David Lawley wrote:
You wrote
"You have to download stuff you don't want on a forum too. By the time your
web browser has finished downloading all the graphics .and formatting gunk
it needs to render whatever aesthetic the forum webmaster has chosen, each
screen could (and probably is) a couple of hundred kbytes -- Which is
equivalent to several weeks worth of aus-soaring email, even when we're at
our most wordy and least useful."
I have been subscribed for 3 days and I have already received 860KB of data
from this list, well more than a couple of hundred Kb-in 3 days!!!!
You haven't received over 860 kbytes of data from this list in 3 days, David,
There have been 16 posts to this list with datestamps of Jan 28, 29 or 30,
totaling 111593 bytes, including headers. 13 of them have been today, if
you can believe it. If we remove today's controversy, which isn't normal,
we get a grand total of about 15 Kbytes from the same date range.
There is absolutely *no way* that you've received 860 Kbytes of data from
this list in 3 days. I can believe it if the .pst files you've accumulated
totaled to that much storage space, but that's only because .pst files
are, shall we say, not the world's most space-efficient file format.
The actual data posted to the list and actually downloaded by your mail
client, assuming you're actually reading this particular thread, is
a tad over 100 kbytes.
Where you pull your figures from is a Mystery-or maybe not?
I'm pulling my figures of mailing list utilization from the mail server
logs, David. Where else should I get them from?
I'm getting my figures on the web forum download volume by running the
"mirror" script on it and then using the "du" utility to find out how
much disk space the result consumes after it has been downloaded. 140 Kbytes
for the intro screen, you'll recall.
You wrote
"With all due respect, David, "The Register" is not "the industry." It's
the IT press equivalent of a tabloid newspaper, and it solicits hits by
being inflammatory and sensationalist. If you want an accurate rendition of
the state of "the industry," I'd suggest some source other than El Reg."
With all due respect, What a crock of shit Mark, The Reg was the first
source I thought of however a quick search reveals hundreds if not thousands
more examples of problems, anyway how about adressing those examples,
instead of a piss weak attack on their source?
It's not my job to scour the Internet looking for material which makes
your argument for you. You quoted the Reg as a source, I pointed out that
its objectivity is questionable. If you want me to examine a different
source, -you- scour the Internet to find it.
Be that as it may, I also pointed out another source anyway. Wikipedia's
founder is well known, and it isn't that hard to google for other
articles by other wikipedia editors to see them pointing out that the
scandals of the type invented by The Register are exaggerations, nor is
it hard to find counterpoints which say exactly the opposite of what the
Register says with similar degrees of exaggeration.
http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/08/29/wikipedia_reputation_and_the_wemedia_project.php
The Register, egged on by other outlets, has been successful in fabricating
a heavily polarized debate from whole cloth. While that's sure to have
benefited The Register's hit-count (and, subsequently, its advertising
revenue), it hasn't usefully informed its readers. the truth of the matter is
likely to be somewhere in between. Yes, keeping Wikipedia free from
defacements is *an* issue, but not one that keeps anyone up at night.
And considering the fact that defacements are only found if you're really
looking for them (even though Wikipedia is a high-profile site which is
thought to attract defacements), it's hard to see how they can be viewed
as a serious problem.
You wrote
"That's an archive, not a forum."
It still looks like crap!!!
Do you want to talk about archives or forums?
You wrote
"and as I show below, the crocodile tears you're crying about downloading a
stack of mails you aren't interested in is actually crap, and there can be
no rational basis for any independent observer to believe that that's really
a serious concern in your mind)"
Who appointed you a rational independent observer?
Nobody, and I didn't say I was one (although I did admittedly put words into
one's mouth).
I'd invite independent nominations if anyone thinks this is worth pursuing.
(I suspect it isn't, but who am I to tell? Your emotive comments suggest
you care deeply about the answer, so I'll entertain the investigation if
that's what you need...)
You wrote
"If you're living in the 1980's world of POP3, yes. If you're using IMAP
your filtering will be done server-side and you'll never need to download
stuff that you won't want to see."
I Mark, unlike yourself put myself into the mind of the ordinary user as I
have to deal with them everyday. What you say is indeed true for the expert
users, but we are an exception not the rule.
Ordinary users have probably never heard of IMAP etc, I use what my employer
provides.
Here's where I stop reading and start laughing, David.
"The ordinary user" is using Outlook Express, which is an IMAP client,
which (as I mentioned once or twice) will initiate server-side filtering
and only bother downloading messages the user feels like reading.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=264580
The fact that you don't already know this speaks volumes about the
contribution you've made to, uh, "the debate" this afternoon. Why post
angry and insulting messages about it if you don't even know what it is
or whether or not it's in the standard featureset of the email client
you use and support every day? C'mon, David, how is this contributing
quality to the discussion?
I believe in using what my users use so that I am familiar with and can
support them,
Then you've made my argument for me, David. Your users will have the
full benefit of IMAP, which means everything I wrote about in my last
message applies to them.
Even though they've never heard of IMAP.
Software abstraction is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
not an esteoteric style over substance Apple product.(-:
Your sarcasm and aggressive tone does you no credit Mark.
Why do you need to react so violently and abusively to a different opinion?
I'm just putting substance over style, David.
You construe that as "violent and abusive," and yet you're the one
throwing around bad language and pejoratives about Mac users (of all
things!) while displaying ignorance about the topic that's presently
under discussion. If I was a different person who was a bit short of
temper I could get upset about that deliberate provocation, but I'm
letting it slide without even expecting an apology because I'm a nice guy.
I'd be happy to couch my comments in the guise of a fawning sycophant
if it'd make you feel better, *even if* you're going to continue to be
insulting about it, as long as you understand that the style I'd need
to use might get in the way of the substance of my message.
Unless that's what you really want, I'll continue to calmly make sound
points backed by technical knowledge, evidence and quoted independent
references, while ignoring the details of any emotional responses you
with to subsequently create. And if you think that's violent and
abusive, you can make use of your IMAP client's ability to delete
threads without downloading them and never spent a single byte on the
remainder of this discussion.
Regards,
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 -----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
