Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The problem is meant to deal with future conflicts as well as present ones, and re-checking on every update would be a pain. The more memorable and natural your aliases, the more likely they are to get clobbered later ….


sort by: page size:

Yeah that's a problem, and I admit that I use some workarounds. I'd like them to implement easy drop, rename etc.

3) I haven't run in to this problem, but as you can imagine, NOT being able to change it provides a number of benefits from a security standpoint, and if you do want to change it, it is just a matter of creating a new one and deleting the old one. I should think that'd be good enough for anyone.

By doing this your names aren't in 1NF and you're making it harder than needed to do updates. If your names are cute/unique then changing, expanding, or reducing service responsibilities just means updating the single document that says what Dreki does.

Thanks! Yes, that's a bit annoying to change it again and communicate (and, possibly, confuse users even more). Agree, the search engines suggest Termius as a fix now, so we'll probably leave it as is.

I find it easier to maintain one while you make the changes, thus I would see the issue being referred to.

The problem isn't about laziness, it is about defaults.

If Microsoft removed them, installing an update to PS could literally break existing scripts. Sure, you can trivially fix it by re-creating the aliases, but only after you realise that an Update broke it.


It's more effort than I would like. I should not be bothered with updating hidden config files containing data that is mostly not human readable. I want to prove my identity once and let the system take care of the rest.

This is already built into the system though and you can refresh your PESEL in those cases and invalidate the previous one. Which, for handling rare edge cases isn't a bad solution really.

It's only a problem when you need to change job (this is why I haven't done this).

I really love this new feature however my only concern is that renaming some parameters will trigger a lot of changes in other places as a side effect, thus polluting diffs.

In this case I think it wouldn't cause bugs if the effect of 1 and 2 would be switched. Then everybody would use it like a boolean and that would be fine, only the few people who really want the name-check disabled would use that option.

A better approach would be to alias /v3/user to /v1/user until there is a breaking change needed in the v3 code tier.

I've been just thinking about this after receiving 2 such emails in one day this week. Submitted both to the archive, thanks so much for doing this!

Name and shame, that's the minimum to make them change.


So you can make sure not to accidentally change it.

Which really only becomes necessary after something has happened to make you need to switch back, at which point it's too late.

The better solution is for developers to not release updates that forcibly change your already-configured settings.


I was going for obvious. There is (currently) a way around that. I say currently because I have updates to fix it.

I know this would be a "fun tool" for some people to play jokes and pranks on other people, but cannot in good conscious let that happen without /some/ level of indication.


you should replace 'always' with 'foreseeable future'. its plain wrong otherwise.

Great point and an obvious solution once its thought of - annoying to change when already committed though..

Given the level of concern, I will change the default and release a new version right away.
next

Legal | privacy