Maybe-useful shell oneliners #n:

(date +%s; read foo; date +%s; echo r - p) | dc

Press return to start the timer, press return again to stop it and get a rough time in seconds between the two presses. May require GNU date, as I do not know how widely spread "%s" is as time-in-seconds-since-epoch time format control.

Sadly, the first version did the subtraction and then multiplied by -1, but I think properly swapping the two top elements of the stack is a slight win for elegance (if piping things into dc can ever be called "elegance").

Busy, but not necessarily productive. Beginning of September saw me in the US for a week, then back to the UK and busybusybusy at work.

But, I have now finished off something that's been underway, one way or another since about January. It's both a good feeling and slightly sad. I have compiled a report of the first year-or-so of the Snooper Project, essentially an attempt to determine how unused IP addresses are being scanned and probed.

The report looks at the first roughly 13 months, correlates spikes in probing activity to BugTraq reports and presents several statistical breakdowns of the raw material. It also goes into more detail for a few prolific or interesting scan sources.

Here, marnanel writes about early mornings and it resonated.

Due to an assortment of reasons, my primary "I am alone, there is no external pressure" hacking time tends to be from not-too-long after 6 am (depending on how promptly I can get up and go through the normal first-things-in-the- morning routine), until about 07:30, when it's time to finish getting dressed and head towards the train station, for another exciting day in the office.

That's also the first time period of the day when I can check my email and do a brief check on assorted web stuff. Most, if not all, of my coding is accomplished in these 45-80 minutes of the day. At times, I am surprised I get anything finished...

This "paper writing" is both familiar and unfamiliar, in a strange, frightening, way. At least feedback from the first- ish round of independent readers is starting to drop in.

I guess everyone has heard of "the editor wars" (usually simplified to "emacs vs. vi(m)".

So have I. I have one editor I use almost daily, but there are three editors I can actuall use (well, OK, two of them are more "editor families" than distinct editors).

First off, I self-identify as an emacs user. I've used one or another emacs as my primary editing environment for the last 20 years. A new editor would have to be pretty darn astoundingly good for me to change that.

However, if you don't have a favourite editor already, I suggest you try out several different editors. Use them for at least 3-4 weeks and spend a day or two coming to grips with your editing environment. When it comes to editing comfort, first impressions can actually lure you into ditching something that is good and instead make you choose something that is less good. After you become sufficiently used to your editing environment it will be hard to change.

So, why did I end up with emacs-like editors (one of the "editor families")? Primarily thanks to the fact that emacs had a built-in tutorial. Secondarily becaiuse of emacs lisp. I've always liked lisp and lisp-like languages (something that may be obvious, looking back through my Advogato diary entries).

I said I was proficient with three different editors, I better explain taht too. I can (and do) use vi (and vi- heritage) editor(s) (primarily nvi and vim, with a distinct preference of nvi over vim), because I used to earn my living by being a unix sysadmin, occasionally being sent out to clients. You can't really expect to be able to install and compile emacs whenever you hit a new site, it just wastes time. So, learn to use the tools available.

I can also use ed. Admittedly, I mostly use ed as part of shell scripting, but that's because it can trivially be driven via stdin (build edit command using echo, pipe these into ed filename and make sure to finish with wq, stick this in a loop and you're set to do things in sequence, with externally kept state; not pretty, but it does the job).

Somewhat amusingly, I actually used vi before I used emacs, but never really continued with vi (and from there derived editors). I don't know if I'd kept with vi, had there been a good in-editor tutorial (or at least a tutorial docuiment I dcould've played around with). It felt like a struggle, initially. I had some rudimentary ed when I started with vi, but the latter was sufficiently different to cause impedance mismatch between what I knew and the capabilities available in the new environment.

Emacs, on the other hand, was nothing like ed, came with in- editor tutorials, in-editor documentation and a lisp environment to boot. I was willing to invest the necessary time to becxome proficient and have, as they say, never looked back really hard.

Clearly, I have a favourite editor, but I don't think there is such a thing as "one true editor, best for all possible things". I guess the fact that my .emacs contains (setq wq "Emacs, not vi!") to be sufficient proof of that...