boredzo

I think it is, but it does print an overall speed estimate at the end anyway. It's just not as conveniently formatted as `status=progress`, which gives you MB/sec (or GB/sec if appropriate), so you gotta do math to it.

Here's what the output at the end or from SIGINFO looks like (this is running on my Mac mini and copying from /dev/zero to /dev/null):

``` 148908277760 bytes transferred in 6.917856 secs (21525206330 bytes/sec) ```

If I add `status=progress`, then it _also_ prints this every second:

``` 150617456640 bytes (151 GB, 140 GiB) transferred 7.001s, 22 GB/s ```

ElDragonRojo had technical difficulties replying here, so he posted his reply on his blog instead. With his permission, here's what he wanted to tell you here:

---

Sorry if I came across as impolite. Like I said, pardon the expression. It may have been inappropriately colorful. All I meant was that you’re talking about things you don’t know anything about.

I had the idea for Appsterdam and got things rolling. Sofa wanted to help out, but then they got offered a lot of money to move to the Valley. That’s great for them, and great for us, because that means we’ll have that many more Appsterdammers with Valley experience and investment money.

To suggest that their move in anyway represents a lack of faith in Appsterdam is just wrong. They don’t think that. I don’t think that. Nobody thinks that, except for you.

It’s also meaningless. Sofa did not found Appsterdam. I did. Sofa did not build Appsterdam, our army of volunteers did. Sofa designed our logo and website, but we get to keep those when they leave.

So even if they hated Appsterdam with the fire of a thousand suns, it wouldn’t doom us to failure. It wouldn’t even slow us down. We didn’t get to work together long enough for their leaving to impact us at all.

So your premise is wrong, and your conclusion is wrong, because you are working on no knowledge. You made a venomous statement that misrepresents things for no other reason than to be a naysayer.

Then, when you got caught by the people whose lives you are actually talking about, you tried to pass it off as a metaphor, even though that makes no sense at all, unless we accept the unlikely conclusion that you don’t actually know what a metaphor is or how to construct one.

That’s all I meant. I didn’t mean to be rude. Sorry if I offended.

I've updated the page to version 0.3, with a fixed and improved “Best” example and some improvements to the text, based mostly on the feedback from comments here. To all who've commented so far: Thank you.

In a few days, if I don't forget, I'll appoint whatever the page and samples look like by then as 1.0. Leaving things pre-1.0 bugs me more now than it did back when I originally published this.

An inconvenient convenience. An excellent point, and just the sort of feedback I'd been waiting for; thank you. I'll publish the revised “Best” example shortly with fputs in place, and update the page accordingly.

Maybe so. Perhaps one example fault would be testing the result of fputs against 0 rather than EOF…

Not at all. I always welcome constructive criticism; any opportunity to improve myself, I much appreciate. For my part, any criticism I offer, including the linked article itself, I likewise intend to be constructive.

The weirdest part, looking at it five years later, is that the page shows usage of and talks about puts, while the “Best Possible” code in the zip archive uses fputs. Unless anyone can think of a reason not to use puts, I'll change the zipped “Best” example over to use it after I get it both working and failing properly.

Only if both stdout and stderr are unwritable. If stdout is unwritable but stderr is writable, then writing to stderr should work.

If they're both not writable, or stderr is writable but writing fails anyway, there's nothing we can do about it anyway, but that does not make it any less proper to try.

If we tried to pour the collective total of human stupidity (artificial or otherwise) into a single program, it would exceed the capacities of all the storage devices ever made, past, present, and future. :-)

Honestly, if I were writing this today, I'd make the “worst” example less bad. What you see here is way too fantastic. 2011 Me would make it realistically bad—the sort of thing a new or just plain apathetic programmer might write. I wonder, though, how much it would differ from the canonical one-liner.

It writes the whole string as passed, without inserting anything into it, and then writes the newline.

Not so much bungled as got bitten by a change in behavior. Amusingly, “Return Values” still states the old behavior, to which standard the program is correct.

I'll fix the program.

By the way, the zip archives include a Makefile with correct compiler configuration (namely -std=c99). I tried downloading them after seeing this thread and it didn't work; I've re-uploaded them and now they download correctly, Makefiles and all. No more having to run the compiler by hand.

mturmon hasn't (so far), but a friend just passed me the link to this thread. Thanks nonetheless.

I'll fix it in a few minutes.

Ah-ha! Looking at the front page of their (apparently new) wiki, I found a link to the old wiki:

http://oldwiki.joyent.com/

And that wiki has up-to-date information on migrating from TextDrive to what are apparently now called “Shared SmartMachines” (formerly Shared Accelerators). And that page finally does resolve the question of whether we need to contact them or wait to be contacted: We do need to ask for a golden ticket, not just wait for it.

That's pretty well buried. Joyent really should send out a mass email to all TextDrive users asking us to upgrade, telling us exactly what effect it would have on our billing, and telling us exactly what we need to do.

It's still unclear whether, in the special case of Howe, we still need to ask for golden tickets, or all Howe users are being migrated to Shared SmartMachines without having to ask. The support post:

http://help.joyent.com/index.php?pg=forums.posts&id=949

implies that they are rebuilding Howe, which implies that we will not simply be migrated to a Shared SmartMachine as a result of the failure (we still would need to ask), but they have not directly said.

The one remaining worry I have is that there's nothing on the main Joyent site about Shared SmartMachines. It seems like they're inviting users of one deprecated service to migrate to another deprecated service.

Do we actually need to contact support to be upgraded? My understanding from the old Shared Accelerator documentation[1] (which you seem to have deleted) was that we were supposed to wait to be offered a “golden ticket”, unless we absolutely needed to be upgraded ASAP.

Are you even still offering regular (not “cloud”) web hosting? I can't find it on Joyent's site anymore; it seems as if the Shared Accelerator plans are discontinued, too.

[1]: http://wiki.joyent.com/shared:kb:start

Edit: Found it. This is the page that implies that TextDrive users have needed to wait for a “golden ticket” to be offered to them: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090305040858/http://wiki....