-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:43:32 -0500, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> [about the list archives] > > > They are not "broken". ;) They just don't feature a user-friendly > > interface that would allow comfortable searching: > > That is a good working definition of "broken" when you're talking about > mailing list archives. Keeping archives is a waste of diskspace if you > can't use them to find previously posted information. IMO, it's a usability issue only. And since we won't agree here, feel free to consider the following as splitting hairs. By definition, an "archive" stores or saves information. It need not be searchable. And hence an archive which is not searchable -- but accessible -- is not "broken". It's just _less useful_ because it is limited to archiving content. It's like a library of good old books. Even if you have a searchable directory of all the books' titles, you cannot search the books' contents. This doesn't make the library "broken". And yes, electronically created content is something entirely different, well, that's why... ... I agree, it would be good and useful and obvious (!) if the mailing list archives were searchable. I don't argue against searchable archives. It's just the term "broken" which I find inappropriate. As an "archive", the list archives do their job. Searching could be added at a later point or be provided by a mirror of the archives. It's bad and poor that someone, who decides to search through all messages which have been posted in 2003 so far, is served better when he downloads three gzipped mbox files of ~1 MiB each and searches them with own tools. ;-) - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+bgaA0iMVcrivHFQRAsCpAJ9xSlQDAUv47oXmupatiY0rAqCPhwCfRKxV Qzr02VaGwuhChGn7pfafwuY= =vZ0c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
