Bob Young wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Duncan Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:30 AM To:
[email protected] Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile
failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation
Clemente Aguiar posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:02:31 +0000:
How can I solve this problem?<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD
HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Mensagem</TITLE>
First, please turn off HTML. Many on FLOSS (Free, Libre, and Open
Source Software) type lists consider HTML posts the mark of spammers
and malware authors, and may kill filter it or simply refuse to
reply. I reply, but I make it a point of asking folks to please turn
it off, and may not reply (and indeed, killfile) future posts if the
HTML remains.
I know that many share this opinion, and although I don't want to
start a flame war, I do think there are some valid counter points in
favor of html. Everyone is of course free to filter content based on
his or her own preferences. However most of the reasons given against
posting html aren't really all that strong. In fact the only thing
http://www.emailreplies.com/ suggests is that recipients "*might*
only be able to receive plain text emails." It goes on to note: "Most
email clients however... are able to receive HTML and rich text
messages." It's pretty rare that a modern email client can't deal
with html. I would argue that the very few desktops not using some
flavor of GUI should not force a limiting "least common denominator"
type policy.
yeah. lets get rid of the minorities.
Even the two reasons listed in the above reply don't stand up very
well to logical reasoning, it's obvious the OP was neither a spammer
nor a malware author, filtering all html email on the basis of those
two reasons alone is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath
water.
The other common reason given against html is storage space/bandwidth
issues. This is a weak argument also; in cost per megabyte storage
is dirt-cheap. Premium NNTP providers are advertising retention times
of 90 days or more for large *binary* groups, where a single post can
be several hundred megabytes. If a few extra Kbytes here or there in
an email message is really causing a problem for someone, then an
upgrade should probably be priority. Most messages are much larger
than they need to be anyway because people don't trim quotes.
this is about private emails. emails in mailing lists should be short
and concise. i wonder what the big archive-sites think about this..
Lastly there are some things that are just easier to communicate in a
html format, diagrams and tables come to mind, we've all seen ASCII
diagrams of various things and had to stare at them trying to
decipher what was the author actually trying to communicate. Even in
a mostly text message, bold, italic, enlarged/reduced, or colored
text used for emphasis or de-emphasis can make communication much
more clear. In short I just think that there is this "knee-jerk"
reaction to html email in the FLOSS community, and it isn't justified
by an objective evaluation.
if you don´t like ascii graphics, then you don´t know the textmode quake
project ;-)
http://webpages.mr.net/bobz/ttyquake/
Must we be constrained to communicate with each other via nothing
more sophisticated than plain text forever and ever?
read Wittgenstein. plain text and very sophisticated.
Regards Bob Young
cheers, f
--
[email protected] mailing list
