[NTLUG:Discuss] separate lists?
Erich Morfeld
redbeard at zensearch.net
Tue Mar 28 15:04:45 CST 2000
Howdy, I am too new to Linux to post answers but I have been known to post questions, from which I have received valuable assistance and knowledge.
As mostly a lurker here it occurs to me that despite the absurdly long thread about what the list is/n't, this list doesn't have that much volume, certainly not enough for partitioning by topic, and I have yet to read anything that doesn't belong here. That having been said, that doesn't mean I read anywhere near every post. I don't read most of the questions about hardware because a) I don't have those devices and b) I wouldn't have the answers. I should think that everyone could be adult enough to handle ANY question/comment/humor/bulletin about Linux as well as a little of the same in anti-otherOS. Read what you want and send the rest to /dev/null.
$0.02
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:00:07 GMT discuss-admin at ntlug.org wrote:
>
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:50:18 -0600
>From: Chris Cox <ccox at dallas.beasys.com>
>Reply-To: cjcox at acm.org
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>With regards the separate list ideas....
>
>We may want to consider deprecating "discuss".
>
>I think it's reasonable to have a "help" list, but I worry about
>changing
>the meaning of the "discuss" list if we keep that name. Rename it,
>and I think there will less problems.
>
>I think most people regard the "discuss" list as the "help" list.
>If a "help" list is created, my guess is that many of the
>"old discuss" list people will want to subscribe to it ...enough to even
>suggest defaulting to it in a conversion. Perhaps the "new discuss"
>or whatever it gets named (if you like this idea) would be the
>list which people would have to sign up "new" for.
>
>(pardon the awkward reading....hopefully I made something clear)
>
>Just an idea,
>Chris
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 9
>From: "Daniel Shipman" <daniel at srj.net>
>To: <discuss at ntlug.org>
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:58:08 -0600
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>How pathetic the discussion list has become! - It was once very - very
>good... now it's a bunch of crap about filters, hurt feelings, what a 12
>year old should and shouldn't see, what kind of employees we should hire,
>and other crap!
>
>I suggest that another list be created "The Pathetic LUG Argument List" -
>that way the rest of the list can get back to real issues.
>
>Just my 2 cents worth
>
>
>
>----------
>> From: Chris Cox <ccox at dallas.beasys.com>
>> To: discuss at ntlug.org
>> Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
>> Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:50 PM
>>
>> With regards the separate list ideas....
>>
>> We may want to consider deprecating "discuss".
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to have a "help" list, but I worry about
>> changing
>> the meaning of the "discuss" list if we keep that name. Rename it,
>> and I think there will less problems.
>>
>> I think most people regard the "discuss" list as the "help" list.
>> If a "help" list is created, my guess is that many of the
>> "old discuss" list people will want to subscribe to it ...enough to even
>> suggest defaulting to it in a conversion. Perhaps the "new discuss"
>> or whatever it gets named (if you like this idea) would be the
>> list which people would have to sign up "new" for.
>>
>> (pardon the awkward reading....hopefully I made something clear)
>>
>> Just an idea,
>> Chris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:04:57 -0600
>From: "George E. Lass" <George.Lass at osc.com>
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>Chris Cox wrote:
>
>> I think most people regard the "discuss" list as the "help" list.
>
>I for one do just that.
>
>> If a "help" list is created, my guess is that many of the
>> "old discuss" list people will want to subscribe to it ...enough to even
>> suggest defaulting to it in a conversion.
>
>That would be the way I would recommend doing it!
>
>George
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:45:52 -0600
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>From: Stuart Yarus <syarus at dallas.beasys.com>
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
><38DEF4DA.3EEF72B9 at airmail.net>
><38DF68FD.9621DE62 at unspecific.com>
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>Offhand, I see two reasons for splitting a list: truly divergent topics and
>too much traffic.
>
>I'm not sure there's enough traffic to justify another list. At one
>extreme, there are lists which generate too much traffic on a more-or-less
>single topic, and are not split. The results are usually not easy to work
>with, but that's the way it is. The number of messages that comes through
>my inbox from discuss is usually well below my threshhold of pain.
>
>Certainly many of the topics discussed are of no interest to some of us.
>Once we start splitting discuss, there will be more fragmentation. Where
>does it end?
>
>How many of us would subscribe to all the lists anyway? (that's not a
>rhetorical question, nor a request for a survey... yet) I probably would,
>because most everything Linux-connected is of interest to me; I like NTLUG
>and the people connected to it; the traffic volume is not a problem for me;
>and I learn things from the list - I'm far from guru status.
>
>I like the status quo.
>
>At 04:50 PM 03/27/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>>With regards the separate list ideas....
>>
>>We may want to consider deprecating "discuss".
>>
>>I think it's reasonable to have a "help" list, but I worry about
>>changing
>>the meaning of the "discuss" list if we keep that name. Rename it,
>>and I think there will less problems.
>>
>>I think most people regard the "discuss" list as the "help" list.
>>If a "help" list is created, my guess is that many of the
>>"old discuss" list people will want to subscribe to it ...enough to even
>>suggest defaulting to it in a conversion. Perhaps the "new discuss"
>>or whatever it gets named (if you like this idea) would be the
>>list which people would have to sign up "new" for.
>>
>>(pardon the awkward reading....hopefully I made something clear)
>>
>>Just an idea,
>>Chris
>>
>
>
>
>Stuart Yarus
>BEA Systems, Inc. voice: +1 972-943-5041
>4965 Preston Park Blvd. fax: +1 972-943-5111
>Suite 500 email: syarus at beasys.com
>Plano, Texas 75093-5150 WWW: http://www.beasys.com/
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 13
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:03:10 -0600
>From: Steve Baker <sjbaker1 at airmail.net>
>Reply-To: sjbaker1 at airmail.net
>Organization: Steve at Home
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>MadHat wrote:
>
>> On the comments that that the guidelines are out of date because of the
>> entries on "me too" posts and on not replying with less that is quoted
>> and the length of the sig. All three of these are not completely based
>> on bandwidth, but at the same time are. Now it was argued that a 10
>> line signature takes no more time than a 4 line.
>
>I didn't say *no* more time - but certainly negligably more.
>
>"Me Too" posts are just annoying - I'm not (personally) concerned
>about the bandwidth they consume. It's the waste of muscle effort
>to reach all the way over to that delete key that I resent :-)
>
>> Well, it has been that 4 lines is the "proper" netiquette for a
>> signature, so that is where that number came from, and if you choose not
>> to follow that, that is your choice. This and the items on "me too"
>> posts and the quoting were included because if you add 100 bytes to your
>> message, then send it to the list, that is 100 bytes * 300 members =
>> 30Kb.
>
>OK - so that's 30Kb - let's go nuts and assume that this happens 100 times
>a day. That's 3Mb per day.
>
>> Now remember, we have our mail hosted by Hex.net, they have to
>> pay for the bandwidth and if you have really large signatures, or quote
>> a 200 line message for 4 lines of reply, that is more bandwidth they
>> have to pay for.
>
>I certainly wouldn't want to do anything that would upset our generous
>hosts - but think about this...
>
>Hex.net is an ISP - and 3Mb per day is negligable compared to one teenager's
>daily download of dubious pictures from alt.pictures.fetishes.warthog
>
>I very much doubt that any ISP would conceivably even notice an extra 3Mb
>per day of bandwidth.
>
>> It is all just being considerate.
>
>Sure - within reason - but the ultra-tight bandwidth saving rules are
>truly out-dated and could be dispensed with.
>
>Modern bandwidth saving rules should say stuff like "Don't post pictures"
>"Don't add binary attachments greater than 5Kb", "No Posts over 70Kb"...that
>kind of thing.
>
>> Not to mention that
>> by trimming down the replied section of the email it is often easier for
>> people to read. No, it is not necessary to have more new lines than
>> quoted line, it is just a guideline to try to use.
>
>That's true.
>
>> Next, no I didn't go in and say, this item is on topic and this one is
>> not and this one is, etc... because we all know, more or less :~)
>
>But that's where this entire thread started. Let me review: It started
>with a post about a marginally interesting/not-quite-on-topic Linux
>"press release". That earned the poster a mild 'wrist slap'.
>
>There was considerable doubt as to whether it deserved that or not.
>
>Several members said that if we are going to wrist slap people for
>somewhat-off-topic posts (which has happened TWICE since then - something
>pretty much unprecedented on any other list I subscribe to), you'd better
>explain in some detail what you consider to be on and what off topic.
>
>In response we get a lecture about netequette - which may or may not
>be relevent in the year 2000 - I don't really care.
>
>In the end, we are no closer to knowing what are the ground rules for
>content posted here.
>
>So, I say again, either post DETAILED content rules or stop telling people
>off for what they post.
>
>> Honestly, is something about a MS commercial's music
>> about Linux, even indirectly? Not that I can see. Is talking about how
>> MS has stated how bad Linux is Linux related? I think so.
>
>Actually, it was the only NTLUG post of the entire day that interested me!
>
>Whilst it wasn't about Linux, it was Anti-Microsoft - and for a good
>proportion of Linux people, that's virtually the same thing. It perhaps
>wasn't exactly on-topic - but it didn't deserve a wrist slap.
>
>> As for the Press releases, in my eyes they are fine, as long as you
>> think it pertains to the group and you have something to say about it or
>> want to start a discussion about it. If you are just wanting to pass
>> that article on, this really isn't the proper place.
>
>So did it *really* deserve a public wrist-slap?
>
>--
>Steve Baker http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
>sjbaker1 at airmail.net (home) http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
>sjbaker at hti.com (work)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 14
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:10:31 -0600
>From: "Bobby L. Sanders" <ssanders at vzinet.com>
>Organization: Sanders & Sanders
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] Unix based html editors
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>I like Xemacs
>
>http://xemacs.org/
>
>running in html3 mode. Very quick. Even allows you to ftp to your site from within Xemacs, edit a file and transfer it back to the site - you can run your regular ftp commands in an interactive buffer. In the html mode, you can "colorize" the tags, it
>checks for opening and closing tags, automatic pop up of available tags tailored to where you are in the html codes. Truly nice. Think you will love it. Should build on all *nix boxes, plus there are ports to M$W and Mac. Finally, your boss will love the
>price - it is GNUed.
>
>Bobby
>
>
>feo at writeme.com wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I am asking for recommendations concerning a "unix or linux" based html editor? My employer is frugal (cheap), but our developers are asking. We know that netscape has composer as a basic editor and need more functionality.
>>
>> I am hoping that the collective experience within the list can point me to one that can be used in linux, solaris, or HP-UX platforms. That means can it be ported or built on those platforms. If I can identify a list of two or three, we can hit the boss up!
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 15
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Reply-To: cbbrowne at hex.net
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines
><14556.53596.876865.250334 at minbar.directlink.net>
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:39:26 -0600
>From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne at hex.net>
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:46:52 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
>Richard Cobbe <cobbe at directlink.net> said:
>> Lo, on Friday, 24 March, 2000, MadHat did write:
>> > OK, I am working on the list of guidlines/charter. It is hacked from
>> > other LUGs and ideas already discussed here. If you have anhthing you
>> > think should be added, please send it to me off list.
>>
>> I'm deliberately posting these comments TO the list, because I'd like to
>> see some discussion by the members of the group on these issues.
>>
>> > * Do not quote more lines of a message than you actually add in your
>> > reply.
>>
>> Um. I'm not sure I like this one. I understand where it's coming from,
>> and I like the basic idea. However, I don't think that a rule based on
>> just comparing the number of lines is sufficiently sophisticated to handle
>> all cases. There may be cases where breaking the above rule is actually
>> the Right Thing, although I'd be hard-pressed to provide a non-contrived
>> example. The other points (no "me too!" messages, quote only relevant
>> parts) should handle this sufficiently, I think.
>
>This is not something where it is necessarily appropriate to dogmatically
>apply the rule in an automated manner.
>
>It is, however, fair to say that:
>a) Quoting a 100 line message to say "Me, too" is poor style.
>b) If you're responding to one paragraph of a message, and are not trying
> to address any other portions, it *may* be appropriate to eliminate
> the bits that you're not responding to.
>
>I think the application of this one falls into the area of "discretion."
>That being the discretion of the list administrator...
>
>> > * No job postings on this list.
>>
>> If that's what the group wants, then fine. In that case, it might be
>> beneficial to start an additional mailing list expressly for job postings.
>> (If that one needs a moderator, sign me up.)
>
>You might look at jobs at ntlug.org, maybehaps?
>
>That list is already there.
>--
>MICROS~1 is not the answer.
>MICROS~1 is the question.
>NO (or Linux) is the answer.
>cbbrowne at ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 16
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:44:09 -0600
>From: MadHat <madhat at unspecific.com>
>To: NT LUG <discuss at ntlug.org>
>Subject: [NTLUG:Discuss] List Status
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>
>All right...
>
>It appears that what was handed to me and what was requested was not
>what some people (with the _vocal_ majority [0]) want. SO here is what
>I purpose:
>
>NTLUG-Discuss: This is a general discussion list (yes we all know
>this). Anything goes, but if you start going to extremes (yes, it is my
>choice what extremes are) on bashing of people on the list [1] or
>getting down right vulgar then something will be said. This is a list
>for civil discussion and not for telling people how to run their lives
>or posting links to inappropriate material [2]. This isn't anything
>new, but it is in writing now.
>
>I also purpose we start _1_ new list called help@ (or something similar)
>
>NTLUG-Help: would be specifically for helping people solve problems, but
>not have to wade through all the stuff going on in Discuss. This does
>not mean people can't ask questions in discuss, but it would mean that
>the Help list would _only_ be about helping people with linux problems
>and not about a MS commercials [3] or personal attacks.
>
>Now, I would like some feedback on the idea of a Help list (it was also
>mentioned by a few of you), but if you want to complain about something
>I said and not have any feed back for discussion, I would prefer you
>send it to me directly.
>
>Thank you for your time and I hope we can drop this soon.
>
>
>[0] Just because you spoke the loudest does not mean you were the only
>ones. I did have people sending me private mails about what a good job
>I was doing. But this isn't about me and doesn't really matter to most.
>
>[1] that means you can bash Mr Gates all you want, but if someone wants
>to press liable suits, we will cooperate.
>
>[2] Like porn pictures or jokes about Clinton. There are better places
>for this type of stuff to be sent.
>
>[3] Just because you are Pro-Linux does not mean you are Anti-MS. Not
>everyone is bigoted about OSs.
>
>
>--
>%_=split';','2e;hac;40;not;64;ju;66; Perl ;68;st a;6f;ker;75;her';
>print map $_{unpack "H2",$_}, split //,
>'madhat at unspecific.com'
># aka Lee Heath, but don't tell anyone.
>
>--__--__--
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 18
>From: Arthur Fuldodger <pesto at flat.diet.drpepper.org>
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] List Status
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 100 08:16:10 +0000 (GMT)
>Reply-To: pesto at marathon.org
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>Vocalizing my thoughts on the new Help mailing list:
>
>Sure, sounds good.
>
>
>Pesto
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 19
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:44:34 -0600
>From: Steve Jackson <sjackson at stratmarkcorp.com>
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] List Status
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>
>Yeah, me too. Whoops, I mean me also.
>
>Arthur Fuldodger wrote:
>>
>> Vocalizing my thoughts on the new Help mailing list:
>>
>> Sure, sounds good.
>>
>> Pesto
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at ntlug.org
>http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>End of Discuss Digest
>
/ / (_)__ __ ____ __
/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
. . . t h e c h o i c e o f a
G N U g e n e r a t i o n . . .
Signup for your FREE ZenSearch E-MAIL account at http://www.zensearch.net and win a Notebook PC
More information about the Discuss
mailing list