If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, Peter Duniho wrote:
"Steve House" wrote in message ... Why in the world would you need to DL all the message bodies in an entire group? Well, at least for a couple of reasons: 2) Because the Internet is not 100% infalliable. If you have a good Good answers, and ones that Steve should have thought about, IMO, before getting indignant. In my case, its because while I get super-fast cable - they outsourced the newsserver to someone else (one of the big names). But... I'm limited to less than a 14.4k modem would be. So its better for me to grab everything I'm interested in.. because otherwise, it takes several seconds to get each message. But that's me. (And my refusal so far to buy a seperate connection). So you see Steve, that's part of the whole point here. Different people have different requirements, and newer isn't always better. Heck, usenet's supposed to have been dead 10 years now, because the web replaced it, remember? Addison |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On 26 Jul 2003 19:37:13 -0500, Steve House wrote:
you can't trim the quoted test, can you? You seem to be more concerned about cost to the ISP than cost to the consumer. As I am a (very small) ISP I do care, yes. The ISP promises unlimited access for a fixed fee - kewl, let's do it! If you can't deliver it, don't advertise it. Consumers who USE the bandwidth advertised are a PITA I guess, especially those that actually expect that when they pay for something promised it's cheerfully delivered? LOL Cancelling a contract is gladly not only a one way possibility. Frankly I don't CARE what the cost to the ISP is. The industriy for sure needs more guys like you. If they can't make a profit charging me what they do, that's their problem, not mine. true All I care about is that they provide the service they promised when I pay their bill, 24/7 - it's up to them to figure out how. MY marginal cost to DL a file, regardless of size, is zero. I'm paying for the connection to the network, not the data passing over it. I do care that my ISP also survives the next month. Let's see if I understand your message here - if it comes from or has anything to do with or even tangentially touches MS it's evil, wrong thinking, subversive perhaps? "Real" computer people won't touch it? Ahhh, of course... No, you have to deal with M$. You can earn your money supporting M$. Haven't made a buck up til today with supporting Apple. Life is evolving and evolution is the definition of life. Evolution? But the bible ... :-) #m -- http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/ 24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_sotu.html |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
I may not agree with some postings, Peter, but to my recollection I've never
been ill mannered nor engaged in ad hominem attacks on any other person. Discussing whether traditional ways of doing things should perhaps be reconsidered, especially in the context of a thread that posed that exact question as its seeder, and offering ideas and examples of alternatives that may indeed run counter those of the group's old timers is not bad manners, it's participation. It's one thing to say that a point of view is perhaps outmoded and based on the way things were in the past rather than the way they are today, it's quite another to say the person holding that viewpoint is ill mannered or stupid. I have done the former, mea culpa, but I have never done the latter. On the other hand, some who hold those traditional views .... well, if the shoe fits... "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message As far as Martin's comments about Microsoft, you're right, they are filled with obvious prejudice. Frankly, I find Usenet posters to be just as ill-mannered in newsgroups like this one as in the Microsoft-specific ones. You are a perfect example. Pete |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... On 26 Jul 2003 19:37:13 -0500, Steve House wrote: you can't trim the quoted test, can you? Sure I can. Is this better? Now, of course, no one reading this message sees any of what you wrote except that one line and unless they have been faithfully reading this thread for the last several days they have no idea of the contexts of your remark or my reply to it. I suspect that the vast majority of people reading these words are lurkers who visit maybe once or twice a week. Most ISPs that I'm aware of have just a few days dwell time for the messages on their news servers. By tomorrow or the day after many people reading this would not be able to go back and retrieve your message that prompted this response to if they wished to see what you had written. They certainly would not be able to get back to the even earlier messages in the thread. (Yes, I know about Google and I know other subscription servers have much longer retention times, that's one reason I use one myself). By not trimming the quotes to any great extent, OTOH, other readers in the thread would be able to see your comments in their entirety, and if interested my comments that had prompted yours and so forth back in line, without have to search Google and irrespective of whether their ISP is retaining the thread or not. I've suggested that when data comms were expensive the "no top post, trim all the quotes to the bone" approach made perfect sense but now that data transfer is cheaper than dirt the disadvantages outway the advantages. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think that was an indignant remark - it was a real question, not a
rhetorical one - and certainly wasn't intended to be interpreted as an insult. Why indeed would one waste the time and disk space to dl several hundred or several thousand message bodies when only a portion of them held any interest? Screen headers first and only bother retrieving the bodies you actually intend to read. I'm just amazed at the poor performance you cite for your newsgroup access. Your header shows SuperNews is your server and IMHO something is decidedly wrong as they have a reputation of being quite speedy. I use NewScene as you can see below and a cable modem. Just timed my connection sped this morning as I write this and picking up 2500 new headers in a group takes about 5 seconds, a message in a binary group with a 5+ meg file, 121286 lines, takes 28 seconds, and an ordinary text message with only a few hundred lines is virtually instantaneous 1 sec. You really need to get on your ISPs case because you *should* be getting similar performance I would think. Yes, I agree that newer isn't always better, but sometimes it is. I'm a trainer/consultant on PC apps and when it comes to MS Office, realistically 90% of the users I see will never need to use anything introduced to the package since Office 97. OTOH, Access developers really do have useful new features in more recent versions, and when it comes to my particular specialty, project management and MS Project, it is incredibly foolish (IMHO) to go with anything less than the current release, due both to the complexity of the product, the squashing of bugs with each release, and to the complexity of the overall project scheduling and managing process. "Addison Laurent" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, Peter Duniho wrote: "Steve House" wrote in message ... Why in the world would you need to DL all the message bodies in an entire group? Well, at least for a couple of reasons: 2) Because the Internet is not 100% infalliable. If you have a good Good answers, and ones that Steve should have thought about, IMO, before getting indignant. In my case, its because while I get super-fast cable - they outsourced the newsserver to someone else (one of the big names). But... I'm limited to less than a 14.4k modem would be. So its better for me to grab everything I'm interested in.. because otherwise, it takes several seconds to get each message. But that's me. (And my refusal so far to buy a seperate connection). So you see Steve, that's part of the whole point here. Different people have different requirements, and newer isn't always better. Heck, usenet's supposed to have been dead 10 years now, because the web replaced it, remember? Addison |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0500, Steve House wrote:
you can't trim the quoted test, can you? ^^^^ should have been "rest". sorry - a typo. Sure I can. Is this better? a litle bit. you cutted away the text you are _referring_ to. Now, of course, no one reading this message sees any of what you wrote except that one line and unless they have been faithfully reading this thread for the last several days they have no idea of the contexts of your remark or my reply to it. I suspect that the vast majority of people reading these words are lurkers who visit maybe once or twice a week. wild guesses Most ISPs that I'm aware of have just a few days dwell time for the messages on their news servers. you mean those who offer flat high speed access for very little money? you get what you pay for. By tomorrow or the day after many people reading this would not be able to go back and retrieve your message that prompted this response to if they wished to see what you had written. bad news servers. their problem, not mine. They certainly would not be able to get back to the even earlier messages in the thread. (Yes, I know about Google and I know other subscription servers have much longer retention times, that's one reason I use one myself). By ok not trimming the quotes to any great extent, OTOH, other readers in the thread would be able to see your comments in their entirety, and if interested my comments that had prompted yours and so forth back in line, without have to search Google and irrespective of whether their ISP is retaining the thread or not. the references are in the header. I've suggested that when data comms were expensive the "no top post, trim all the quotes to the bone" approach made perfect sense but now that data transfer is cheaper than dirt the disadvantages outway the advantages. you know how usenet works? how often is your posting duplicated all over the world? Besides these are the rules of the usenet. Go and build your usenet and apply your rules there, it is rather easy to do. Just start your own - for example - stevehouse.* hierarchy. OK, what is your estimate on what bandwidth costs? what do you think is the cost for one megabit transit? (and now we haven't even calculated expenses for operating the network, etc.) And bandwidth is only a fraction of the total cost. Just check your hardware vendor for some storage systems to hold several gigs. Then go for the hardware to spool it. Then also count the feed-traffic and also the 'get' traffic. It would be best if everybody would just log on to a big terminal server in Redmont, eh? This would solve many problems. #m -- http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/ 24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_sotu.html |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:44:11 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0500, Steve House wrote: you can't trim the quoted test, can you? ^^^^ should have been "rest". sorry - a typo. bullsh** .. s/test/text *arrggg* ... and supersede does not work here. *hmpf* f-up2poster #m -- http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/ 24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_sotu.html |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Not necessarily keeping the entire thread - but certainly the previous
message in its entirely and perhaps several other steps back in the thread if relevant. (The "snip" you see below is the block of text from my message you had quoted in your reply.) Trimming the history is another reason for top posting, by the way. Far easier to simply go down to the point in the history it loses relevance and delete the quote from there to the end of the message than it is to go line by line deciding what to keep and what to erase. It's also a lot easier to locate the current message's contents if they're in a group at the top. An interesting analogy to email because I think that hits it on the head - newsgroup postings are virtually identical to an exchange of a series of emails that are in a public folder rather than a private mailbox, with anyone reading it invited to contribute and comment. But the dynamic of the exchange is the same - the only real difference is in its public nature. Yes, I have software that maintains the thread structure. But only for those messages that are still active in the server - when a message is purged from the server its header is purged from my reader. I use both OE and Agent and they're set up the same. Messages headers are grouped by thread. No bodies are retained from session to session, only headers. Only headers for unread messages are displayed. For clairity, I'd suggest that top posting is first, bottom posting second, and "interwoven" posting where the reply is interspersed in amongst the quoted text is a distant third. That being said and contrary to some, I don't think any of it is a "rule" that must be obeyed. Different messages and different topics lend themselves to different styles and I find I use all three, whichever I think will best communicate the thoughts at hand. "David" wrote in message ... ....snip.... I would like to get this clear. Are you proposing that an entire thread of discussion should always be contained in one message so that the latest message always contains all the previous ones on that topic? That _might_ be appropriate in an e-mail discussion between a few friends but it seems to me it is totally wrong for a newsgroup. Does it indicate that you do not have software that maintains the structure of threads? The thing I hate most is the one line comment added to a 1000 line complex of messages. Bottom quoting, with just enough quoted for clarity I find infinitely easier to handle. Since many messages contain irrelevant dross keeping that hardly adds to clarity. I agree with you there, especially if the one line is at the bottom. grin |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how much money have you lost on the lottery? NOW GET THAT MONEY BACK! | shane | Home Built | 0 | February 5th 05 07:54 AM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |
Hispanic Hero Recalls Experiences | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 30th 03 10:02 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |
Localizer Back Course vs. ILS | ilsub | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 25th 03 04:04 PM |