please see the list archives, the thread, 
"Simple Question regarding running .py program" around nov 14.

> Anyway. This debate isn't going away; I have no strong side in it, I'm
> just informing people of the fact that posting from GG will reduce
> your potential response sources.

No, that's not what you were "just" informing people of...
you were also informing us that we are "twits" for finding 
Google Groups fits our needs better than some other clients.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34960

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, that's not what you were "just" informing people of...
> you were also informing us that we are "twits" for finding
> Google Groups fits our needs better than some other clients.

I didn't say that. The first twit filter I met was when my dad put
*his own* address into it, to avoid downloading the posts he'd sent
(on a modem, that was significant). And that was the most normal thing
to do, twitting yourself :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34961

On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:33:52 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No, that's not what you were "just" informing people of...
> > you were also informing us that we are "twits" for finding
> > Google Groups fits our needs better than some other clients.
> 
> I didn't say that. The first twit filter I met was when my dad put
> *his own* address into it, to avoid downloading the posts he'd sent
> (on a modem, that was significant). And that was the most normal thing
> to do, twitting yourself :)

You wrote,

>>> If your post is swallowed by someone's twit filter, that probably
>>> means that you're doing something twittish. 

Perhaps in your part of the world, "twit" means something different 
than it means here, but here the meaning is pretty clear and quite
derogatory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34973

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:59:46 -0800, rurpy wrote:

> Or you could repost from other than GG if you don't mind being a tool of
> someone else's political agenda.

We're all tools of someone's political agenda.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web