Jargons of Info Tech industry
Xah Lee
(A Love of Jargons)
Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious jargons.
The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous jargons, such
as in the Unix & Perl community. Unlike mathematicians, where in
mathematics there are no fewer jargons but each and every one are
absolutely necessary. For example, polytope, manifold,
injection/bijection/surjection, group/ring/field.., homological,
projective, pencil, bundle, lattice, affine, topology, isomorphism,
isometry, homeomorphism, aleph-0, fractal, supremum/infimum, simplex,
matrix, quaternions, derivative/integral, ... and so on. Each and every
one of these captures a concept, for which practical and theoretical
considerations made the terms a necessity. Often there are synonyms for
them because of historical developments, but never “jargons for
jargon's sake” because mathematicians hate bloats and irrelevance.
The jargon-soaked stupidity in computing field can be grouped into
classes. First of all, there are jargons for marketing purposes. Thus
you have Mac OS “X”, Windows “XP”, Sun OS to Solaris and the
versioning confusion of 4.x to 7 to 8 and also the so called
“Platform” instead of OS. One flagrant example is Sun Microsystem's
Java stuff. Oak, Java, JDK, JSDK, J2EE, J2SE enterprise edition or no,
from java 1.x to 1.2 == Java 2 now 1.3, JavaOne, JFC, Jini, JavaBeans,
entity Beans, Awk, Swing... fucking stupid Java and fuck Sun
Microsystems. This is just one example of Jargon hodgepodge of one
single commercial entity. Marketing jargons cannot be avoided in modern
society. They abound outside computing field too. The Jargons of
marketing came from business practice, and they can be excusable
because they are kinda a necessity or can be considered as a naturally
evolved strategy for attracting attention in a laissez-faire economy
system.
The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
& Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
tasteless term eunuchs. PERL is cooked up to be “Practical Extraction
& Reporting Language” and for the precise marketing drama of being
also “Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister”. These types of
jargons exudes juvenile humor. Cheesiness and low-taste is their
hall-mark. If you are familiar with unixism and perl programing, you'll
find tons and tons of such jargons embraced and verbalized by unix &
perl lovers. e.g. grep, glob, shell, pipe, man, regex, more, less,
tarball, shebang, Schwartzian Transform, croak, bless, interpolation,
TIMTOWTDI, DWIM, RFC, RTFM, I-ANAL, YMMV and so on.
There is another class of jargon moronicity, which i find them most
damaging to society, are jargons or spurious and vague terms used and
brandished about by programers that we see and hear daily among design
meetings, online tech group postings, or even in lots of computing
textbooks or tutorials. I think the reason for these, is that these
massive body of average programers usually don't have much knowledge of
significant mathematics, yet they are capable of technical thinking
that is not too abstract, thus you ends up with these people defining
or hatching terms a-dime-a-dozen that's vague, context dependent,
vacuous, and their commonality are often a result of sopho-morons
trying to sound big.
Here are some examples of the terms in question:
• anonymous functions or lambda or lamba function
• closure
• exceptions (as in Java)
• list, array, vector, aggregate
• hash (or hash table) ← fantastically stupid
• rehash (as in csh or tcsh)
• regular expression (as in regex, grep, egrep, fgrep)
• name space (as in Scheme vs Common Lisp debates)
• depth first/breadth first (as in tree traversing.)
• operator
• operator overloading
• polymorphism
• inheritance
• first class objects
• pointers, references
• tail recursion
My time is limited, so i'll just give a brief explanation of my thesis
on selective few of these examples among the umpteen.
In a branch of math called lambda calculus, in which much theories of
computation are based on, is the origin of the jargon _lambda function_
that is so frequently reciprocated by advanced programering donkeys. In
practice, a subroutine without side-effects is supposed to be what
“lambda function” means. Functional languages often can define them
without assigning them to some variable (name), therefore the
“function without side-effects” are also called “anonymous
functions”. One can see that these are two distinct concepts. If
mathematicians are designing computer languages, they would probably
just called such thing _pure functions_. The term conveys the meaning,
without the “lamba” abstruseness. (in fact, the mathematics
oriented language Mathematica refers to lambda function as pure
function, with the keyword Function.) Because most programers are
sopho-morons who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless
possess human vanity, we can see that they have not adopted the clear
and fitting term, but instead you see lambda function this and that
obfuscations dropping from their mouths constantly.
Now the term “closure” can and indeed have meant several things in
the computing field. The most common is for it to mean a subroutine
that holds some memory but without some disadvantages of modifying a
global variable. Usually such is a feature of a programing language.
When taken to extreme, we have the what's called Object Oriented
Programing methodology and languages. The other meaning of
“closure” i have seen in text books, is for it to indicate that the
things in the language is “closed” under the operations of the
language. For example, for some languages you can apply operations or
subroutines to any thing in the language. (These languages are often
what's called “dynamic typing” or “typeless”). However, in
other languages, things have types and cannot be passed around
subroutines or operators arbitrarily. One can see that the term
“closure” is quite vague in conveying its meaning. The term
nevertheless is very popular among talkative programers and dense
tutorials, precisely because it is vague and mysterious. These
pseudo-wit living zombies, never thought for a moment that they are
using a moronic term, mostly because they never clearly understand the
concepts behind the term among the contexts. One can particular see
this exhibition among Perl programers. (for an example of the
fantastically stupid write-up on closure by the Perl folks, see
“perldoc perlfaq7” and “perldoc perlref”.)
in the so-called “high-level” computing languages, there are often
data types that's some kind of a collection. The most illustrative is
LISt Processing language's lists. Essentially, the essential concept is
that the language can treat a collection of things as if it's a single
entity. As computer languages evolve, such collection entity feature
also diversified, from syntax to semantics to implementation. Thus,
beside lists, there are also terms like vector, array, matrix, tree,
hash/“hash table”/dictionary. Often each particular term is to
convey a particular implementation of collection so that it has certain
properties to facilitate specialized uses of such groupy. The Java
language has such groupy that can illustrate the point well. In Java,
there are these hierarchy of collection-type of things:
Collection
Set (AbstractSet, HashSet)
SortedSet (TreeSet)
List (AbstractList, LinkedList, Vector, ArrayList)
Map (AbstractMap, HashMap, Hashtable)
SortedMap (TreeMap)
The words without parenthesis are Java Interfaces, and ones in are
implementations. The interface hold a concept. The deeper the level,
the more specific or specialized. The implementation carry out
concepts. Different implementation gives different algorithmic
properties. Essentially, these hierarchies of Java show the potential
complexity and confusion around groupy entities in computer languages.
Now, among the programers we see daily, who never really thought out of
these things, will attach their own specific meaning to
list/array/vector/matrix/etc type of jargons in driveling and
arguments, oblivious to any thought of formalizing what the fuck they
are really talking about. (one may think from the above tree-diagram
that Java the language has at least put clear distinction to interface
and implementation, whereas in my opinion they are one fantastic fuck
up too, in many respects.)
---------------------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/jargons.html
© Copyright 2002 by Xah Lee.
Erik Max Francis
> Jargons of Info Tech industry
>
> (A Love of Jargons)
>
> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
Congratulations, this time you managed to get to your second paragraph
before your Tourette's kicked in.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Behind an able man there are always other able men.
-- (a Chinese proverb)
Ivan Van Laningham
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
> > Jargons of Info Tech industry
> >
> > (A Love of Jargons)
> >
> > Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
>
> Congratulations, this time you managed to get to your second paragraph
> before your Tourette's kicked in.
>
You made it that far? Congratulations. I barely got past the name of
the troll.
Metta,
Ivan
----------------------------------------------
Ivan Van Laningham
God N Locomotive Works
http://www.pauahtun.org/
http://www.foretec.com/python/workshops/1998-11/proceedings.html
Army Signal Corps: Cu Chi, Class of '70
Author: Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours
Jürgen Exner
> Jargons of Info Tech industry
>
> (A Love of Jargons)
>
> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
>
> People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
> jargons. The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous
Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across Xah's
masterpieces in the future:
Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
'contributions' are less then useless.
Best is to just ignore him.
But for heaven's sake unless you want to embarrass yourself really badly
don't take any of his postings serious because he has proven again and again
that he has no clue whatsoever about computer science or programming.
jue
Roedy Green
quoted :
>The Jargons of
>marketing came from business practice, and they can be excusable
>because they are kinda a necessity or can be considered as a naturally
>evolved strategy for attracting attention in a laissez-faire economy
>system.
Jargon is a name that hides what it does. The idea is those in the
know can sound much more intelligent than they really are.
In Java you have the JDK -- Java Development Kit. That is a pretty
clear name for what it is.
You have the JRE the Java Runtime Environment. I might have shortened
it to Java Base.
Oak, Tiger, Dragonfly etc are internal codenames. They are really
nobody's business but Sun's.
You have JAF -- Java Activation Framework. Now that's jargon. You have
no idea knowing its name what it is for.
JMF Java Media Framework could have been shortened to Java Media.
JavaMail is pretty clear.
Java Web Start is self-explanatory. Perhaps Java Web Launch would be
a tiny bit clearer.
J2EE Java 2 Enterprise Edition. The 2 is a lot of Bullshit. Sun
marketing people keep trying to screw with the logical progression of
version numbers. The edition says nothing, and the Enterprise gives
you a hint this is not for hobbyist programmers.
J2SE Java 2 Standard Edition. This is needlessly wordy. they could
have called it Standard Java.
If you use short names then you don't need acronyms. Without
acronyms, names can be self-explanatory.
I think your beef is not with Jargon, but with so many acronyms.
Keith Thompson
> On 11 Aug 2005 18:23:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote or
> quoted :
>
> Jargon [...]
[snip]
Take a look at the Newsgroups: line. Then look for other articles Xah
Lee has posted, and see if you can make sense of any of them. If you
must post a followup, at least limit the newsgroups to those where it
might be topical.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
James Stroud
--
James Stroud
UCLA-DOE Institute for Genomics and Proteomics
Box 951570
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across Xah's
> masterpieces in the future:
> Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
> 'contributions' are less then useless.
And you are the resident troll-reply service, posting this reply every time?
> Best is to just ignore him.
You just broke that rule.
> But for heaven's sake unless you want to embarrass yourself really badly
> don't take any of his postings serious because he has proven again and again
> that he has no clue whatsoever about computer science or programming.
Fine. Many people don't. Whoever takes the time to read Xah's postings
(I don't) will probably be able to find that out by himself.
--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert
Thomas Fritsch
> [...]
> My time is limited, so i'll just give a brief explanation of my thesis
This is what psychology calls a disordered self-perception.
--
"Thomas:Fritsch$ops:de".replace(':','.').replace('$','@')
Mike Schilling
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BATKe.19727$0d.11740@trnddc07...
> Xah Lee wrote:
>> Jargons of Info Tech industry
>>
>> (A Love of Jargons)
>>
>> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
>>
>> People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
>> jargons. The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous
> [...]
>
> Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across
> Xah's
> masterpieces in the future:
> Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
> 'contributions' are less then useless.
He sent a lovely one to some of the language groups the other day,
explaining why Jonathan Swift was a poor writer.
jan V
'contributions' are less then useless.
>
> Best is to just ignore him.
Did you know that some deranged people take sexual pleasure out of starting
fires? Apparently some of the latest forest/bush fires in southern Europe
were even started by firemen (with their pants down?).
Maybe characters like Xah take some kind of sexual pleasure out of posting
his kind of posts... the tought doesn't bear thinking, does it?
j...@invalid.address
That's remarkable, considering he doesn't realize "jargon" is a
collective noun.
Joe
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Did you know that some deranged people take sexual pleasure out of starting
> fires? Apparently some of the latest forest/bush fires in southern Europe
> were even started by firemen (with their pants down?).
I've only heard of people trying to extinguish fires with their pants
down. Oh well...
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
> which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
> & Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
> supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
> tasteless term eunuchs.
Now that connexion is a product of a truely warped mind.
Axel
Matthias Buelow
gene tani
- killfile killfile killfile
- nothing to see here ... keep moving
- don't cross-post your replies, don't rile the perl users.
CBFalconer
If you really must feed the troll, please at least set follow-ups
to cut things back.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Alex
> Jargons of Info Tech industry
>
> (A Love of Jargons)
>
> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
>
> Java stuff <SNIP> ... <SNIP> fucking stupid Java and fuck Sun
> Microsystems. This is just one example of Jargon hodgepodge of one
> single commercial entity.
>
> jargons exudes juvenile humor. Cheesiness and low-taste is their
> hall-mark.
>
> massive body of average programers usually don't have much knowledge of
> or hatching terms <SNIP> ... <SNIP> are often a result of sopho-morons
> trying to sound big.
>
<SNIP> ... <SNIP> Because most programers are
> sopho-morons who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless
>
<SNIP> ... <SNIP> One can see that the term
> “closure” is quite vague in conveying its meaning. The term
> nevertheless is very popular among talkative programers and dense
> tutorials, precisely because it is vague and mysterious. These
> pseudo-wit living zombies, never thought for a moment that they are
> fantastically stupid write-up on closure by the Perl folks <SNIP> ... <SNIP>
>
<SNIP> ... <SNIP>
>
<SNIP> ... <SNIP> (one may think from the above tree-diagram
> that Java the language has at least put clear distinction to interface
> and implementation, whereas in my opinion they are one fantastic fuck
> up too, in many respects.)
>
I've extracted the preceding castigating snippets from Mr. Lee's Jargon
"thesis". :)) When reciprocated upon his own posts; one could offer up
the proverb, "he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones."
His inflammatory rhetoric - light on facts, weak in application, and
generously peppered with self-aggrandizing insults - would probably
offend Jerry Springer by comparison.
Perhaps the "professor" should more carefully scrutinize himself before
attempting to castigate others, less he acquire the reputation of a
hypocrite, e.g. -
"are often a result of sopho-morons trying to sound big.";
"who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless possess
human vanity";
"These types of jargons exudes juvenile humor.";
"Cheesiness and low-taste is their hall-mark."
Elementary courses in Critical Reasoning, Topical Research, Grammar,
Creative Writing, and Technical Writing also seem warranted.
A little one on one time with a mental health practitioner probably
wouldn't hurt either. :))
P.S. Until then, does anyones else deem it appropriate to give
"professor" Lee the nickname "Xah Lee Springer"?
Keith Thompson
> Xah Lee wrote:
[SSSNNNIIIPPP!!!]
> I've extracted the preceding castigating snippets from Mr. Lee's
> Jargon "thesis".
*Please stop posting followups to this off-topic nonsense. Just
ignore it. Responding to spam is spam; responding to a troll gives
him exactly what he wants and annoys the heck out of the rest of us.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================
Followups redirected appropriately.
Xah Lee
[Note: unix tradition requires that a return be inserted at every 70
characters in email messages or so so that each line are less than 80
characters. Unixers made this as a requirement into an RFC document.]
Xah Lee, 20020511
This truncation of lines business is a hatred of mine, from email
formatting to formatting of program codes. I have been fighting with
the unix slew of morons about the line cut for years. The unix morons
are the number one excuse expert, that whenever in an argument they'll
mention some RFC “specifications”. (RFC = Really Fucking Common,
invented by mostly unix folks in the 70s.)
the unix morons, think that the world should truncate lines just like
their incompetent operating system silently truncate lines (and it
still DOES, folks! e.g. ps, tar, tcsh.) Around 1998 when i was using
Outlook Express or Eudora before that, i remember i can set lines to
not hard-wrap, and i did. Boy that always pissed the unix blockheads.
In their diddly eyes and lousy email software, i'm breaking standards,
making things hard to read, and being a stupid ass. Their brain fail to
see what unix ways are not capable of. These guys are the same slew of
morons who cry in pain about how the web should not commercialize
(circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
and lynx is the best browser (circa 1995), and GUI is for sissys and
mouse is for pussies and Apple computer is for kids (circa 1987).
There is no reason for a paragraph encoding to be splattered with end
of line characters, nor the human labor expended. There is reason for
paragraphs to be displayed not too wide, and that is readability. What
the unixer could not get clear of is a distinction of concepts. Because
their fantastically hacked-up operating system operate by the principle
that lines should not be some 80 chars or else it will be truncated and
*silently* too, thus it became _necessarily_ their _habit_ and thought
that line truncation business is natural and a human duty. Unknown of
these setups, the unix geeks go by their presumption that all text
should be hard wrapped, as if parameters should be hard-coded.
I recall, two particular unix hotshots who bugged me about the line
truncations business is the Perl priest Tom Christiansen, who used to
reside over comp.lang.perl.*, and another unix jockey Chris Nandor, who
was a MacPerl proponent now the main maintainer. It is not a
coincidence that the people who go out of their way to complain about
any “format=flowed” or softwrapped or logically-formatted lines in
emails are always the unixers. The unix twits will start a flame war
over a petty formatting issue, because it's unix's training to bent
over pettiness, not to mention they are the ones who are retarded on
the issue of line truncation.
As i have alluded to above, there are serious problems with the
line-truncation ways of thinking. The gist is that it is a form of
physical formatting as opposed to logical. (think softwrap vs hardwrap,
parameter vs hard-code) Those who are familiar with the history or
reason for SGML and HTML should understand the problem. Many of you
familiar with drive of evolution of HTML from 1995 days to today's CSS
& XML should also understand the issue. We wish to encode information,
and be flexible about representation, not botching info into one
particular representation.
The harm done by the unixers to society is of a long lasting and
pervasive nature. First is the RFC, which serves as the mob's standard,
which requires that every emailer should be broken like unix, so that
unix can process them without problems. Fuck unix and fuck unix geeks.
Secondly, it drains human labor. Right this second there are hundreds
of people pressing returns or fixing jagged lines unnecessarily.
Thinking and computer could have done that for us, if not for fucking
stupid unix and its people. Thirdly, a generation of programs and
programer's times are wasted over tools that mutilate paragraphs into
pieces. (in emacs, there's fill-paragraph etc, and in BBEdit it's just
called “Hard Wrap”) Fourthly, physical formatting ultimately
multiply the process required on the data, as we can see in emails,
especially in combination with the stupid quote convention: “>”
(that's another unix invention.). But most importantly is that the
hard-liners instilled a bad notion, a confusion, that generated a
entire generation of utterly stupid programing languages and monkey
coders, starting with unix's C language.
As of 200506, the following two sites shows that
as late as 2001, unix tool tar (BSD) still truncate long file names.
• http://www.sourcekeg.co.uk/www.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mac-os-x.html
(local copy)
http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan/macosx_essentials.htm
(local copy)
--------------------
This post is archived at:
Keith Thompson
[the usual]
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================
--
jan V
> | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
> | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
> | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
> | Thank you, | ( (_) )
> | Management | /`-vvv-'\
> +-------------------+ / \
> | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
> | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
> @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
> \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
> \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Please don't use ASCII art... not everyone uses a fixed-width font for his
newsreader...............
(your picture looks all mangled here)
Rich Teer
> Please don't use ASCII art... not everyone uses a fixed-width font for his
> newsreader...............
Then I humbly submit thet they are using broken and/or badly
configured readers. ;-)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Steve Holden
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, jan V wrote:
>
>
>>Please don't use ASCII art... not everyone uses a fixed-width font for his
>>newsreader...............
>
>
> Then I humbly submit thet they are using broken and/or badly
> configured readers. ;-)
>
no idea what length the lines are anyway :-).
If only everyone would do things Xah Lee's way we wouldn't have to see
all his twaddle.
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
Roedy Green
quoted :
>the unix morons, think that the world should truncate lines just like
>their incompetent operating system silently truncate lines (and it
>still DOES, folks! e.g. ps, tar, tcsh.) Around 1998 when i was using
>Outlook Express or Eudora before that, i remember i can set lines to
>not hard-wrap, and i did.
The telephone did not evolve, other than touch tone dialing. It took
cellphones to let people start over several times to get any changes.
Communications are slow to evolve because they require both ends to
change. This is almost impossible to accomplish politically.
This is why email and newsgroups will have to die and be replaced with
something entirely new that lets you transmit richer content, prevents
spam, verifies authorship, tracks attributions, does instant delivery
notification etc.
The problem is it will be very difficult for anything no matter how
cheap or technologically brilliant to get a foothold against the quite
wonderful entrenched distributed delivery of newsgroups.
Perhaps at some point will at least allow program listing that don't
wrap inappropriately, and HTML for displaying tables.
Chris Hills
<n...@nul.be> writes
I thought usenet specified fixed font. If you use something else don't
complain.
The Troll don't look pretty in fixed font either:-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Keith Thompson
If "PLEASE DO NOT" and "FEED THE TROLLS" are legible, even if they
aren't aligned as intended, the message has gotten through.
Ulrich Hobelmann
At least he noticed that tar sucks. There's nothing better than tarring
your backup back to disk, only to notice that the pathnames were "too
long." Great!
Richard Bos
Lah Xee
You stupid UNIX donkey! Why you wrap your email? You wasted time
formatting email that you could have used to read Python documentation
and critique it! How you expect to change world if you spend time
formatting email??? And I no want hear you let Google groups format
it! If you use stupid UNIX-using, text monkey service like Google to
format your email, then you no longer worthy to be our prince!!
I, Lah Xee, master of wit and expert grammarian must rise to occasion
and become pre-eminent troll for common good of all mankind! Down with
UNIX!! Down with Mac!! Down with Perl!! Down with Xah Lee!! You will
all bow before my astonishing wisdom and knowledge!!
Now, why do this so-called "print" statement in Python f*ck up my text
by splattering it with end of line characters?
Lah Xee
Master Grammarian
Pre-Eminent Troll
l v
> (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
I think e-mail should be text only. I have both my email and news
readers set to display in plain text only. It prevents the marketeers
and spammers from obtaining feedback that my email address is valid. A
surprising amount of information can be obtained from your computer by
allowing HTML and all of it's baggage when executing on your computer.
Phishing comes to my mind first and it works because people click the
link without looking to see where the link really takes them.
> reason for SGML and HTML should understand the problem. Many of you
> familiar with drive of evolution of HTML from 1995 days to today's CSS
> & XML should also understand the issue. We wish to encode information,
I do not want spammers to encode information in their emails.
> Xah
>
Please go to jobs.org
Len
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Mike Schilling
"l v" <l...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124804...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> Xah Lee wrote:
>> (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
>
> I think e-mail should be text only. I have both my email and news readers
> set to display in plain text only. It prevents the marketeers and
> spammers from obtaining feedback that my email address is valid. A
> surprising amount of information can be obtained from your computer by
> allowing HTML and all of it's baggage when executing on your computer.
> Phishing comes to my mind first and it works because people click the link
> without looking to see where the link really takes them.
A formatting-only subset of HTML would be useful for both e-mail and Usenet
posts.
Richard Bos
Used to be that the formatting-only subset of HTML was called HTML.
Used to be that people were wise to itinerant kooks such as the OP.
Richard
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> In article <IJpOe.175886$zs4.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, jan V
> <n...@nul.be> writes
>>> +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
>>> | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
>>> | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
>>> | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
>>> | Thank you, | ( (_) )
>>> | Management | /`-vvv-'\
>>> +-------------------+ / \
>>> | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
>>> | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
>>> @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
>>> \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
>>> \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
>>> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>>
>>Please don't use ASCII art... not everyone uses a fixed-width font for his
>>newsreader...............
> I thought usenet specified fixed font. If you use something else don't
> complain.
> The Troll don't look pretty in fixed font either:-)
I don't think trolls are supposed to look pretty, but rather ugly.
Axel
Rich Teer
> A formatting-only subset of HTML would be useful for both e-mail and Usenet
> posts.
Nope; plain text for both mediums is, IMHO, th eonly way to go.
l v
I would *agree* (your news reader may bold that last word)
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Xah Lee wrote:
>> (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
>
> I think e-mail should be text only. I have both my email and news
> readers set to display in plain text only. It prevents the marketeers
Be generous in what you accept and conservative in what you send ;)
I always send plaintext emails, but Thunderbird can also display HTML.
Of course I don't let it load remote images in the HTML, so no feedback
for the marketers.
> and spammers from obtaining feedback that my email address is valid. A
> surprising amount of information can be obtained from your computer by
> allowing HTML and all of it's baggage when executing on your computer.
When that HTML execution accesses further remote resources.
> Phishing comes to my mind first and it works because people click the
> link without looking to see where the link really takes them.
That's a problem, yes. As usual, education helps.
Roger Leigh
Hash: SHA1
Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> writes:
>> [the usual]
> At least he noticed that tar sucks. There's nothing better than tarring
> your backup back to disk, only to notice that the pathnames were "too
> long." Great!
That's been fixed for quite some time, though. The current GNU tar
(1.15.1) writes POSIX.1-2001 (PAX) archives, and has read them for
quite a long time before.
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDC5T5VcFcaSW/uEgRAmJ6AKDsqFmvoBsOqsm/6zIfHQleMpI5KwCgsR6Q
yO7hX52yq/iHIHC2yJ6hF2A=
=MCYF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ulrich Hobelmann
>> At least he noticed that tar sucks. There's nothing better than tarring
>> your backup back to disk, only to notice that the pathnames were "too
>> long." Great!
>
> That's been fixed for quite some time, though. The current GNU tar
> (1.15.1) writes POSIX.1-2001 (PAX) archives, and has read them for
> quite a long time before.
Don't remember where it bit me. Either Free- or NetBSD, or Mac OS 10.3,
but it was sometime after 2002... probably not GNU tar, though.
Mike Meyer
Used to be people who wanted to send formatted text via email would
use rich text. It never really caught on. But given that most of the
people sending around formatted text are using point-n-click GUIs to
create the stuff, the main advantage of HTML - that it's easy to write
by hand - isn't needed.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Richard Bos
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> > A formatting-only subset of HTML would be useful for both e-mail and Usenet
> > posts.
>
> I would *agree* (your news reader may bold that last word)
It had bloody better not. You're cross-posting this to a C newsgroup,
where *ptr* 4 is a legal (albeit inadvisably spaced) expression.
Richard
Dragan Cvetkovic
Or _ptr_ for that matter (does it underline for you?)
Well, at least on my newsreader (gnus), I can toggle the behaviour. Ditto
for smileys:
(setq gnus-treat-display-smileys nil)
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
Mike Schilling
"Mike Meyer" <m...@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86wtmcm...@bhuda.mired.org...
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "l v" <l...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1124804...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>> (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
>>>
>>> I think e-mail should be text only. I have both my email and news
>>> readers
>>> set to display in plain text only. It prevents the marketeers and
>>> spammers from obtaining feedback that my email address is valid. A
>>> surprising amount of information can be obtained from your computer by
>>> allowing HTML and all of it's baggage when executing on your computer.
>>> Phishing comes to my mind first and it works because people click the
>>> link
>>> without looking to see where the link really takes them.
>>
>> A formatting-only subset of HTML would be useful for both e-mail and
>> Usenet
>> posts.
>
> Used to be people who wanted to send formatted text via email would
> use rich text. It never really caught on. But given that most of the
> people sending around formatted text are using point-n-click GUIs to
> create the stuff, the main advantage of HTML - that it's easy to write
> by hand - isn't needed.
But the other advantage, that it's an existing and popular standard,
remains.
CBFalconer
>>>>
>>>>> (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
>>>>
>>>> I think e-mail should be text only. I have both my email and
>>>> news readers set to display in plain text only. It prevents
>>>> the marketeers and spammers from obtaining feedback that my
>>>> email address is valid. A surprising amount of information
>>>> can be obtained from your computer by allowing HTML and all
>>>> of it's baggage when executing on your computer. Phishing
>>>> comes to my mind first and it works because people click the
>>>> link without looking to see where the link really takes them.
>>>
>>> A formatting-only subset of HTML would be useful for both e-mail
>>> and Usenet posts.
>>
>> Used to be people who wanted to send formatted text via email
>> would use rich text. It never really caught on. But given that
>> most of the people sending around formatted text are using
>> point-n-click GUIs to create the stuff, the main advantage of
>> HTML - that it's easy to write by hand - isn't needed.
>
> But the other advantage, that it's an existing and popular
> standard, remains.
However, for both e-mail and news, it is totally useless. It also
interferes with the use of AsciiArt, while opening the recipient to
the dangers above.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Denis Kasak
And HTML has the tendency to make e-mail and Usenet posts unnecessarily
bigger, which will continue to be a bugger until broadband links become
common enough.
-- Denis
Mike Schilling
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:430D7366...@yahoo.com...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "Mike Meyer" <m...@mired.org> wrote in message
>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> "l v" <l...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
>>>>>
>>>>> I think e-mail should be text only. I have both my email and
>>>>> news readers set to display in plain text only. It prevents
>>>>> the marketeers and spammers from obtaining feedback that my
>>>>> email address is valid. A surprising amount of information
>>>>> can be obtained from your computer by allowing HTML and all
>>>>> of it's baggage when executing on your computer. Phishing
>>>>> comes to my mind first and it works because people click the
>>>>> link without looking to see where the link really takes them.
>>>>
>>>> A formatting-only subset of HTML would be useful for both e-mail
>>>> and Usenet posts.
>>>
>>> Used to be people who wanted to send formatted text via email
>>> would use rich text. It never really caught on. But given that
>>> most of the people sending around formatted text are using
>>> point-n-click GUIs to create the stuff, the main advantage of
>>> HTML - that it's easy to write by hand - isn't needed.
>>
>> But the other advantage, that it's an existing and popular
>> standard, remains.
>
> However, for both e-mail and news, it is totally useless.
Useless except in that it can describe formatting, which is what it would be
used for? (
> It also
> interferes with the use of AsciiArt,
Except that it can specify the use of a fixed-width font, which makes Ascii
Art work. It can also distinguish between text that can be reformatted for
flow and text than can not.
So I think you meant to say that it *enables* Ascii Art.
> while opening the recipient to
> the dangers above.
Which is why a formatting-only subset, which doesn't cause any such dangers,
is required. As I said above.
Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a message saved to a file
can be read very easily.
Rich Teer
> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
> comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a message saved to a file
> can be read very easily.
I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are, historically have
been, and should always be, plain text mediums. If I wanted to look at
prettily formatted HTML, I'd use a web browser to look at the web.
Mike Schilling
"Rich Teer" <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.05...@zen.rite-group.com...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
>> comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a message saved to a
>> file
>> can be read very easily.
>
> I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are, historically have
> been, and should always be, plain text mediums.
Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
intelligent discussion, is there?
T Beck
Not to mention that e-mail is practically to the point where it is
{not} a plain text medium. I notice this especially in a corporate
environment (where, at least where I work, I get at least 10 times the
number of e-mails at work than I do on my private account) HTML e-mail
is the de-facto standard. I have a tendancy to send out plain text
e-mail, and I'm practically the only one, as HTML formatting is the
default for the mail client on every corporate machine at my job.
But let's not forget that most people which send me e-mail personally
also have HTML tags in e-mail... So if e-mail {is} a plain text
medium, somebody needs to tell the general public, because I think they
must've missed a memo.
If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and
adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around since
the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly feasable.
HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and Shockwave. The
websites of today don't even resemble the websites of 10 years ago,
e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so the argument
that usenet should never change seems a little heavy-handed and
anachronistic.
--T Beck
j...@invalid.address
Errm, isn't that what you're doing as well then? Rich just gave an
opinion, you've been giving an opinion. Rich's opinion happens to have
a lot of history and good reasons behind it. I don't see why it should
be viewed as some kind of discussion ending dogmatism.
Although it might not be bad if this discussion ended :-)
Joe
John Bokma
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today
>> already comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a message
>> saved to a file can be read very easily.
>
> I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are, historically
> have been, and should always be, plain text mediums. If I wanted to
> look at prettily formatted HTML, I'd use a web browser to look at the
> web.
Just have a look at some web based message boards, and you might see why it
would be another disaster on Usenet. Moreoever, why keep people insisting
on making Usenet "better"? If you want HTML and fancy mark up, start a
message board. You probably can get even more people.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
John Bokma
> If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and
> adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around
> since the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly
> feasable. HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and
> Shockwave.
They are not additions to HTML, like PNG is no addition to HTML, or wav,
mp3, etc.
> The websites of today don't even resemble the websites of
> 10 years ago,
Depends a lot on what site you visit. You can make a website of 10 years
ago look modern with roughly the same HTML of 10 years ago, and a style
sheet. (E.g. visit: http://johnbokma.com/ and turn off the stylesheet. And
there are way better examples)
> e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so
Because there is no real alternative to email? If there was, email would
have died, at least for me, long ago.
> the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
> heavy-handed and anachronistic.
No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned
earlier). However, Usenet is a stranger to most people on the Internet,
even with Usenet access, and hence, there is no real reason to see it
changed into something that is "available" for years and years to more
people: www.
j...@invalid.address
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> > "Rich Teer" <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.58.05...@zen.rite-group.com...
> > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:
> > >
> > >> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer
> > >> today already comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so
> > >> that a message saved to a file can be read very easily.
> > >
> > > I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are,
> > > historically have been, and should always be, plain text
> > > mediums.
> >
> > Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
> > intelligent discussion, is there?
>
> Not to mention that e-mail is practically to the point where it is
> {not} a plain text medium. I notice this especially in a corporate
> environment (where, at least where I work, I get at least 10 times the
> number of e-mails at work than I do on my private account) HTML e-mail
> is the de-facto standard. I have a tendancy to send out plain text
> e-mail, and I'm practically the only one, as HTML formatting is the
> default for the mail client on every corporate machine at my job.
If you're using exchange for email servers it might be reformatting
mail sent as plain text anyway. Waste of bandwidth.
> But let's not forget that most people which send me e-mail personally
> also have HTML tags in e-mail... So if e-mail {is} a plain text
> medium, somebody needs to tell the general public, because I think they
> must've missed a memo.
>
> If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and
> adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around since
> the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly feasable.
> HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and Shockwave. The
> websites of today don't even resemble the websites of 10 years ago,
> e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so the argument
> that usenet should never change seems a little heavy-handed and
> anachronistic.
That's a good point, but just because things are evolving doesn't mean
they're making more sense. Html does waste bandwidth, it does open up
avenues for malware that text mail doesn't, etc.
It seems to me that any intelligent person has to turn off so many
"features" in html mail clients that they lose many of what are seen
of as advantages.
I suspect I either missed some of this thread or I'm misunderstanding
some of it. If what the OP was trying to suggest was a more confined
form of html, say, something that doesn't allow links, I'd consider
that a good thing. I doubt anyone will use it though, I think MS wants
all the bells and whistles, and all the embracing and extending it can
do. If they don't support such an html subset for email I suspect it
won't go anywhere.
But why bother? An html subset that takes everything away but
formatting sounds pretty much like what I'm doing right now with
gnus.
Joe
Alan J. Flavell
[Off Topic discussion of netiquette, seen on comp.lang.perl.misc:]
> Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
> intelligent discussion, is there?
Discussion about netiquette on any of these cross-posted groups cannot
by definition be "intelligent": there are proper places to discuss the
netiquette (they'd have "news" as their top hierarchy, not "comp"),
and your posting was cross-posted to none of them.
[f'ups set] [I have been trolled, mea culpa]
Mike Schilling
<j...@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:m3ll2qx...@invalid.address...
I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y will
always be the only proper way."
Don't you?
Rich Teer
> Just have a look at some web based message boards, and you might see why it
> would be another disaster on Usenet. Moreoever, why keep people insisting
> on making Usenet "better"? If you want HTML and fancy mark up, start a
> message board. You probably can get even more people.
Right. I avoid web based forums like the plague. Why? Because apart
from the (usually) very low SNR, for me interacting with a browser is
more effort than using my email/news client of 10+ years, pine.
I find that fact that something is technically possible (e.g., HTML
email and Usenet) is not necessarily a good argument for actully
DOING it.
use...@isbd.co.uk
>
> > the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
> > heavy-handed and anachronistic.
>
> No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
> alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned
... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.
> earlier). However, Usenet is a stranger to most people on the Internet,
> even with Usenet access, and hence, there is no real reason to see it
> changed into something that is "available" for years and years to more
> people: www.
>
> --
> John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
> Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
> Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
>
--
Chris Green
Ulrich Hobelmann
> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>> the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
>>> heavy-handed and anachronistic.
>> No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
>> alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned
>
> ... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
> assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
> are much, much slower.
That is because NNTP and its applications didn't evolve to feed the
glitzy need lots of users have.
Sadly web forums (esp. the ugly, sloooow PHPBB, and the unspeakable
Google groups) are increasingly replacing usenet, but there are
exceptions (DragonflyBSD).
On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
replacing Usenet, with some obvious disadvantages: go on vacation,
return after a week, and -- yahoo! -- all your RSS feeds only turn of
the, say, most recent 30 articles, while your newsgroups all show
everything you missed.
There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e. contain
a small description and a web link as message text), or why a newsgroup
shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or user-provided)
CSS sheet. If things were that way, suddenly people *would* use Outlook
and Thunderbird for news-reading, while today everything is just
Browser+HTTP.
Oh, yes:</rant>
Alexander Zatvornitskiy
11 aug 2005 at 18:23, Xah Lee wrote:
XL> Jargons of Info Tech industry
XL> (A Love of Jargons)
XL> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
XL> People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
...skipped...
Look at this site for some info: http://lleo.aha.ru/na/en
Alexander, za...@bk.ru
Rich Teer
> CSS sheet. If things were that way, suddenly people *would* use Outlook
No no no! Let's keep those Outhouse lusers away from Usenet. There's
tto much top posting as it is!
John Bokma
> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>> > the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
>> > heavy-handed and anachronistic.
>>
>> No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards.
>> Those alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset
>> mentioned
>
> ... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
> assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
> are much, much slower.
Yup, Slow because of all the HTML and avatars. And you suggest to introduce
such a thing to Usenet?
And which useful tools do you require?
John Bokma
> On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
> replacing Usenet,
LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?
> There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
> contain a small description and a web link as message text),
It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).
> or why a
> newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
> user-provided) CSS sheet.
It's called www. It's already here (or there)
> If things were that way, suddenly people
> *would* use Outlook and Thunderbird for news-reading,
But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook). Why
do you want more people on Usenet?
> while today
> everything is just Browser+HTTP.
And what's wrong with that?
Mike Meyer
> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
> comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)
No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
doesn't.
HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web
authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this), so
you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features you
want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in the
HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java, and any
form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.
No problem.
Paul Rubin
> > Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
> > comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)
>
> No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
> by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
> doesn't.
Lynx?
John Bokma
Emacs?
Gordon Burditt
>authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this), so
>you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features you
>want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in the
>HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java, and any
>form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.
And links. And cookies. And any kind of external site or local
file access. And browser history.
Gordon L. Burditt
Chris Head
Hash: SHA1
use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
> ... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
> assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
> are much, much slower.
[snip]
Arrgh, I *emphatically* *hate* Web-based-(almost anything). Why, oh WHY,
would we subject ourselves to Web-based message boards and Webmail
services? When using a proper e-mail client, your bandwidth usage
consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail service, your
bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message, PLUS the entire
user interface. Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with only
the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer. I mean, the way
Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
e-mail program for every single message you want to view!
Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
imaginable?
...
</rant>
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFDDoRR6ZGQ8LKA8nwRAvinAKCVi3Sfztpm3ILUk7TnunPJxBEVzwCguvAu
ME8mWt2eVNpPUckJ3NT39KY=
=TdTk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
BJ Swope
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing
> hypertext pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every
> application imaginable?
Because the Lord High PoohBah (Bill) has so decreed. He has
replaced General bullMoose.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
CBFalconer
What is the risk with browser history?
Denis Kasak
>
> I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y will
> always be the only proper way."
>
> Don't you?
Y would not be useful because of the bandwidth it consumes, the malware
it would introduce, the additional time spent focusing on the format
rather than quality of the content and, frankly, because it's useless.
As Rich already said, if one wants to look at neatly formatted content,
one can always visit the web. Usenet is meant to be an
information-sharing facility, and I cannot see *any* reason why it
should be exposed to all the disadvantages stated in numerous places in
thread to gain a pale "advantage" such as flashy content. We already
have a World Wide Web, no need to make Usenet it's clone.
-- Denis
John Bokma
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> [snip]
>> ... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
>> assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
>> are much, much slower.
> [snip]
>
> Arrgh, I *emphatically* *hate* Web-based-(almost anything). Why, oh
> WHY, would we subject ourselves to Web-based message boards and
> Webmail services? When using a proper e-mail client, your bandwidth
> usage consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail
> service, your bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message,
> PLUS the entire user interface.
Not necessary when using (i)frames + cache
> Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
> renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with
> only the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer.
Nowadays, more then futile.
> I mean, the way
> Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
> view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
> loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
> e-mail program for every single message you want to view!
This can be designed much better by using iframes, maybe even Ajax.
> Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
> pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
> imaginable?
Because it works?
Chris Head
Hash: SHA1
John Bokma wrote:
[snip]
>>usage consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail
>>service, your bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message,
>>PLUS the entire user interface.
>
>
> Not necessary when using (i)frames + cache
True. Perhaps Hotmail is not very well designed, but it doesn't use
frames. I'm not really familiar with other Webmail systems, but the one
provided by my ISP doesn't either.
>
>
>>Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
>>renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with
>>only the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer.
>
>
> Nowadays, more then futile.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Even on my 2.8GHz Pentium 4,
using Thunderbird to juggle messages is noticeably faster than wandering
around Hotmail. Complex HTML rendering still isn't absolutely
instantaneous. It's significantly more painful when I use my 433MHz
Celeron. It simply takes a long time to jump between message, inbox,
other message, inbox, other other message, inbox, etc.
>
>
>>I mean, the way
>>Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
>>view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
>>loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
>>e-mail program for every single message you want to view!
>
>
> This can be designed much better by using iframes, maybe even Ajax.
Agreed. Judicious use of frames (internal or otherwise) or
Javascript-based partial reloads could seriously improve the situation.
They might also provide an easier way for Webmail providers to implement
their pages in valid HTML: if you render the entire e-mail message alone
in a frame, you don't have to start stripping out pieces of e-mail
because they already exist (html and body elements, for example)
>
>
>>Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
>>pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
>>imaginable?
>
>
> Because it works?
>
... and purpose-built client applications (e.g. Thunderbird) don't?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still very much prefer thick clients. They
simply feel much more solid. Perhaps part of it is that thin clients
have to communicate with the server at least a little bit for just about
everything they do, while thick clients can do a lot of work without ANY
Internet round-trip delay at all. Hotmail has to talk to the server to
move a message from one mailbox to another. Thunderbird doesn't. Ergo,
Thunderbird is faster as soon as the Internet gets congested.
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFDDqXh6ZGQ8LKA8nwRAsVyAKCjwP9iyrPRBnMsI1pB+wqZdANE6ACfYeGx
w8SLwXln0VjpuwF+L7BDfKM=
=pZ/B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Schilling
"Denis Kasak" <denis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dem3hh$o9h$1...@news1.xnet.hr...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>> I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y
>> will always be the only proper way."
>>
>> Don't you?
>
> Y would not be useful because of the bandwidth it consumes, the malware it
> would introduce, the additional time spent focusing on the format rather
> than quality of the content and, frankly, because it's useless.
Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
useless frills.
Gordon Burditt
>>> authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this),
>>> so you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features
>>> you want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in
>>> the HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java,
>>> and any form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.
>>
>> And links. And cookies. And any kind of external site or local
>> file access. And browser history.
>
>What is the risk with browser history?
spyware and viruses (which can come from places other than email)
sending it somewhere. Actually, there's not much point in keeping
a browser history if all it can contain is mail in YOUR mailbox
that may or may not have been already deleted.
Gordon L. Burditt
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
>> replacing Usenet,
>
> LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?
I said "information side", meaning stuff like RSS is used for.
>> There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
>> contain a small description and a web link as message text),
>
> It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).
Yes, but for some reason people jumped onto the RSS hype. I wonder why.
Heck, even I am subscribed to a bunch of RSSes, because those
institutions don't offer NNTP ;)
>> or why a
>> newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
>> user-provided) CSS sheet.
>
> It's called www. It's already here (or there)
Well, but forums only emulate the posting/reply structure. It would
make more sense to use NNTP for that, and use $WHATEVER, e.g. HTML, for
markup inside the posts. WWW is something else; a bunch of pages with
hyperlinks to each other. Maybe we shouldn't call web forums and other
dynamic websites www, as they don't really follow that purpose. They
are just abuses of HTTP/HTML/JS for thin clienting. ;)
>> If things were that way, suddenly people
>> *would* use Outlook and Thunderbird for news-reading,
>
> But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook). Why
> do you want more people on Usenet?
No, I'm not talking about usenet. I'm glad if the SNR keeps as high
(haha) as it is, and messages in plain text.
I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.
Oh, and I've heard there are people reading our in-house newsgroup with
Outlook.
>> while today
>> everything is just Browser+HTTP.
>
> And what's wrong with that?
It's slow and pointless. All interaction that's more than clicking a
link has to be emulated with Javascript (heard of Ajax already?) to make
it more smooth.
NNTP has advantages like giving you only the headlines first, so you can
choose what to check out. Then you can get the article if you like (in
the communication case) or the news description (in the RSSoid case) and
maybe click on a link inside. Saves bandwidth and is quite faster than
waiting for some overloaded PHP server to send you a bunch of HTML
tables. Responding doesn't involve *any* HTTP requests, just a keypress
and you're typing.
Web forums are stone-age, as are most web-pages.
use...@isbd.co.uk
> use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> > In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
> >>> the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
> >>> heavy-handed and anachronistic.
> >> No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
> >> alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned
> >
> > ... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
> > assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
> > are much, much slower.
>
> That is because NNTP and its applications didn't evolve to feed the
> glitzy need lots of users have.
>
slow) forums as the way to get support etc. If they were told about
the alternatives as well and told how to use them then I thiink those
alternatives would be used.
"NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
I've ever seen.
> Sadly web forums (esp. the ugly, sloooow PHPBB, and the unspeakable
> Google groups) are increasingly replacing usenet, but there are
> exceptions (DragonflyBSD).
>
One good solution is a furum which is also accessible by NNTP.
> On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
> replacing Usenet, with some obvious disadvantages: go on vacation,
> return after a week, and -- yahoo! -- all your RSS feeds only turn of
> the, say, most recent 30 articles, while your newsgroups all show
> everything you missed.
>
Same applies to most newsfeeds, depending on retention. If you want
to look a long way back in a thread, use Google Groups.
--
Chris Green
use...@isbd.co.uk
> use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>
> > In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
> >> > heavy-handed and anachronistic.
> >>
> >> No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards.
> >> Those alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset
> >> mentioned
> >
> > ... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
> > assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
> > are much, much slower.
>
> Yup, Slow because of all the HTML and avatars. And you suggest to introduce
> such a thing to Usenet?
>
> And which useful tools do you require?
>
A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
interfaces, filtering, kill files, etc. etc. A forum provides a
single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
the user to change it radically.
--
Chris Green
Ulrich Hobelmann
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
>> comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)
>
> No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
> by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
> doesn't.
>
> HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web
> authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this), so
> you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features you
> want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in the
> HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java, and any
> form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.
That's a good idea. I have parts of it disabled. The advantage of
disabling them all is that you don't have to visit all those crappy
modern websites, because they don't work.
What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that they
want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc. and
then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow cookies
for that site. Some people really don't have a clue, but kludgy "web
standards technologies" (by the oh-so-omnisavant W3C) kind of force it.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>>>Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
>>>renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with
>>>only the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer.
>>
>> Nowadays, more then futile.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Even on my 2.8GHz Pentium 4,
> using Thunderbird to juggle messages is noticeably faster than
> wandering around Hotmail. Complex HTML rendering still isn't
> absolutely instantaneous.
It can be made much faster. There will always be a delay since messages
have to be downloaded, but with a fast connection and a good design, the
delay will be very very small and the advantages are big.
> It's significantly more painful when I use my 433MHz
> Celeron. It simply takes a long time to jump between message, inbox,
> other message, inbox, other other message, inbox, etc.
...
>> This can be designed much better by using iframes, maybe even Ajax.
>
> Agreed. Judicious use of frames (internal or otherwise) or
> Javascript-based partial reloads could seriously improve the
> situation. They might also provide an easier way for Webmail providers
> to implement their pages in valid HTML: if you render the entire
> e-mail message alone
> in a frame, you don't have to start stripping out pieces of e-mail
> because they already exist (html and body elements, for example)
Yup.
>>>Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
>>>pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
>>>imaginable?
>>
>> Because it works?
>
> ... and purpose-built client applications (e.g. Thunderbird) don't?
if A -> B, it doesn't say that B -> A :-) I.e. that it works via HTML
doesn't mean it doesn't with a dedicated client ;-).
I live in Mexico, most people here rely on so called Internet cafes for
their connection, and even the use of a computer. For them Thunderbird
*doesn't work*.
> Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still very much prefer thick clients.
> They simply feel much more solid. Perhaps part of it is that thin
> clients have to communicate with the server at least a little bit for
> just about everything they do, while thick clients can do a lot of
> work without ANY Internet round-trip delay at all.
Each has it's place. A bug in a thick client means each and everyone has
to be fixed. With a thin one, just one has to be fixed :-D.
> Hotmail has to talk to the server to
> move a message from one mailbox to another. Thunderbird doesn't.
Depends on where your mailbox resides. Isn't there something called
MAPI? (I haven't used it myself, but I recall something like that).
> Ergo,
> Thunderbird is faster as soon as the Internet gets congested.
Ah, yeah, wasn't that predicted to happen in like 2001?
Also, unless you have some program that kills spam on the server, you
have to download all with Thunderbird. I remember a funny day when I got
2000 messages/hour due to a virus outbreak :-( With hotmail, if you have
100 new messages you download them when you read them. Or kill them when
you don't want to read.
Denis Kasak
>
> Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
> useless frills.
Interestingly enough, I have explained my opinion in the part of the
post you have trimmed. On the other hand, things you mentioned are far
from being useless. They introduce no intrinsical slowdown due to
increased bandwidth consumation, nor potential security problems. They
have no downsides I can possibly think of and have many advantages. They
are useful. HTML on Usenet is not.
-- Denis
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
>>> replacing Usenet,
>>
>> LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?
>
> I said "information side", meaning stuff like RSS is used for.
Nah, I wouldn't call it a replacement. Maybe of mailinglists with latest
news.
>>> There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
>>> contain a small description and a web link as message text),
>>
>> It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).
>
> Yes, but for some reason people jumped onto the RSS hype.
You think so? Like on push technology, VRML, and what more? Most of my
friends have no clue what RSS is. Maybe in IE7, when it's more hidden,
people will use it. But I wouldn't call it a hype, unless a hype is
something many people shout you have to have it (hmm...)
> I wonder
> why.
> Heck, even I am subscribed to a bunch of RSSes, because those
> institutions don't offer NNTP ;)
But they probably have (or had) a mailing list.
>>> or why a
>>> newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
>>> user-provided) CSS sheet.
>>
>> It's called www. It's already here (or there)
>
> Well, but forums only emulate the posting/reply structure. It would
> make more sense to use NNTP for that,
Why? It now works in the browser, you don't need to install another
client. Moreover, many people, especially where I live, don't have a
computer at home. Same for many students I know, they use the computer
at school. And many people I know with a job use the computer at work.
And not everybody wants to install a client for each and every protocol.
Hence why things like webmessenger are used.
> and use $WHATEVER, e.g. HTML,
> for markup inside the posts. WWW is something else; a bunch of pages
> with hyperlinks to each other. Maybe we shouldn't call web forums and
> other dynamic websites www, as they don't really follow that purpose.
Nonsense.
> They are just abuses of HTTP/HTML/JS for thin clienting. ;)
Like UUencode is abuse of ASCII? LOL!
>> But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook).
>> Why do you want more people on Usenet?
>
> No, I'm not talking about usenet. I'm glad if the SNR keeps as high
> (haha) as it is, and messages in plain text.
>
> I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
> reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.
What is exactly crappy about those forums?
> Oh, and I've heard there are people reading our in-house newsgroup
> with Outlook.
Amazing, since I always understood that it can't do NNTP.
>>> while today
>>> everything is just Browser+HTTP.
>>
>> And what's wrong with that?
>
> It's slow and pointless.
The huge success of web based message boards seems so say something
entirely different. When I post with X-news, there is a delay, when I
post with my browser, there is a delay. I have no idea which delay is
more significant. Maybe they are too close.
> All interaction that's more than clicking a
> link has to be emulated with Javascript (heard of Ajax already?
Yes, I even mentioned it in this thread. And what's the problem?
> ) to
> make it more smooth.
HTML was never a programming language, and will never be. Hence for
fancy stuff you have to use a programming language. Nothing wrong with
that.
> NNTP has advantages like giving you only the headlines first, so you
> can choose what to check out.
Funny, I see the same when I use phpBB. Headlines.
> Then you can get the article if you
> like (in the communication case)
Yup, same with phpBB, I click a link, and bzzzt.. there is the article,
and the replies to it.
> or the news description (in the
> RSSoid case)
Yup, there is a mod for phpBB that makes it possible to give each post
besides a title a short description.
> and maybe click on a link inside. Saves bandwidth and is
> quite faster than waiting for some overloaded PHP server to send you a
> bunch of HTML tables.
Hence, overloaded servers shouldn't use PHP, or use special caching
tricks. I can't remember having seen slow boards, even not the ones with
hundreds of simultaneous users (for example phpbb.com).
> Responding doesn't involve *any* HTTP requests,
No, but it requires sending your post to an NNTP server. Which takes
time (when I press send, I don't see this window close immediately).
> just a keypress and you're typing.
Just a mouse click.
> Web forums are stone-age, as are most web-pages.
Maybe you should visit one and check out for yourself. Age has little to
do with it, Usenet is way older, works. IRC is way older, works.
John Bokma
> "NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
> sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
> I've ever seen.
Example(s). And do users need those sophisticated things?
John Bokma
> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
[ web based boards ]
>> And which useful tools do you require?
>>
> A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
> interfaces,
- different browsers, different stylesheets, different board styles
(themes).
> filtering,
There is often a search function, which filters away everything that
doesn't match. There are also things like word filters, etc.
> kill files,
<http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=150586&highlight=ignore>
> etc. etc.
> A forum provides a
> single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
> the user to change it radically.
Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
quite radically :-)
And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.
Oh, yes, I would love to see an XML interface on the board I use. Maybe
I can just install a mod, or write one myself.
John Bokma
> What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that
> they want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc.
> and then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow
> cookies for that site.
So your browser doesn't warn you?
John Bokma
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>> Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
>> useless frills.
>
> Interestingly enough, I have explained my opinion in the part of the
> post you have trimmed. On the other hand, things you mentioned are far
> from being useless. They introduce no intrinsical slowdown due to
> increased bandwidth consumation, nor potential security problems.
You can't be sure: errors in the handling of threads can cause a buffer
overflow, same for spelling checking :-D
> They
> have no downsides I can possibly think of
Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.
> and have many advantages. They
> are useful. HTML on Usenet is not.
Of course can HTML be useful on Usenet. The problem is that it will be much
more often abused instead of used.
use...@isbd.co.uk
> > reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.
>
> What is exactly crappy about those forums?
>
They are inflexible
They are slow
They don't allow the user to choose how to view them, the interface is
imposed on the user.
They are slow
They don't have killfiles or scoring
They are slow
--
Chris Green
use...@isbd.co.uk
>
> > "NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
> > sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
> > I've ever seen.
>
> Example(s). And do users need those sophisticated things?
>
Selecting posts and threads based on a scoring system
A huge variety of different newsreaders allowing different users to
access the news in they way they want.
I don't use all the possibilities (e.g. I don't use kill files) but I
do use a 'minority' text based newsreader because it is ideal for me.
I don't get the option of a text based forum reader - I doubt many
forums work with lynx.
--
Chris Green
use...@isbd.co.uk
> > have no downsides I can possibly think of
>
> Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.
>
extra memory use, no risk.
--
Chris Green
Ulrich Hobelmann
> use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
> [ web based boards ]
>
>>> And which useful tools do you require?
>>>
>> A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
>> interfaces,
>
> - different browsers, different stylesheets, different board styles
> (themes).
But the UI is still *forced* on you by the website; no choice. There's
only a very limited choice, and it invariably *includes* the UI. With
NNTP *you* choose how to interpret and display the data you get.
Great. How can I, the user, choose, how to use a mod on a given web
server? What if the web server runs another board than PHPBB?
>> A forum provides a
>> single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
>> the user to change it radically.
>
> Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
> quite radically :-)
The look, not the feel.
> And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
> images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.
As I wrote earlier, you *could* run a web forum over NNTP, and use HTML
posts instead of plain text. It would have the advantages of NNTP.
> Oh, yes, I would love to see an XML interface on the board I use. Maybe
> I can just install a mod, or write one myself.
What would that XML be for? Any particular *use*?
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that
>> they want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc.
>> and then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow
>> cookies for that site.
>
> So your browser doesn't warn you?
About what? I have cookies off, with explicit exception for sites where
I want cookies. When the crappy website doesn't bother to MENTION that
it wants cookies, i.e. give me an error page, how am I to know that it
needs cookies? Do I want EVERY website to ask me "do you allow XY to
set a cookie?" NO!
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
>>> Don't you?
All dependent on and only affecting the user who employs them. It
does not require other users to do anything.
It is none of my business whether you used vi, emacs, ed or whatever
to compose your message; whether you ran a spell checker over it;
or how you read messages and respond to them - perhaps you telnet'd
to the news server and made your transactions manually.
Axel
John Bokma
> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
>> > reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.
>>
>> What is exactly crappy about those forums?
>>
> They are slow
I have no problems with it. Moreover, since I use an NNTP server which is a
bit remote, it's way slower compared to the web forums I use.
> They are inflexible
Examples?
> They don't allow the user to choose how to view them, the interface is
> imposed on the user.
False. The user can pick themes, often several. The user can use a user
stylesheet or several. And you can always write your own client :-D.
> They don't have killfiles or scoring
You can install a mod to kill people.
And I have no doubt that there is a scoring mod, or one can be written in a
few hours.
John Bokma
> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > "NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
>> > sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
>> > I've ever seen.
>>
>> Example(s). And do users need those sophisticated things?
>>
> Kill files
there is a mod for that (at least for phpBB)
> Selecting posts and threads based on a scoring system
If there is no mod, one can be easily written.
> A huge variety of different newsreaders allowing different users to
> access the news in they way they want.
Different browsers, stylesheets, themes.
> I don't use all the possibilities (e.g. I don't use kill files) but I
> do use a 'minority' text based newsreader because it is ideal for me.
> I don't get the option of a text based forum reader - I doubt many
> forums work with lynx.
But have you tested it? You just blurb out random statements, based on gut
feelings. Yes, phpBB works with lynx. And I doubt it's a rare exception.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ web based boards ]
>>
>>>> And which useful tools do you require?
>>>>
>>> A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
>>> interfaces,
>>
>> - different browsers, different stylesheets, different board styles
>> (themes).
>
> But the UI is still *forced* on you by the website; no choice.
> There's only a very limited choice, and it invariably *includes* the
> UI. With NNTP *you* choose how to interpret and display the data you
> get.
With a web based forum too. Example:
http://johnbokma.com/perl/phpbb-remote-backup.html
>> http://www.phpbb.com/mods/
>
> Great. How can I, the user, choose, how to use a mod on a given web
> server?
Ask the admin?
> What if the web server runs another board than PHPBB?
Check if there is a mod, and ask the admin.
>> Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
>> quite radically :-)
>
> The look, not the feel.
Wild guess: (signed) javascript and iframes? on your local computer?
Otherwise: fetch HTML, parse it, restructure it, and have the
application run a local webserver. Python, Perl, piece of cake.
>> And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
>> images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.
>
> As I wrote earlier, you *could* run a web forum over NNTP, and use
> HTML posts instead of plain text. It would have the advantages of
> NNTP.
>
>> Oh, yes, I would love to see an XML interface on the board I use.
>> Maybe I can just install a mod, or write one myself.
>
> What would that XML be for? Any particular *use*?
RSS feeds? XML-RPC? Access to the board with a better mark up then HTML
supports?
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that
>>> they want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc.
>>> and then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow
>>> cookies for that site.
>>
>> So your browser doesn't warn you?
>
> About what?
That the site wants to set a cookie? Lynx does that.
> I have cookies off, with explicit exception for sites where
> I want cookies. When the crappy website doesn't bother to MENTION that
> it wants cookies, i.e. give me an error page, how am I to know that it
> needs cookies? Do I want EVERY website to ask me "do you allow XY to
> set a cookie?" NO!
So what do you want? An error page for every site that wants to set a
cookie?
John Bokma
That's besides the point, the point was that extra functionality has no
downsides. They have.
Dragan Cvetkovic
>> A forum provides a
>> single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
>> the user to change it radically.
>
> Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
> quite radically :-)
>
> And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
> images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.
Sounds scary. When I want to read a text, I don't need the whole multimedia
experience.
Bye, Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
John Bokma
> John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
>
>>> A forum provides a
>>> single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way
>>> for the user to change it radically.
>>
>> Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
>> quite radically :-)
>>
>> And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
>> images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.
>
> Sounds scary. When I want to read a text, I don't need the whole
> multimedia experience.
so use Lynx :-)
One forum I visit is about scorpions. And really, it talks a bit easier
about scorpions if you have an image to look at :-D.
In short: Usenet = Usenet, and www = www. Why some people want to move
people from www to Usenet or vice versa is beyond me. If 80% of the current
Usenet users stop posting, Usenet is not going to die :-D
Denis Kasak
>
> You can't be sure: errors in the handling of threads can cause a buffer
> overflow, same for spelling checking :-D
Yes, they can, provided they are not properly coded. However, those
things only interact locally with the user and have none or very limited
interaction with the user on the other side of the line. As such, they
can hardly be exploitable.
> Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.
On a good newsreader the memory use difference should be irrelevantly
small, even if one does not use the features. I would call that a
nitpicky argument. Also, the risk in question is not comparable because
of the reasons stated above. The kind of risk you are talking about
happens with /any/ software. To stay away from that we shouldn't have
newsreaders (or any other software, for that matter) in the first place.
> Of course can HTML be useful on Usenet. The problem is that it will be much
> more often abused instead of used.
No, you missed the point. I am arguing that HTML is completely and
utterly /useless/ on Usenet. Time spent for writing HTML in Usenet posts
is comparable to that spent on arguing about coding style or writing
followups to Xah Lee. It adds no further insight on a particular
subject, but _does_ add further delays, spam, bandwidth consumation,
exploits, and is generally a pain in the arse. It's redundant.
-- Denis