5 Jun
2012
5 Jun
'12
11:08 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Jim Brain wrote:
The sad part about this is that some enthusiasts like
me, come away from
the discussion with the following points:
* Just don't ask about something in here, because it could be
controversial, and instead of getting some guidance, you'll get
mountains of pedantic information, interspersed in a most unhelpful
way, in between rantings from list members.
* These people must just love to antagonize one another, even though
they claim to use the list in a civil way as $diety intended (no top
posting, etc.)
* If I have the intestinal fortitude to wade through all of the
postings, I'll leave more confused than I was starting out.
Cue the "Well, that's how the list is supposed to work, deal with it"
crowd...
Believe it or not, that is close to the points that I was trying to make,
although I was probably more part of the problem than part of the
solution. I have a few corrections, clarifications, and partial
retractions to make to that post; perhaps what little help they might be
is overshadowed by the contrroversies.
We really do need to standardize a set of drive type names, since "HD" and
"DD" drives is apparently NOT unambiguous to some of us! (and created
this entire fiasco) But, full ACCURATE specification is too long to be
usable.
Since "Drive type 2" is not going to catch on, I propose "DD48",
"DD96",
and "HD96", with an implicit agreement that we'll call them that inspite
of any exceptions and deviations, such as using those DRIVE types for
single density.
Does THAT work OK for everybody?
OB_pedantic: Few realize the correct attribution of "If you're not part
of the solution, you're part of the problem!" Eldridge Cleaver!