5 Mar
2005
5 Mar
'05
6:30 p.m.
Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
One of the problems mail server admins face, are
people who throw up their
own mailserver at home. You don't have gobs of bandwidth, you don't have
multiple backup servers, and you don't have diesel generators and online
UPS. If you don't, you have no business running a public mailserver. Most of
the time I see this it's because someone wants some kinda juvenile bragging
rights about "Ohhh I run a my own K00L server". Geeze. I have seen a few
people who do it for good reason, but, if you run a mail server you need to
be a good net citizen about it.
Have you ever heard of the word SOVEREIGNTY? I run my own servers for
everything because I exercise my right to be totally independent from the
outside world. I'll keep running when the rest of the world explodes in
the thermonuclear holocaust.
What makes you think that you have the right to impose your elitism on the
rest of the world? Just because you are rich and snobby enough to have
gobs of bandwidth and redundant servers and all that, why in the hell should
everyone else? The Founding Fathers of ARPANET made it accessible to
everyone. I have the right to be a netizen even if my entire installation
consists of a single VAX-11/780. I *do* diligently maintain it, and it has
a very good uptime. But every Classic Computer needs hardware maintenance
occasionally, and if it is acceptable to everyone at my site to have occasional
downtime, what right do YOU have to impose on us that we have to spend millions
of dollars on redundancy that we don't need?
We are concerned with *CLASSIC* computers here. It is extremely hypocritical
of you to shut me out because I run my entire operation on CLASSIC hardware
with CLASSIC software in the CLASSIC manner, using business practices of
the CLASSIC computing era, exactly as it was done on ARPA Internet in 1980s.
Hell, I actually have more bandwidth at this facility that most ARPANET sites
had: I have 384 kbps SDSL and they only had 56 kbps. I run my VAX servers
just as diligently as UC Berkeley ran theirs, but demanding the level of
performance you are asking for is absolutely and totally outlandish,
extravagant and orders of magnitude over the threshold of socially
unacceptable.
What does being a good net citizen admin entail?
It entails following standards. RFC 1123, Requirements for Internet Hosts,
says that you must retry mail for 4 days because the recipient has the
*RIGHT* to run a mail server that may occasionally go down for a day.
MS
5 Mar
5 Mar
7:09 p.m.
Have you ever heard of the word SOVEREIGNTY? I run my
own servers
for everything because I exercise my right to be totally independent
from the outside world.
Yet you want the benefits of the outside world - benefits like this
mailing list. Can't have it both ways.
The Founding Fathers of ARPANET made it accessible to
everyone. I
have the right to be a netizen even if
...no. Nobody has a "right" to be on the net (which is what I assume
you mean by "be a netizen").
Even if you did, you are forgetting another one of the prime principles
of the Classic Net: politeness.
Politeness includes things like not raking a volunteer over the coals
for not continuing to provide something for free in quite the same way
he used to, or perhaps not the way you, armchair-quarterbacking, think
he ought to.
In my opinion you deserve to be dropped from the list for the egregious
rudeness your message exhibits. Nobody, possibly excepting Jay, has a
*right* to receive cct{alk,ech} mail.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
8:54 p.m.
MS wrote...
I run my own servers for
everything because I exercise my right to be totally independent from the
outside world.
But Michael, what about...
1) The registrar who owns your domain (but allows you to register to use
it)?
2) What about the telco owned POTS & datalines coming to your server, which
they allow you to pay for the use of?
3) What about ARIN, who owns and controls the IP addresses you borrow?
4) What about your provider, who allows you net access?
5) What about your upstream tier1, who agrees to advertise your ip space via
BGP?
5) What about the greedy mean corporation called the power company that
you're associating yourself with by using their power to run your machines?
Any of the above people can shut you off in the blink of an eye. I am not
sure that's "independence".
I'll keep running when the rest of the world
explodes in
the thermonuclear holocaust.
Your server may well keep running. But it won't
have anyone to talk to ;)
What makes you think that you have the right to impose
your elitism on the
rest of the world? Just because you are rich and snobby enough to have
gobs of bandwidth and redundant servers and all that, why in the hell
should
everyone else?
You think I'm elitist? Odd, the people who use that word are
generally
suprisingly intolerant, but they SO preach that word! I didn't require
anything of anyone. You however, seem remarkably adamant about requiring ME
to do something the way you want though. The reason I suggested that people
who don't have the necessary setup to "do it right" - shouldn't do it -
is
because in most (but I admit, not all) cases by providing that service they
are actually providing a disservice. Here's an analogy. Lets say a guy knows
how to fly a plane. But he can't afford one. So he builds one out of
popsicle sticks, and forces his friends to fly cross country with him in it.
Never mind that he's endangering his fellow human beings. MAYBE he should
just let those who are properly equipped do it.
But to be more precise, I will certainly defend your right to run your own
mailserver. But you certainly have no right to insist that I allow my mail
server to talk to yours. It's sort of like the old phrase "Your right to
swing your fist ends at the end of my nose". If you want to run your own
mail server, that's fine, you have every right! I encourage it as a learning
experience. However, if you want your mail to be really reliable, maybe you
should just set up your servers to access a POP account at your isp, instead
of running a mail server? Just a wild thought.
downtime, what right do YOU have to impose on us that
we have to spend
millions
of dollars on redundancy that we don't need?
I have no right to impose that on
you. But by the same token, I am also not
obligated to have my mail server pass traffic to a mailserver that adversely
affects mine.
We are concerned with *CLASSIC* computers here. It is
extremely
hypocritical
of you to shut me out because I run my entire operation on CLASSIC
hardware
with CLASSIC software in the CLASSIC manner,
You are accusing me of being against
classic hardware? *giggle*
It entails following standards. RFC 1123,
Requirements for Internet
Hosts,
says that you must retry mail for 4 days because the recipient has the
*RIGHT* to run a mail server that may occasionally go down for a day.
Don't
(mis)quote RFC's to me, I was thumbing through RFC's when you were in
diapers. However, last I checked 1123 offered 4-5 days as a suggestion, not
a requirement. In addition, I believe it acknowledges a need for a variety
of adjustments to that schedule, particularly if the reason for delivery
failure is known.
More to the point... have you ever read the Bat book? Sendmail 101 says
somewhere about "being a good net citizen", you should set up arrangements
with other organizations to act as backup MX systems, so that you don't clog
up other peoples queues when your server goes down. Thus, your very
"independence" is at odds with considerate netizenship, to use your term.
Ok, I'm off to bed. My apologies to the list for feeding the bears, I'll
return to my levelheaded self tomorrow after sleep :)
Regards,
Jay West
9:20 p.m.
Jay West wrote:
However, last I checked 1123 offered 4-5 days as a
suggestion, not a requirement.
It is indeed a suggestion and not a requirement. However, 35 minutes is,
well... a pipe dream compared to the real world. Remember: 99.9% uptime (a
reasonable if not exceptional goal) is still 43 minutes of downtime a month.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
6 Mar
6 Mar
10:21 a.m.
Jay wrote:
if you run a mail server you need to be a good net
citizen about it.
Michael wrote:
What makes you think that you have the right to impose
your elitism on the
rest of the world?
He isn't. He's imposing his standards on this mailing list, in order
to solve a particular problem. He's even indicated that he's willing
to make some provision to accomodate people who have said that they
will be inconvenienced, though he's not able to do so immediately.
If you are unable to run your mail server with sufficent uptime to
meet Jay's definition of "good net citizen", or don't wish to do so,
you're free to start your own mailing list, since as you yourself have
said (in capital letters, no less) you have "SOVEREIGNTY".
Just because you are rich and snobby enough to have
gobs of bandwidth and redundant servers and all that, why in the hell
should everyone else?
That's completely uncalled for.
Eric
7:10 p.m.
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Have you ever heard of the word SOVEREIGNTY? I run my
own servers for
everything because I exercise my right to be totally independent from the
outside world. I'll keep running when the rest of the world explodes in
the thermonuclear holocaust.
That's not the issue. I agree with you -- we have our own hardware
machine in a rack in a colo with 3 * 100megabits to three
different ASs. Our own nameservers and all. Hell my friend that
allows this has his own /16.
The issue is that in the year 2005 yuo need to have a
substantial-enough connection to be reliable. Expectations have
risen along with file and mail size. I can't speak for Jay, but
it's clear that classiccmp is moving as much mail as a netcom.com
or aol.com was 10 years ago. If my, or your, site can't keep up
with it, it's no longer acceptable.
Fairness has nothing to do with it.
It is extremely hypocritical
of you to shut me out because I run my entire operation on CLASSIC hardware
with CLASSIC software in the CLASSIC manner, using business practices of
the CLASSIC computing era, exactly as it was done on ARPA Internet in 1980s.
All you need is 99% uptime on port 25 and you're in the game.
That said, I also think the two tries within 35 minutes won't cut it.
Dead paths, routers and hosts still happens. THe 4-day thing is a good
idea.
Personally I don't care if mail is delayed; it sure beats not
gettign mail.
oo
7 Mar
7 Mar
5:38 a.m.
At 09:10 PM 3/6/2005, Tom Jennings wrote:
Expectations have
risen along with file and mail size. I can't speak for Jay, but
it's clear that classiccmp is moving as much mail as a netcom.com
or aol.com was 10 years ago. If my, or your, site can't keep up
with it, it's no longer acceptable.
Gee, I thought that my previous post would've generated
more nibbles:
At 09:08 PM 3/5/2005, John Foust wrote:
It all makes me wonder if the schism shouldn't be
towards replacing
the mailing list with a web forum. That'll show the people who are
stuck reading this list on dial-up at 300 baud on an ASR-33.
On a web, the crud can be edited, threads corralled, useful messages
moved to the FAQ, etc.
Talk about the inevitability of using modern tools to support
our habit of old computers.
A few more Slashdottings on interesting topics and this list
could expand. Would a doubling of list traffic and/or subscribers
cause undue burden, or at least cause the current volunteers to
run away screaming? At what point will the list traffic exceed
the mail-acceptance levels of either old VAXes or people running
mail servers on consumer-grade connections or people's willingness
to wade through mail, message by message?
Yes, a web forum would be Different and All, but at least it
throws away all this haggling about list traffic and MX debugging.
A little LAMP server, a little postNuke, we could be up in minutes.
Yes, I know it would require a modern web browser. Is this the
Civil War re-enactor list? Are my buttons and hardtack not
authentic enough? Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list
as opposed to the web?
- John
6:32 a.m.
At 08:28 AM 3/7/2005, David H. Barr wrote:
That would explain its unpopularity, of course.
If it's popular, it *must* be right.
Given the task at hand, given the needs of the users, given the
recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
design and solution for this task?
- John
Why the
emotional attraction to a mailing list as opposed to the web?
Because the web is
shit for just about everything? 
6:44 a.m.
> > > > Why the emotional attraction to a
mailing list as opposed to the web?
> > > Because the web is sh*t for just about everything?
> > That would explain its unpopularity, of course.
> If it's popular, it *must* be right.
Given the task at hand, given the needs of the users,
given the
recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
design and solution for this task?
Any advantage it might yield over the vagaries of SMTP has little to do with
its perceived ease of use or accessibility. I'm forced to use web boards for
some esoteric topics, but I get enough vintage computing on Usenet and other
mailing lists, so I wouldn't make the jump. I don't like pull media.
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI! ----------------------------------
6:58 a.m.
At 08:44 AM 3/7/2005, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Any advantage it might yield over the vagaries of SMTP
has little to do with
its perceived ease of use or accessibility. I'm forced to use web boards for
some esoteric topics, but I get enough vintage computing on Usenet and other
mailing lists, so I wouldn't make the jump. I don't like pull media.
(Scratching head: Web forums not easy to use or accessible?
Classic computing not esoteric? Mail reading (as opposed to
delivery) is push, not pull?)
- John
7:34 a.m.
Any advantage
it might yield over the vagaries of SMTP has little to do with
its perceived ease of use or accessibility. I'm forced to use web boards for
some esoteric topics, but I get enough vintage computing on Usenet and other
mailing lists, so I wouldn't make the jump. I don't like pull media.
(Scratching head: Web forums not easy to use or accessible? Classic computing not esoteric?
Increasingly not. Lots of retro dabblers these days.
Mail reading (as opposed to delivery) is push, not
pull?)
Well, in a highly pedantic sense, yes, just about any content delivery method
is ultimately pull because you have to sit there and read it. But I don't
have to go to multiple web boards and check for new postings; I just check
my E-mail. It doesn't disturb my daily routine by making me do more tasks,
and I get the content I want because the messages are already there waiting
for me.
Some will argue that the boards that send out notification of new topics by
E-mail fix this problem, but then what you've got is ... a mailing list. And
you still have to check the board to see the whole thread.
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- ACTUAL CLASSIFIED AD: Parachute, used once, never opened, small stain. $100
6:51 a.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, John Foust wrote:
At 08:28 AM 3/7/2005, David H. Barr wrote:
If it's popular, it *must* be right.
Given the task at hand, given the needs of the users, given the
recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
design and solution for this task?
I prefer the flow and linearity of a mailing list. I like to consume
everything and discard what I don't care for. With a web forum, it's more
difficult to keep track of new messages being posted. And with the
incredible level of topic drift here, it's not entirely evident what's
being discussed in any particular thread based on the title. You might
miss something you would be interested in or be helpful with.
Find a web forum that acts like a mailing list and I'll buy in ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
> Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
That would explain its
unpopularity, of course. 
7:11 a.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
> Given the task at hand, given the needs of the
users, given the
> recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
> design and solution for this task?
Find a web forum that acts like a mailing list and
I'll buy in ;)
On that note, I -believe- there exists a plugin of some sort for
phpbb2 that allows the board to follow a mailing list and mirror the
conversations in a threaded form. I'm not sure about the details, but
I know a few of my usenet and redhat mailman posts have ended up in
their entirety on SEO link farms. It would be a one-way link, though.
-dhbarr.
7:21 a.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
What Sellam said!
Given the task
at hand, given the needs of the users, given the
recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
design and solution for this task?
I prefer the flow and linearity of a mailing list. I like to consume
everything and discard what I don't care for. With a web forum, it's more
difficult to keep track of new messages being posted. And with the
incredible level of topic drift here, it's not entirely evident what's
being discussed in any particular thread based on the title. You might
miss something you would be interested in or be helpful with. Find a web forum that acts like a mailing list and
I'll buy in ;)
Another thing I like about the list: I read mail locally (as opposed to a
drain-bamaged web interface). As a side effect, my mail folders contain an
edited local "mirror" of the cctalk and cctech lists. Which comes in mighty
handy when I need to find something, even if my ISP or the list is
out-to-lunch at the moment.
Also, if I wanted a web interface, couldn't I just go to the archives (and
post through a web email interface)?
Vince
7:23 a.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
At 08:51 AM 3/7/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
I prefer the flow and linearity of a mailing list. I
like to consume
everything and discard what I don't care for. With a web forum, it's more
difficult to keep track of new messages being posted. And with the
incredible level of topic drift here, it's not entirely evident what's
being discussed in any particular thread based on the title. You might
miss something you would be interested in or be helpful with.
Ah, good - some reasonable discussion on the notion, as opposed to
just saying "poopie".
I agree with what you say about the pleasure of accidental
discovery. With a mailing list with wandering topics, where
you're "forced" to read most messages, you learn things you didn't
know. On the other hand, I don't think that would be impossible
on a web forum. Just have one forum and read all the postings.
And I agree that forums have a different "feel" than mailing lists.
Mailing lists are more "classic". Many of us may have decades of
experience with them, and only a few years of comparable experience
with web forums.
But it would also be cool to have machine- and topic- specific forums.
Find a web forum that acts like a mailing list and
I'll buy in ;)
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/ seems to be down
temporarily, and does it only update every 24 hours?
Has no one invented a web forum / mailing list hybrid, where web
postings are echoed to the mailing list, and vice versa, and it
updates in real-time or something close to it? If some large
percentage of subscribers switched to this web version, it would
certainly lessen the load on the SMTP-based list.
- John
8:33 a.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, John Foust wrote:
I have been considering just such a system for years now: a web interface
to the CC list where folks could view messages from a browser and post
messages to the list from the web version (with a tag added to identify
where the messages were posted from). One of these days I'll get around
to it.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
But it would also be cool to have machine- and topic-
specific forums.
This I agree with whole-heartedly, but it would rely on the discipline of
the posters (and as we should know from experience, this is no good ;)
Find a web
forum that acts like a mailing list and I'll buy in ;)
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/ seems to be down
temporarily, and does it only update every 24 hours?
Has no one invented a web forum / mailing list hybrid, where web
postings are echoed to the mailing list, and vice versa, and it
updates in real-time or something close to it? If some large
percentage of subscribers switched to this web version, it would
certainly lessen the load on the SMTP-based list. 
9:38 a.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
On Mon, March 7, 2005 8:33 am, Vintage Computer Festival said:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, John Foust wrote:
That's what moderators are for. . . I currently moderate the VC Forum
solo, but I can add any number of other folks to the list, if need be.
That's hardly a valid argument against web forums but it does reinforce
one of the most distinct advantages of those forums.
--
Erik Klein
www.vintage-computer.com
www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum
The Vintage Computer Forum
But it would also be cool to have machine- and
topic- specific forums.
This I agree with whole-heartedly, but it would rely on the discipline of
the posters (and as we should know from experience, this is no good ;) 
2:50 p.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
But it would also be cool to have machine- and topic-
specific forums.
Which could be trivially done by separate mailing lists.
But actually, I don't like that idea either. I like this list _because_
it covers all classic computers. Now, there are machines I am not
particlarly interested in (for example 8 bit home micros of the early
80's), so if it was all split up into separate lists, I'd probably not
read the C64 or Spectrum parts. But, you know, I've picked up tips by
reading posts about such machines here that have been useful to me in
restoring the machines I _am_ interested in.
-tony
4:27 p.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
Someone wrote...
> But it would also be cool to have machine- and
topic- specific forums.
Ok, I'll settle this. Not because of being dictatorial, but because this
issue has come up many times before and the classiccmp communitity has
already spoken on the subject...
There won't be machine and topic specific forums. This has been discussed
before and roundly trounced as an option. Most list members prefer to see
topics applying to all computers - otherwise they may miss good discussions
of restoration techniques, etc. that originate on a particular hardware
sublist.
The same thing applies for weblogs, wiki's, and web forums. The membership
as a whole has always been against this (and not that it matters, but I
agree). IF the membership at large does want a wiki/web interface, I'll set
one up on the classiccmp server, as it wouldn't make sense to have it
processed across the wire.
Jay
4:42 p.m.
New subject: Web forums vs mailing list (was Re: minor list changes)
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, John Foust wrote:
just saying "poopie".
Poopie.
Has no one invented a web forum / mailing list hybrid,
where web
postings are echoed to the mailing list, and vice versa, and it
updates in real-time or something close to it? If some large
percentage of subscribers switched to this web version, it would
certainly lessen the load on the SMTP-based list.
Now if a web interface did something useful to the content, like
find deep cross-references, linkages, or something, besides burden
with sugar and bloat, that would probably get some use. Or present
the data in some truly useful graphical way that made sense to
eyes body and brain.
It's rare enough when software can do that. Spreadsheets were
that, once. Tables are now Part of the Problem.
The problem is still that humans can do things that computers
cannot. While we're not doing those interesting problems with
email, mired mired in tradition (Simpson's "A HERITAGE OF
TRADITION!"), we're at least not doing it with low overhead and
only as much presentational sugar and bloat as we each choose.
7:08 a.m.
That would explain its unpopularity, of course.
If it's popular, it *must* be right.
7:25 a.m.
At 09:08 AM 3/7/2005, David H. Barr wrote:
Assuming the purpose of these lists is to disseminate
and maintain
knowledge related to classic computing before it disappears forever,
which of the alternatives better serves to meet said goal?
Point taken, but that's an issue of backup. There are lots of
ways to skin that cat. Export to ASCII if you like, and send
a backup copy of every message to another server. Via email if
you like.
- John
7:45 a.m.
>Assuming the purpose of these lists is to
disseminate and maintain
>knowledge related to classic computing before it disappears forever,
>which of the alternatives better serves to meet said goal?
Point taken, but that's an issue of backup. There
are lots of
ways to skin that cat. Export to ASCII if you like, and send
a backup copy of every message to another server. Via email if
you like.
Or, conversely, some interested party could take the time and effort
to develop a web interface to the pre-existing setup. Either way it's
a question of who bears the time cost of altering what we now have. I
lean toward the one that doesn't ask Jay to contribute more than he
already has.
-dhbarr.
8:08 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 09:45 -0600, David H. Barr wrote:
There are lots of obvious arguments *against* a web forum. I'm curious
to know what the supposed benefits are?
IMHO a mailing list wins out over a web forum any day, as does a usenet
group. The usual argument against mailing lists or usenet (typically) is
the sharing of images or other binary data, but it's not exactly hard to
stick the data on a temporary website somewhere and post a link to it.
>Assuming
the purpose of these lists is to disseminate and maintain
>knowledge related to classic computing before it disappears forever,
>which of the alternatives better serves to meet said goal?
Point taken, but that's an issue of backup.
There are lots of
ways to skin that cat. Export to ASCII if you like, and send
a backup copy of every message to another server. Via email if
you like.
Or, conversely, some interested party could take the time and effort
to develop a web interface to the pre-existing setup. Either way it's
a question of who bears the time cost of altering what we now have. I
lean toward the one that doesn't ask Jay to contribute more than he
already has. 
8:44 a.m.
On Monday 07 March 2005 10:45, David H. Barr wrote:
Or, conversely, some interested party could take the time and effort
to develop a web interface to the pre-existing setup. Either way it's
a question of who bears the time cost of altering what we now have. I
lean toward the one that doesn't ask Jay to contribute more than he
already has.
Mailman has a web interface. Its not so good if you're on dialup or a slow
connection, but you can stay upto date from Internet cafes.
--
Collector of vintage computers http://www.ncf.ca/~ba600
Machines to trade http://www.ncf.ca/~ba600/trade.html
Open Source Weekend http://www.osw.ca
Assuming the purpose of these lists is to disseminate
and maintain
knowledge related to classic computing before it disappears forever,
which of the alternatives better serves to meet said goal?
Point taken, but that's an issue of backup. There are lots of
ways to skin that cat. Export to ASCII if you like, and send
a backup copy of every message to another server. Via email if
you like.
2:56 p.m.
Mailman has a web interface. Its not so good if
you're on dialup or a slow
connection, but you can stay upto date from Internet cafes.
You are seriouisly suggesting that I carry a pile of service manuals,
classic computers, and test gear (all of which I've been known to use in
order to answer questions here) to the local internet cafe?
-tony
7:49 a.m.
On Monday 07 March 2005 09:32, John Foust wrote:
At 08:28 AM 3/7/2005, David H. Barr wrote:
If it's popular, it *must* be right.
Given the task at hand, given the needs of the users, given the
recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
design and solution for this task?
YES. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
> Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to
> the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
That would explain its unpopularity, of course. 
8:05 p.m.
John Foust wrote:
At 08:28 AM 3/7/2005, David H. Barr wrote:
If it's popular, it *must* be right.
Given the task at hand, given the needs of the users, given the
recently described hassles, is mailing-list technology the best
design and solution for this task?
Yes. In my Never-Humble opinion, yes.
I have a ton of technical information archived in my CC email. Web
forums don't offer one-click archival.
A bunch of us don't have fast connections, and any web interface is
going to be slower than text email. If I'm paying by the byte or by the
minute for a connection, I can download all my mail, read it and compose
replies offline, and upload all my replies in a very short time. There
is NO corollary option on a web forum.
How the heck could I kill-file Sellam on a web forum?
Who told you that managing a web forum would be simpler than managing
a mailing list?
Email offers many, many options for thread views, sorting, saving,
and sending that may be _available_ on a web forum, but that are not
variable on a web forum. What I mean is that depending on my mail
client, I can pre-sort list mail, see it in sequential order or as
threads, color-code various posters, etc. You can do some of that in
web fora, but every subscriber has the same very limited set of options
and views. As a mailing list, it's totally customizable by the user.
All the world is not HTML. I personally don't care much for the
World Wide Web, the software to "surf" it, or the content it attracts.
I've seen several LUG mailing lists go webbie, and a couple of
Unix/SIG lists go to forum basis. They all either folded or went
strictly L33T H4XX0RZ in a matter of months. It's a fool's interface,
and it attracts fools and hordes of dilettante subscribers.
Imagine 3 Jim Isbells for every serious collector on the list. I
really do not think that an exponential increase in subscriptions would
be anything but a disaster.
You mentioned ease-of-use and accesibility in another post. I've
received 350-odd emails today, mostly not spam, and will read it all and
reply to 30-40 of them tonight. I will very likely not touch my mouse
during that process. Please feel free to name a platform-independent
browser/forum combination that allows reading, sorting, and replying
with simple hotkey navigation.
Doc
>Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
That would explain its unpopularity, of course.
8 Mar
8 Mar
5:07 a.m.
At 10:05 PM 3/7/2005, Doc Shipley wrote:
You mentioned ease-of-use and accesibility in another
post. I've received 350-odd emails today, mostly not spam, and will read it all and
reply to 30-40 of them tonight. I will very likely not touch my mouse during that
process. Please feel free to name a platform-independent browser/forum combination that
allows reading, sorting, and replying with simple hotkey navigation.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X
Mach-O; en-US;
rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Glad to see you on board. :-)
- John
7 Mar
7 Mar
7:47 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 08:18 -0600, John Foust wrote:
At 08:03 AM 3/7/2005, you wrote:
OK, so I have a bad cold and don't have the cranial skills today to
formulate a convincing argument. But that sentence would nicely sum up
my argument if I had ;-)
cheers
J.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 07:38 -0600, John Foust
wrote:
That would explain its unpopularity, of course. Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
9:15 a.m.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, John Foust wrote:
That would explain its unpopularity, of course.
I agree, it'll never catch on.
Mail is superior to web in at least one instance: it's close as we
get to "abstract data" and can be rendered in truly different
ways. It's really low BW. Well except for the spam, attachments,
dead smtp ports, ...
ALso, I fetchmail all my mail from the server, and read/reply at
my leisure.
Plus, human culture is the reason we take part, not machine
efficiency; but I recognize we're close to the point where it may
fall on us and kill us if we continue to ignore it.
But what if it were links/lynx compatible? That fits on 24x80.
Yes, yes, I know not everyone has 24x80 with a green phosphor.
At 08:03 AM 3/7/2005, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 07:38 -0600, John Foust wrote:
Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
2:45 p.m.
At 08:03 AM 3/7/2005, you wrote:
Anybody who believes 'popular' == 'good' is, IMHO, a total idiot!
-tony
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 07:38 -0600, John Foust
wrote:
That would explain its unpopularity, of course. Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
4:22 p.m.
At 04:45 PM 3/7/2005, Tony Duell wrote:
I'd never say that, so logic dictates I must be a genius.
I wonder what I'd be if I said that if something was popular
that it must be bad.
There's also a persistent geek belief-system where, once they
believe a device is technologically superior, they think it
should be popular and all those who believe otherwise are idiots.
(Ask me, I was once an Amiga fanatic.)
I'm baffled by those who would gladly spend months searching for the
right NOS replacement part for a 20-year-old computer, and who would
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
I regard as minor gods because they generally know how to do dozens
of things I can't fathom, yet these same folk claim to be unable and
unwilling to locate and revive a cast-off PC with sufficient power
to run a contemporary web browser and/or connect to the net faster
than dialup. All because they're dead-certain that it's not better than
TECO and their VT-100? Lordy!
To wit, I'll summarize some of the savvy arguments posted so far against
web-based forums: Web sites are slow. Not all browsers can use them.
You need browser plug-ins to use web sites. They're not ASCII
and you can't save ASCII from them. You can't make a local copy.
I can't run 'grep' directly on them. I'm paying for Internet
by the byte and/or minute. I don't have room for another computer.
Web sites are always immediately overrun by clueless WinXP sufferers
and will drift off-topic. Web sites are confusing because all of
them don't have the same interface. Web sites are in reverse video.
You lose the ability to edit text when posting to a web site.
A few thoughts ran through my mind while I wrote this. One, the
phrase "Techno-Amish". Hurry, the domain name hasn't been registered.
Two, "They worship old technology, but they're scared of new technology."
Not a day goes by that I don't encounter a web- or programming-
related concept that is new to me. I've been geek and programmer
and reader and writer for all of my 41 years, and doing it for
money for about 25, but if I ever stop being curious about *new*
technology, please shoot me. Then you can have all my old stuff.
- John
At 08:03 AM
3/7/2005, you wrote:
Anybody who believes 'popular' == 'good' is, IMHO, a total idiot! On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 07:38 -0600, John Foust
wrote:
That would explain its unpopularity, of course. Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
4:52 p.m.
John wrote...
A few thoughts ran through my mind while I wrote this.
One, the
phrase "Techno-Amish". Hurry, the domain name hasn't been registered.
Two, "They worship old technology, but they're scared of new technology."
I don't think it's the fact that it's "new" that causes many
people here to
reject it. I think it's a case of people who firmly believe in using the
right tool for the right job. Most of us feel that this method of
communication should be via email because it's best for the job.
Jay
5:03 p.m.
At 04:45 PM 3/7/2005, Tony Duell wrote:
I'd never say that, so logic dictates I must be a genius.
False. A statemnt does not imply its inverse.
At 08:03
AM 3/7/2005, you wrote:
Anybody who believes 'popular' == 'good' is, IMHO, a total idiot! On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 07:38 -0600, John Foust
wrote:
> Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything?
That would explain its unpopularity, of course. I wonder what I'd be if I said that if something
was popular
that it must be bad.
That also happens to be false IMHO.
I'm baffled by those who would gladly spend months
searching for the
right NOS replacement part for a 20-year-old computer, and who would
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
I'd have thought most of those were natural for classicmp'ers...
I regard as minor gods because they generally know how
to do dozens
of things I can't fathom, yet these same folk claim to be unable and
unwilling to locate and revive a cast-off PC with sufficient power
to run a contemporary web browser and/or connect to the net faster
than dialup. All because they're dead-certain that it's not better than
TECO and their VT-100? Lordy!
Well I cetainly can't do any of those. I have never been offered a PC
faster than a 286. I certainly can't afford broadband. And I don't mind
admitting I am not clever enough to repair modern PCs, I don't have a BGA
rework station (although that is something I must think about sometime),
and actually I don't particularly want to spend my time doing any of
that.
[...]
A few thoughts ran through my mind while I wrote this.
One, the
phrase "Techno-Amish". Hurry, the domain name hasn't been registered.
Two, "They worship old technology, but they're scared of new technology."
I am not particularly scared of new technology. I am scared (or rather I
object to) using inappropriate technology. For the <nth> time, just
because something is new does not automatically make it better than that
which came before. Classicmp'ers more than anyone should realise that.
There are times when IMHO the more modern solution is better. I use
e-mail a lot more than paper mail or voice telephone. I use a word
processeor (actually an editor and formatter) more than a typewriter
(although there are times when I use a typewriter). I use an electronic
calculator more than a slide rule (but again I do use the latter from
time to time).
And there are also times when for what I want to do the more modern
solution is _NOT_ an improvement. I much perfer a command line to a GUI.
I much prefer mailing lists to web fora. I prefer large-format film
cameras to digital cameras. And so on.
Not a day goes by that I don't encounter a web- or programming-
related concept that is new to me. I've been geek and programmer
I learn something every day too. The day I stop learning is the day I am
6' under in a pine box.
-tony
8:20 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
Tony Duell wrote:
Hmm sand and bamboo how would you do that ?...
I'm baffled
by those who would gladly spend months searching for the
right NOS replacement part for a 20-year-old computer, and who would
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
I am not particularly scared of new technology. I am
scared (or rather I
object to) using inappropriate technology. For the <nth> time, just
because something is new does not automatically make it better than that
which came before. Classicmp'ers more than anyone should realise that.
Well I tust visible techology as compared to hidden or controled techology.
I learn something every day too. The day I stop
learning is the day I am
6' under in a pine box.
Well don't snore TOO loud ... you might wake the other dead.
-tony
8 Mar
8 Mar
3:15 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 21:20 -0700, woodelf wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
Hmm sand and bamboo how would you do that ?...
Argh, don't ask things like that.
You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty well. Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
Some sort of mechanical effort would be needed to lift sand again in
order to combat gravity pulling sand downward.
Not much different from a relay computer really, I suppose. Just slower.
And more sandy.
(I think you got your attribution wrong by the way! Tony might enjoy
such a challenge :)
cheers
Jules
I'm
baffled by those who would gladly spend months searching for the
right NOS replacement part for a 20-year-old computer, and who would
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
9:06 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty well.
Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
I think you'd have better luck lighting a fire with the bamboo and
smelting the sand to make silicon and go straight for IC technology.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
9:44 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 09:06 -0800, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
Can you make batteries from bamboo though?
You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty
well. Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
I think you'd have better luck lighting a fire with the bamboo and
smelting the sand to make silicon and go straight for IC technology. 
9:46 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
And thusly Jules Richardson spake:
If you are The Professor.
:)
Ahoy!,
Bryan Pope
I think you'd have better luck lighting a
fire with the bamboo and
smelting the sand to make silicon and go straight for IC technology.
Can you make batteries from bamboo though?
10 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
> > You've got gravity. Dry sand flows
pretty well. Bamboo is hollow and so
> > can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
> > could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
> > gates.
> I think you'd have better luck lighting a
fire with the bamboo and
> smelting the sand to make silicon and go straight for IC technology.
Can you make batteries from bamboo though?
Sure, I don't see why a salt or fruit based series of batteries would
be out of the question. Remember the potato-based webserver? What do
you -mean- I missed the point?
-dhbarr.
11:14 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 09:06 -0800, Vintage Computer
Festival wrote:
Coconuts (I learned that trick from Gilligan's Island).
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
Can you make batteries from bamboo though? You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty
well. Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
I think you'd have better luck lighting a fire with the bamboo and
smelting the sand to make silicon and go straight for IC technology.
3:53 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
Can you make batteries from bamboo though?
Any fruit around? 2 differnet metals in a bit of fruit makes a crude
electrochemical cell....
I once ran a calculator from an apple with a bit of copper pipe and a
galvanised nail stuck in it,. It was a Newtonsday demonstration for HPCC.....
-tony
9 Mar
9 Mar
3:54 a.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 23:53 +0000, Tony Duell wrote:
I don't think there's even any metal around. Just sand and bamboo...
Mind you, that might make cutting bamboo difficult. Maybe you get a saw.
Can you make batteries from bamboo though?
Any fruit around? 2 differnet metals in a bit of fruit makes a crude
electrochemical cell.... 
8 Mar
8 Mar
1:22 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 21:20 -0700, woodelf wrote:
But the sand would wear down the channels, making the fit looser. An
interesting form of bit-rot...
Gordon.
Tony Duell wrote:
Hmm sand and bamboo how would you do that ?...
Argh, don't ask things like that.
You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty well. Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
Some sort of mechanical effort would be needed to lift sand again in
order to combat gravity pulling sand downward.
Not much different from a relay computer really, I suppose. Just slower.
And more sandy.
(I think you got your attribution wrong by the way! Tony might enjoy
such a challenge :) I'm
baffled by those who would gladly spend months searching for the
right NOS replacement part for a 20-year-old computer, and who would
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
2:46 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: OT:techology
You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty well.
Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
cheers
Jules
How fast would the sand have to flow to invoke the Coanda effect for a
fluidic gate ?
Geoff.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.0 - Release Date: 08/03/05
3:56 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:46 +0000, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: OT:techology
OK, so I went a-googling. Is speed an issue, or merely the shape of the
bamboo?
You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty
well. Bamboo is hollow and so
can be used to channel dry sand around. Different lengths of bamboo
could be used to introduce delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic
gates.
cheers
Jules
How fast would the sand have to flow to invoke the Coanda effect for a
fluidic gate ? 
10 Mar
10 Mar
5 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
>>>> "Jules" == Jules Richardson
<julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
Jules> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 21:20 -0700, woodelf wrote:
> Hmm sand and bamboo how would you do that ?...
Jules> Argh, don't ask things like that.
Jules> You've got gravity. Dry sand flows pretty well. Bamboo is
Jules> hollow and so can be used to channel dry sand
Jules> around. Different lengths of bamboo could be used to introduce
Jules> delays. Doubtless you could make basic logic gates.
Slightly different, but... many years ago I read some articles about
"fluidics" -- a clever no-moving-parts technology for creating the
equivalent of simple logic gates powered by gas or fluid flow. The
basic idea is that you can guide a jet of fluid or gas into one of two
outlets by sending it a steering pressure from one side or the other.
Presto changeo, a "form C" relay, or if you wish, a buffer/inverter.
I thought of building some logic with that, but being only about 12
years old at the time I didn't have the facilities. Anyway, clearly
building a small computer out of those parts is a good exercise for
the student.
paul
8 Mar
8 Mar
3:14 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and
bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
9 Mar
9 Mar
2:36 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:14:28 +0000 (GMT)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
Hmm sand and bamboo how would you do that ?...
Well, my first thought is that sand is SiO_2, so you could try to
reduce it to silicon and make transistors.
We'd not be able to make transistors with just sand. There are
essential doping agents. I'm not sure arsenic can be easily extracted
cheerfully
build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a
desert >island given a
proper vacation, or who've memorized the
arcana of all >mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100
years, or whom>
from bamboo...
4:24 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
Well, my first
thought is that sand is SiO_2, so you could try to
reduce it to silicon and make transistors.
We'd not be able to make transistors with just sand. There are
essential doping agents. I'm not sure arsenic can be easily extracted
from bamboo... from thsoe.
-tony
6:06 p.m.
New subject: OT:techology
Tony Duell wrote:
True, but sand is not _pure_ SiO_2, and there are
probably other
rocks/minerals around. You might well be able to extract suitable dopants
from thsoe.
Well collect it from the ocean & if you are that smart talk to the
whales too. :)
-tony
Ben alias woodelf.
PS. I am just watching some Japanese anime : "Nadia-The Secret of the
blue water"
and it was inspired by '20,000 leagues under the sea. The japanese are
very creative
with alternate time-lines and other histories so if you like older
techology or strange
adapation of techology like Nemo's Sub they are a great thing to watch
as well as having
a good story.
8 Mar
8 Mar
2:39 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: minor list changes
I learn something every day too. The day I stop
learning is the day I am
6' under in a pine box.
-tony
Don't be so old -fashioned , it's cardboard boxes these days - less impact
on the enviroment :>)
Geoff.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.0 - Release Date: 08/03/05
7 Mar
7 Mar
5:17 p.m.
There's also a persistent geek belief-system
where, once they
believe a device is technologically superior, they think it
should be popular and all those who believe otherwise are idiots.
The irony is, one person here seems to have precisely that perspective
when it comes to web forums. I wonder who that is. Hmm.
To wit, I'll summarize some of the savvy arguments
posted so far against
web-based forums: Web sites are slow. Not all browsers can use them.
You need browser plug-ins to use web sites. They're not ASCII
and you can't save ASCII from them. You can't make a local copy.
I can't run 'grep' directly on them. I'm paying for Internet
by the byte and/or minute. I don't have room for another computer.
Web sites are always immediately overrun by clueless WinXP sufferers
and will drift off-topic. Web sites are confusing because all of
them don't have the same interface. Web sites are in reverse video.
You lose the ability to edit text when posting to a web site.
And these are bad arguments why? Are these reasons somehow unjustified?
Especially things like connect charges, software incompatibilities, ...
I don't see why it's unreasonable to assert these things or how it can
be determined necessarily that the reason proceeds from nothing other
than codgerism. Perhaps people really are concerned about text editing
ability? Should that be ignored in the face of all that is new and allegedly
wonderful when in reality it might simply just be new and sucky?
A few thoughts ran through my mind while I wrote this.
One, the
phrase "Techno-Amish". Hurry, the domain name hasn't been registered.
Two, "They worship old technology, but they're scared of new technology."
I prefer Neo-Luddite.
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- The idea is to die young as late as possible. -- Ashley Montagu ------------
6:21 p.m.
John Foust wrote:
I'm baffled by those who would gladly spend months
searching for the
right NOS replacement part for a 20-year-old computer, and who would
cheerfully build their own computer out of sand and bamboo on a desert
island given a proper vacation, or who've memorized the arcana of all
mechanical and electrical technology in the last 100 years, or whom
I regard as minor gods because they generally know how to do dozens
of things I can't fathom, yet these same folk claim to be unable and
unwilling to locate and revive a cast-off PC with sufficient power
to run a contemporary web browser and/or connect to the net faster
than dialup. All because they're dead-certain that it's not better than
TECO and their VT-100? Lordy!
Ah, stereotyping is alive and well.
A few thoughts ran through my mind while I wrote this.
One, the
phrase "Techno-Amish". Hurry, the domain name hasn't been registered.
Two, "They worship old technology, but they're scared of new technology."
I fail to see how the list you summarized indicates the users are
scared. I agree some (no room for another machine) might not hold up
under severe scrutiny (Honey, no room for a PC/104 IBM, but I just took
deilvery of a PDP-11), but the others seem quite pragmatic.
I am a web developer. I'm also an applications architect. I use web
forums, I use SMTP and IMAP and POP3. I have plenty of web-capable boxen
here. I love Firefox. I still agree with the sentiment that web forums
are not the best fit for discussions. They do have the advantage of
zero-client footprint, but that creates drawbacks as well. I'm not sure
Jay would lose me if he went to a web forum (Yes, I already saw his post
about it not happening, but still), but I do know that I am on a half
dozen Commodore web forums. They are cute, they have relevant
information. But, when time gets scarce, the aggregated flow of
information via pseudo-push that SMTP/IMAP/POP3 provides makes it easier
to stay up on this list, while the web forums get neglected.
At some point, web forums will grow up and get a RSS-like two way
protocol. When that happens, and I can aggregate forums and use an
alternative app to read them, and that app can dload the forum content
in batches, I'm a happy man. Web forums today are much like the Web in
1994, before WWWW, Altavista, and Google. Of the 1000s of web pages of
note, it was hard to research information. When search engines came
along, suddenly, there was an aggregated way to obtain information, and
the web became much more useful for research. Time will create a killer
web forum aggregator, and I'll be happy to see it come, but until it
does arrive (and I do not have time to work on such a thing), email is
the platform of choice for this Techno-Liberal.
One can't help but wonder if the web forum thread is half-serious, half
troll. Especially considering the list makeup. I probably should feed
the troll, but the stereotyping thing seemed a bit overkill.
In other news, I could many screenfuls of this thread, and the poor XP
user has been beaten into submission. Can I ask that we kill the
threads and move onto new (and hopefully more on-topic) discussions (via
email, of course)? Or, is there some shread of trivial information that
the list has not yet bludgened to death?
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations
brain at jbrain.com http://www.jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
8:50 p.m.
[Web forums] do have the advantage of zero-client
footprint,
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I have been unable to think of
any meaning that is actually true, at least for me. Unless someone can
come up with one that's actually usable in lynx.
At some point, web forums will grow up and get a
RSS-like two way
protocol.
...at which point they will be basically reinventing email, badly.
Or - maybe but not likely - well, in which case they will grow to
replace email, and we'll all be the better for it.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
3:05 p.m.
I fail to see how the list you summarized indicates
the users are
scared. I agree some (no room for another machine) might not hold up
under severe scrutiny (Honey, no room for a PC/104 IBM, but I just took
deilvery of a PDP-11), but the others seem quite pragmatic.
You don't know how little space I've got left.....
Anyway, PDP11s are not hard to accomodate. The CPU is quite often a
single 10.5" (or even 5.25") rackmount box. That goes in a rack with
other stuff. And if there's no space in the rack, then it just sits on
top of something else. And something else goes on top. It's a nice,
cuboidal, module
The PC processor box is much the same, sure. But the monitor isn't.
Monitors don't often go in racks (Yes, rackmount ones do exist, but they
are not common or cheap). They are irregularly shaped boxes that don't
stack nicely.
For me to run a so-called modern PC, I would need a new monitor, and that
is something I certainly can't accomodate
-tony
7 Mar
7 Mar
8:39 p.m.
I'm baffled by those who [are, well,
classiccmpers], yet these same
folk claim to be unable and unwilling to locate and revive a cast-off
PC with sufficient power to run a contemporary web browser and/or
connect to the net faster than dialup.
I'm not unable to. I'm unwilling to because I believe it would present
a significantly inferior interface - and a significantly more expensive
one besides, in money, time-and-effort, or both.
To wit, I'll summarize some of the savvy arguments
posted so far
against web-based forums: [...].
I note you don't actually reply to, much less rebut, any of them.
[...], "They worship old technology, but
they're scared of new
technology."
As somoene who has posted weighing in on that side-- I'm not scared of
new technology.
I don't dislike GUI web browsers because they're New and Different; I
dislike them because I've used them and found them inferior (for most
purposes, this one included).
I don't dislike reverse video because it's New and Modern; I dislike it
because I've used it and find it significantly more tiring to my eyes
(when used for any significant length of time - reverse video *is*
easier to read for very brief stuff, say a line or two, but gets very
wearing for much more than that, at least on self-luminant displays).
I don't dislike Windows because it's popular to dislike Windows; I
dislike it because I worked for a month as a Windows sysadmin and found
that a large and significant fraction of the popular criticisms were
warranted.
And I don't dislike Web fora because they're New and Different and I'm
scared of having to use them; I dislike them for the reasons I listed
in a past message. If you can't get anything from that list but the
impression that I'm scared of them, well, I see no point trying to
carry this conversation any further.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:23 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Anybody whoe believes that everything popular is bad is also a total idiot.
At 08:03 AM
3/7/2005, you wrote:
Anybody who believes 'popular' == 'good' is, IMHO, a total idiot!
-tony On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 07:38 -0600, John Foust
wrote:
That would explain its unpopularity, of course. Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as
opposed to the web?
Because the web is shit for just about everything? 
7 Mar
7 Mar
7:40 a.m.
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:38 AM, John Foust wrote:
Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list
as opposed to the web?
- John
A wiki was setup some time ago, it's currently withering on the vine..
http://www.flummux.org/cgi-bin/ccwiki.pl?ClassicComputerWiki
There have been no updates since 5-mar-2004.
There is a place for you do describe yourself, Places for machines
where the
lore that we all keep can be stored and enjoyed.
9:34 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Ron Hudson once stated:
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:38 AM, John Foust wrote:
Wow! It's been up for a *year* now? Geeze time flies ...
Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list
as opposed to the web?
A wiki was setup some time ago, it's currently withering on the vine..
http://www.flummux.org/cgi-bin/ccwiki.pl?ClassicComputerWiki
There have been no updates since 5-mar-2004. There is a place for you do describe yourself, Places
for machines
where the
lore that we all keep can be stored and enjoyed.
That site is backed up nightly (I should know---I setup the Wiki in
question, and the backup job) so it going away isn't a problem.
-spc (wow ... a year ... )
7:46 a.m.
Talk about the inevitability of using modern tools to
support
our habit of old computers.
There are those that would fight the inevitable forever if able. The
Amish still use horse and buggy, don't they?
A few more Slashdottings on interesting topics and
this list
could expand.
Even without that I think the hobby is growing substantially. We don't
need some sudden influx when the steady growth may well do the same thing.
Yes, a web forum would be Different and All, but at
least it
throws away all this haggling about list traffic and MX debugging.
A little LAMP server, a little postNuke, we could be up in minutes.
"We" already are. There are several vintage computer discussion boards
out there including my own.
Yes, I know it would require a modern web browser. Is
this the
Civil War re-enactor list? Are my buttons and hardtack not
authentic enough? Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list
as opposed to the web?
The luddites are coming, the luddites are coming! :)
I've heard the same arguments from list aficionados as from newsgroup
hounds about why web forums suck. The bottom line, though, is that
"Change is BAD!" (tm)
--
Erik Klein
www.vintage-computer.com
www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum
The Vintage Computer Forum
8:21 p.m.
Erik Klein wrote:
PBBBT!
I really don't think I'm a Luddite. I certainly don't fear change,
in life or in computing. I *am*, however, a lazy son-of-a-bitch, and
have broken one wrist and dislocated both thumbs and several fingers
more than once.
Read 350 posts to a mailing list, in a well-configured mail client of
your choice.
Read 350 posts to any web forum.
Go Google "therbligs".
Better yet, Google therbligs first, and consider the concept while
you try to navigate the New! Improved! Web Forum.
It's not the New! part that sucks, it's the "This Sucks" part that
sucks.
Doc
Talk about the
inevitability of using modern tools to support
our habit of old computers.
There are those that would fight the inevitable forever if able. The
Amish still use horse and buggy, don't they?
A few more Slashdottings on interesting topics and
this list
could expand.
Even without that I think the hobby is growing substantially. We don't
need some sudden influx when the steady growth may well do the same thing.
Yes, a web forum would be Different and All, but
at least it
throws away all this haggling about list traffic and MX debugging.
A little LAMP server, a little postNuke, we could be up in minutes.
"We" already are. There are several vintage computer discussion boards
out there including my own.
Yes, I know it would require a modern web browser.
Is this the
Civil War re-enactor list? Are my buttons and hardtack not
authentic enough? Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list
as opposed to the web?
The luddites are coming, the luddites are coming! :)
I've heard the same arguments from list aficionados as from newsgroup
hounds about why web forums suck. The bottom line, though, is that
"Change is BAD!" (tm)
8 Mar
8 Mar
5:39 a.m.
At 10:21 PM 3/7/2005, Doc Shipley wrote:
Read 350 posts to a mailing list, in a
well-configured mail client of your choice.
Read 350 posts to any web forum.
Go Google "therbligs".
You're on track... the most time-wasting thing is the distraction
of starting to look at other interesting sites, not the keystrokes
and mouse movements you carried out to do it.
Better yet, Google therbligs first, and consider the
concept while you try to navigate the New! Improved! Web Forum.
It's not the New! part that sucks, it's the "This Sucks" part that
sucks.
Therbligs. Interesting and relevant. Hadn't heard of them
before. Would love to see some charted, in color. Color itself
as a clue to whether two motions were dissonant! Wonderful!
See my 2001 post below. However, in terms of time and motion, it
might be easier to scroll down (using your choice of interface)
rather than telling you to 'grep' your personal archive (and hoping
you hadn't pre-filtered and trashed the message) and assuming that
I can't simply include a hyperlink to it because this would
offend those on slower, non-WWW-capable computers.
- John
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:45:39 -0500
To: classiccmp at classiccmp.org
From: John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com>
Subject: Re: ID computer
At 11:10 PM 5/22/01 -0400, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
In his interview in ``Programmers at
Work,'' he stated he didn't care for
mice at all, as it forces you to relocate your hands from the keyboard to
the mouse, and that most navigation could be done faster via the keyboard
than with a mouse [3]. And his current work he mentions his dislike of the
mouse.
[3] In my experience, that's true once you learn how to navigate a
document via the keyboard. But there are some things I like using
a mouse for though.
It's interesting to note that another Apple-raised interface
theorist, Bruce Tognazzini, http://www.asktog.com/ believes
(and claims to have tested and proved) that keyboard-based,
chording shortcut users engage in a momentary lapse of consciousness
in which they recall and then position their hands for the
keystroke, and that although they *think* they're faster
than a mouse, they're not.
See his 1991 book "Tog on Interface", where he claims in the 80s
Apple performed $50M in tests that showed that people consistently
reported believing that keyboarding (using shortcuts, etc.) was faster
than mousing, yet the stopwatch consistently showed that mousing was
faster than keyboarding.
His explanation for this is that deciding among abstract symbols is
a high-level cognitive function, and that this decision is not only
boring, but that the user experiences near-amnesia in the approximately
two seconds needed to remember the chord keystroke. On the other hand,
Tog also argues that two-handed chords (think the handy cut-and-paste
CTRL/C /V) result in solid productivity gains.
Around page 180, where in fact he discusses Raskin's Cat interface and
the decision to use a single dedicated key for operations such as "Find",
Tog admits was actually fifty times faster than the Mac's mouse-move.
This reminds me of the old joke about voice interface word processors:
"Up, up, up, left, left, left, left, no right, stop, yes, right
there ... delete that word." Or the other half of the joke, where
people poke their head over a cubicle wall and shout a command
like "format c: yes i am sure".
- John
6:28 a.m.
John Foust wrote:
At 10:21 PM 3/7/2005, Doc Shipley wrote:
I don't think anyone's claimed speed of disposition as a criterion.
Clock time and efficiency of interface are completely unrelated.
Read 350 posts to a mailing list, in a
well-configured mail client of your choice.
Read 350 posts to any web forum.
Go Google "therbligs".
You're on track... the most time-wasting thing is the distraction
of starting to look at other interesting sites, not the keystrokes
and mouse movements you carried out to do it. Therbligs. Interesting and relevant. Hadn't
heard of them
before. Would love to see some charted, in color. Color itself
as a clue to whether two motions were dissonant! Wonderful!
See my 2001 post below. However, in terms of time and motion, it
might be easier to scroll down (using your choice of interface)
rather than telling you to 'grep' your personal archive (and hoping
you hadn't pre-filtered and trashed the message) and assuming that
I can't simply include a hyperlink to it because this would
offend those on slower, non-WWW-capable computers.
So far in this thread, you've not actually rebutted *anyone's*
arguments in favor of mailing lists and have resorted to tangential
irrelevancies and veiled insults.
Since you also haven't named a single web forum or even a single
feature of web fora as an example of their superior features, I have to
assume you've conceded the whole point.
Doc
7 Mar
7 Mar
9:52 a.m.
Yes, I know it would require a modern web browser. Is
this the Civil
War re-enactor list? Are my buttons and hardtack not authentic
enough? Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list as opposed to
the web?
Speaking entirely personally - because it's better.
(A) It doesn't require me to go check it; the mail shows up in my
mailbox along with all my other mail, rather than making me go
check N different web fora, N being the number of such lists I am
on.
(B) The interface is uniform across them all, and is chosen by *me*, by
my choice of MUA, not chosen according to someone else's idea of
what looks good or works well, and different for each forum.
(C) And if it truly does "require a modern web browser" (meaning some
GUI horror instead of something like lynx), there are additional
problems.
(C.i) It requires mouse use, rather than being purely keyboard driven.
(C.ii) It generally cannot be gotten out of reverse video (looking at
reverse video for any significant time is quite uncomfortable for
me, since I use a self-luminant display technology) and if it can
it usually breaks the inteface design badly.
(C.iii) They're big and bloated (lynx, source alone, is nearly twice as
big as my whole MUA including compiled binaries, and I don't even
want to think about a "modern" web browser).
(C.iv) "requires a modenr web browser" usually means "requires gaping
security holes like ActiveX or JavaScript", which are totally
unacceptable.
(C.v) Web browser text input fields are _not_ an acceptable substitute
for a real text editor - especially not *my choice of* text editor
(this harks back to point (B)).
There are probably others, but any one of those is reason enough to me.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
2:42 p.m.
Yes, a web forum would be Different and All, but at
least it
throws away all this haggling about list traffic and MX debugging.
A little LAMP server, a little postNuke, we could be up in minutes.
Yes, I know it would require a modern web browser. Is this the
It would certainly get rid of me, and a fair few others, I suspect.
The reasons are simple :
1) The major advantage of a mailing list is that you read it off-line.
You can take as long as you need to look things up, take machines apart
to check things, asn so (yus, I do do that to answer questions here). I
would not want to do that if I was paying for the time (which I would be
if it was a web-based forum).
2) None of my machines can run a modern web browser. If you want me to
run one, then you can get me a machine, you can get me a house extension
to house it, and you can maintain it for as long as I want to use it. I'm
quite happy with the machines I've got, thank you. Yes, I'd miss this
list, but I think I could live without it...
3) Web-based fora seem to attract a lot more off-topic garbage than
mailing lists. I suspect we'd be overrun with XP questions within a week
(or less).
4) I can keep an archive on my own machine of postings that interest me
(read : apply to machines I'm restoring). That way I can read them at all
times (telephone changes are generaly too high for me to dial in during
the working day).
Civil War re-enactor list? Are my buttons and
hardtack not
authentic enough? Why the emotional attraction to a mailing list
as opposed to the web?
It's not an emotioanl attraction. I just don't believe that a more modern
solution is necessarily superior to that which it claims to replace in
all cases -- which is why I use film-based cameras (for all I can see the
advantage of digial for, say, press photography), why I use a
command-line user interface, why I draw schematics by hand (I'll use a
CAD system when I find one that actually _aids_ rather than hinders me),
and why I prefre mailing lists to web fora for things like this.
-tony
3:41 p.m.
On Mon, March 7, 2005 2:42 pm, Tony Duell said:
3) Web-based fora seem to attract a lot more off-topic
garbage than
mailing lists. I suspect we'd be overrun with XP questions within a week
(or less).
I won't respond to 1 and 2 because I agree that they are advantages of
lists versus forums.
I can easily refute #3 above, though, since my forums are not at all
"overrun" by any off-topic nonsense. In fact, this very list has had a
much higher percentage of blatantly off-topic posts since I've been a
member than my forums ever have.
I do get the occassional off-topic posts, but I have message areas to
redirect those to.
Also, I can actually go back and delete off-topic nonsense at any time.
You can't unsend an email. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage,
but I prefer to think of it as a benefit in responsible hands.
--
Erik Klein
www.vintage-computer.com
www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum
The Vintage Computer Forum
7226
days inactive
7231
days old
75 comments
28 participants
participants (28)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
aw288＠osfn.org -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
brain＠jbrain.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
classiccmp＠vintage-computer.com -
dhbarr＠gmail.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
frustum＠pacbell.net -
geoffreythomas＠onetel.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
kenziem＠sympatico.ca -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
ron.hudson＠sbcglobal.net -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
tomj＠wps.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
vcf＠siconic.com -
vrs＠msn.com