Using Linux's Magic Sysrq on modern keyboards without a dedicated Syrq key
In the old days, more or less all PC keyboards had a dedicated 'Print Screen/Sysrq' key and using Linux's Magic Sysrq was easy: you held down Alt, PrintScrn/Sysrq, and an appropriate key at the same time. However, this is becoming less and less common all the time, and in particular my current keyboard doesn't have a dedicated Sysrq key. Instead SysRq is overloaded on F9, and you get it by holding the keyboard's Fn key down when you push F9/PrintScrn. This presents a small difficulty in hitting Sysrq key combos, because holding that Fn key down while you hit regular keys often produces absolutely nothing. So if you just press, say, Fn + Alt + F9 + s to try to force a sync, nothing happens.
After some flailing around and unpredictable, intermittent successes, I think I have finally figured out how to use magic SysRq reliably on my keyboard and on similar keyboards without dedicated SysRq keys. The trick is this:
- press and hold Fn + Alt + your SysRq key
- release your SysRq key and Fn, while still holding Alt
- press your desired SysRq action key, such as
The entire sequence has proven to be important. Releasing Fn while
still holding SysRq/F9 down has had a tendency to make the kernel
see an Alt+F9 sequence (which switches virtual consoles and in the
process wipes away a bunch of the messages I want to keep seeing,
and which obviously aborts entering magic Sysrq stuff). Releasing
all three keys ends the whole magic SysRq sequence, which means my
s does nothing.
This turns out to be the suggested approach in the kernel.org guide to magic Sysrq, although their advice is about keyboards that don't like having too many keys down at once. My keyboard specifically appears to do nothing even with just Fn + s, so I don't think it's an issue of the number of keys held down at once. And yes, I used usbmon to verify that my keyboard sends no USB events for Fn + s.
(This is perhaps trivial but I want to documented it for my own future use, because I'm sure I'm going to forget it at some point.)
URLs are terrible permanent identifiers for things
I was recently reading the JSON Feed version 1 specification (via Trivium, among other places). I have a number of opinions on it as a syndication feed format, but that's not the subject of today's entry, because in the middle of the specification I ran into the following bit (which is specifically talking about the elements of feed entries, ie posts):
id(required, string) is unique for that item for that feed over time. [...] Ideally, the
idis the full URL of the resource described by the item, since URLs make great unique identifiers.
When I read this bit, I had an immediate pained reaction. As someone who has been running a blog for more than ten years and has made this exact mistake, let me assure you that URLs make terrible permanent unique identifiers for things. Yes, yes, cool URLs don't change, as the famous writeup says. Unfortunately in the real world, URLs change all of the time. One reason for this that is especially relevant right now is that URLs include the protocol, and right now the web is in the process of a major shift from HTTP to HTTPS. That shift just changed all your URLs.
(I think that over the next ten years the web will wind up being almost entirely HTTPS, even though much of it is not HTTPS today, so quite a lot of people will be going through this URL transition in the future.)
This is not the only case that may force your hand. And beyond more or less forced changes,
you may someday move your blog from one domain to another or change
the real URLs of all of your entries because you changed the blog
system that you use (both of which has happened). In theory you can
create a system to generate syndication feeds that deals with all
of that, by having a 'URL for id' field of some sort (perhaps
automatically derived from your configuration of URL redirections),
but if you're going to wind up detaching what you put in the
field from the actual canonical URL of the entry, why not make it
arbitrary in the first place? It will save you a bunch of pain to
do this from the start.
(Please trust me on this one, seeing as this general issue has caused me pain. As my example illustrates, using any part of the URL as part of your 'permanent identifier' is going to cause you heartburn sooner or later.)
There are excellent reasons why the Atom syndication format both explicitly allows for and more importantly encourages various forms of permanent identifiers for feed entries that are not URLs. For example, you can use UUIDs (as 'urn:uuid:<uuid>') or your own arbitrary but unique identifier in your own namespace (as tag: URNs). The Atom format does this because the people who created it had already run into various problems with the widespread use of URLs as theoretically permanent entry identifiers in RSS feeds.