www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/04/10/16:39:18

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Andrew DeFaria <ADeFaria AT Salira DOT com>
Subject: Re: H.T.M.L. (RE: Getting home directory in Windows 2000 environment)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:35:20 -0700
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <3E95D588.7050602@Salira.com>
References: <CEB144BF16CCD2118F4800805FE6A253060222FC AT NPRI54EXC07 DOT NPT DOT NUWC DOT NAVY DOT MIL> <5 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20030409152933 DOT 00fda4d0 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com> <E193fX9-0001fS-00 AT quimby DOT gnus DOT org> <3E95AD5C DOT 1000009 AT Salira DOT com> <E193i88-0003G2-00 AT quimby DOT gnus DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru, zh

news AT garydjones DOT mailshell DOT com wrote:

> Andrew DeFaria <ADeFaria AT salira DOT com> wrote:
>
>> news AT garydjones DOT mailshell DOT com wrote:
>
>>>> It is the lingua franca of the worldwide web
>>>
>>> Yes. Let it stay there.
>>
>> Why?
>
> For the reasons outlined by Hannu E K Nevalainen. Do try to keep up.

I have kept up - I just don't buy his reasoning. I can as easily say we 
should post in HTML for the reasons outlined by Randall Schultz but you 
don't buy that. Suffice to say that this is just a different of opinions 
and a personal preference. What gets me is when some attempt to force 
their personal preferences onto others.

>>> Does that mean that we should all post in jpegs since we could then 
>>> achieve exactly the same thing?
>>
>> That's an unreasonable stretch from html -> jpeg.
>
> Not at all. The presentation of binary images is "widely supported by 
> GUI mail and news clients". You might have noted that this is a stupid 
> argument.

Sorry, I took the statement (the "we should all post in jpegs) to mean 
that we should replace any text with a jpeg image of the text. After all 
there is no reason to post a jpeg except to show something visually that 
is just easier to show visually than to have to describe in words.

>>>> Personal communications must extend beyond simple text without 
>>>> stylistic variation for computers to fully facilitate human 
>>>> communication.
>>>
>>> Post your proof.
>>
>> Post your disproof!
>
> He is the one that made the assertion. If he expects to be believed 
> then he should be able to offer proof to back up his theory.

And Hannu has made his assertions too without any posted proof either. 
As for alternate forms of communication I've heard of studies that say 
that only about 8% of what is said in a conversation is actually 
listened to. The rest comes from other, non-verbal forms of 
communication. So then it's already been known and

>>> People have been using plain text to communicate quite 
>>> satisfactorily, thank you very much.
>>
>> How many colors does your monitor do? People have communicated with 
>> black and white monitors quite satisfactory, thank you very much.
>
> Indeed, I do not send my email in any other colours but black and 
> white or whatever other colours you choose to render them in. The 
> choice is yours. What was your point, or did you not have one?

My point was these "minimulists" who state that ASCII text is all that 
is needed should practice what they preach by using monitors in only 
black and white! Throughout human history people afraid of change 
usually tout something akin to "If it was good enough for my grandfather 
then it's good enough for me" and by implication here "good enough for 
you too".

Statements like the infamous "Who needs more than 640K of memory 
anyway!" are similar. If we draw an anology here then we should be 
striving to fit Cygwin into 640K because it can be said that that is the 
lowest common denominator too - there probably are those less fortunate 
out there that only have ASCII terminals running in DOS with 640K. 
Shouldn't we be polite and accomidate for the LCD?

However I think most hear would agree that that is ludicrous in that 
that sets the bar just way too low. Consequently Randall and I are 
saying that we think setting the bar at ASCII only is also too low. You 
disagree. Fine. We each have the right to our own opinions.

>>>> c) Attached images add an unnecessary burden on email downloads 
>>>> Burden? On whom?
>>>
>>> On every single person that receives it. That much must be obvious, 
>>> or are you being deliberately obtuse?
>>
>> Another reason why this should be a newsgroup.... (Ducking for cover! :-)
>
>
> http://news.gmane.org/

Being there, done that, bought the T shirt and program! In fact that is 
exactly the way I read and respond to this silly mail list (another 
ancient and IMHO, dying concept... Which is why I was ducking for cover 
because this sort of thinking seems to offend many others here for some 
reason).



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019