Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

Ellgee · 2019-08-03 01:27:10

First off, hi there! I'm new here. Looking to contribute something positive.

I was registering just now and two things about the registration challenge frustrated me.

#1:

The challenge sometimes failed, sometimes worked. Here are two commands I was prompted to run that failed. I'll redact some of the result so that no one can use it, but I'll provide enough so someone can verify if the output was correct or not. FYI, I know the response is time-based, and it's a Friday afternoon in Pacific Time. I don't think I'm near a week number boundary AFAIK...

date -u +%V$(uname)|sha1sum|sed 's/\W//g'
b7173..............................bcdad

date -u +%V$(uname)|sha224sum|sed 's/\W//g'
72a9d............................................4c7e0e2

#2:

It's difficult to read and tedious to select and copy/paste the challenge command because the font is tiny and the ending single quote from sed is jammed up against a double-quote around the entire command. Because the command is not presented in a monospaced font, it's a pain to grab the command out. I didn't even see the ending single-quote until I tried to run the command and it failed.

Here's how it looks on my computer. It requires a lot of hand-eye coordination to grab the command out.

With some square brackets and a little spacing, it would be much nicer to interact with the challenge:

What is the output of [ date -u +%V$(uname)|sha224sum|sed 's/\W//g' ]?

Here's an example of how that would look:

Trilby · 2019-08-03 01:40:47

For #1, I get the same output as you.

For #2, that seems a reasonable suggestion, but - of course - brackets could lead to other problems:

$ [ date -u +%V$(uname)|sha224sum|sed 's/\W//g' ]
sed: ]: No such file or directory
ash: missing ]

Given that HTML has <pre> and <code> tags, there could be a much better solution:

What is the output of the following command:
<pre><code>date -u +%V$(uname)|sha224sum|sed 's/\W//g'</code></pre>
<input ...

henrywallace · 2019-11-10 18:54:54

I also struggled with this. I tried a few times to select with the single quotes, and not include the enclosing double quotes. After failing to select it I just typed out the quotes manually in the terminal.

The first one I tried for some reason failed when I outputted the command. First it used a sha512, which didn't work. And then it asked for a sha256 which did work. I would be in favor of it using a smaller hash as it's less tricky to copy the whole thing and then paste as an answer.

Also, why include the uname? What if I want to register on a non-Linux machine, even though I have Linux machines where arch linux is relevant?

YesItsMe · 2020-05-18 13:48:26

henrywallace wrote:

What if I want to register on a non-Linux machine[?]

That's a good question, actually. In fact, I struggled with the registration here too, because I didn't have a Linux machine ready. (I ended up writing a Captcha solver for this forum.)

I can imagine that many people would like to get help here so they can install Arch, but they need Arch to get here first. Ugh.

Scimmia · 2020-05-18 13:51:25

If they're unable to write the install disk, I don't see the problem with preventing them registering here, they won't be able to maintain Arch anyway.

RageBanken · 2020-09-16 05:20:04

It took me three tries. I have nonstandard hashing for special use on this system. The arrogant presumption presented by folks who aren't even keeping their site updated is astounding... Also, you're password change form say's 6 characters, but requires 9 -> great job on the "bleeding edge" there folks... Here's hoping this place isn't as bad as all the racist s**t-posting discords/irc channels for arch. I'm already having my doubts from the extreme arrogance demonstrated just reading these forums.

Edit: As noted below, this was unduely ranty. My apologies!

Last edited by RageBanken (2020-09-16 07:58:36)

ayekat · 2020-09-16 07:06:40

RageBanken wrote:

I have nonstandard hashing for special use on this system.

I hope "nonstandard" doesn't actually mean `sha{,1,224,256,384,512}sum` (and similar commands) output different things than normally expected. Because in that case, complaining about things not working as expected would be very misplacced.

The password issue seems familiar… wasn't there actually a bug report about this somewhere?

Then again, this isn't quite the topic discussed, and it reads more like a random rant, given the sarcastic "great job… folks" and -

Here's hoping this place isn't as bad as all the racist s**t-posting discords/irc channels for arch.

Discord isn't officially related to this community, so complaints about an "Arch Linux channel on Discord" are a bit misplaced here.
And with IRC, if you mean #archlinux on Freenode, the same community guidelines apply there as here (and racist behaviour isn't usually tolerated in this community).

For the issue at hand, I believe Trilby's suggestion is reasonable. <pre>/<code> tags would help a lot to avoid confusion there.

Scimmia wrote:

If they're unable to write the install disk, I don't see the problem with preventing them registering here, they won't be able to maintain Arch anyway.

I disagree. I'm mostly thinking of motherboard issues and other less trivially solvable (hardware) problems. I don't think that users who struggle to create an installation disk and boot it correctly should be prevented from getting support here.

However, "Just grab a Linux box and get the output of this" is still a reasonable challenge. Of course it's a bit less trivial if the box under your fingers isn't Linux, but if quickly researching the right value for `uname` is asking too much, Arch might indeed not be the right distro.

Last edited by ayekat (2020-09-16 07:11:08)

progandy · 2020-09-16 07:30:13

ayekat wrote:

However, "Just grab a Linux box and get the output of this" is still a reasonable challenge. Of course it's a bit less trivial if the box under your fingers isn't Linux, but if quickly researching the right value for `uname` is asking too much, Arch might indeed not be the right distro.

Unlike the wiki, the forum doesn't even require pacman to be installed, so any "online bash shell" should do, for example

https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_bash_shell

RageBanken · 2020-09-16 07:54:02

Here's hoping this place isn't as bad as all the racist s**t-posting discords/irc channels for arch.

Seems very promising so far! I'm aware they're not officially related. It just makes me sick to think that many arch users seem to be like that. It's actually very refreshing here!

As for the nonstandard, I've replaced some of mine with, shall we say, experimental alternatives. Doesn't apply to most people. And yes you're right it was overall ranty. My apologies. I just finished getting burned on a bunch of un-official arch forums and was very apprehensive about coming here - afraid the userbase might be just as bad. Thank you all for proving me wrong!

if quickly researching the right value for `uname` is asking too much, Arch might indeed not be the right distro.

I actually agree with this part. There are easily searchable results that will take care of it.

WorMzy · 2020-09-16 08:34:26

Mod note: Closing this old topic now.

Arch Linux

#1 2019-08-03 01:27:10

Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#2 2019-08-03 01:40:47

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#3 2019-11-10 18:54:54

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#4 2020-05-18 13:48:26

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#5 2020-05-18 13:51:25

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#6 2020-09-16 05:20:04

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#7 2020-09-16 07:06:40

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#8 2020-09-16 07:30:13

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#9 2020-09-16 07:54:02

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

#10 2020-09-16 08:34:26

Re: Suggested improvements to this BBS' registration process

Board footer