Re: h2xs ??
robin szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: eek 1300 lines of bash! .. id ratehr not, thankewe ... Oh, please. When somebody says sh, they don't mean bloaty awful shell. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Self-test
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 08:57:27AM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
As is my right under the 1984 data protection act I demand a copy of all
information that you have pertaining to me in electronic form.
As I understand it, Greg is allowed to charge a reasonable admin
fee for this. About 4 pints should do it.
Nick
--
($O= #\ /#{O$}xb|
q|HHHNIiHIHIHNNI{HHHiiHiiI|^#\/#(|}OM:-#+(iI$:-+!:- i (!:=#!i +-|b
q|-+ !i#=:i) ! -:i+-:$I!)+#-:WO{|)#/\#v|I!!H!!HHH}INNHIHIH!INHHH|b
|qx{$O}#/ \# =O$)
List archives (was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London])
Kate L Pugh wrote: We have archives. http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/ And http://www.mail-archive.com/london.pm%40london.pm.org/ , though they tend to lag behind a bit. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: [ANNOUNCE]Forthcoming Meetings
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 10:54:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: aol If it's taking up too much of their time they've not got the whole charging money worked out quite right yet... /aol I thought the service last time was very good, and would be happy for us to do the same thing again. I would be happier with ordering food almost[1] as before, rather than a buffet. The food was good. Nicholas Clark 1: The change I'd suggest we suggest to them is that they (the real staff) do what the relief staff figured out about halfway through last time - take a name with each order. Oh, and maybe we delegate a shouter, or someone with a loud thing capable of shutting everyone up, so that when food arrives we get silence when someone shouts the name of the food recipient.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On 18 Oct 2001, Steve Mynott wrote:
[about how we can never solve jeopardy quoting as it's a social
problem] [1]
A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and delete all but
the first n lines and move it above the top of the mail quoted properly
Later.
Mark.
(who's just started experimenting with Exchange's web mail front end and
quite likes it, but would never use it as a real mail client)
[1] This is how I like to reply to whole mails btw
[2] Or mutt. As long as it can easily be adapted between the two
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t-Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t-Tgoto(cm,$_,$y). $w;select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: FLAME ON paraphrased: You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you I dunno, it has worked on some mailing lists I'm on. Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client for hippy programmers. People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp of logic will understand. -- Niklas Nordebo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- +447966251290 The day is seven hours and fifteen minutes old, and already it's crippled with the weight of my evasions, deceit, and downright lies
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Niklas Nordebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: FLAME ON paraphrased: You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you That wasn't actually the intention. I will top quote when I think it makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case when you are writing more than you are quoting. Do you read bottom-up, then? if not, why bother quoting? did you actually read any of the link I posted? A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote in order to get the new material. I read a _lot_ of email and such Yes. However, there shouldn't really be *ENOUGH TO SCROLL PAST* which was my point in the first place. If you don't trim the quoting I still have to scroll past all of the stuff you've quoted, just to see if there's anything new at the bottom. Bt. You lose. scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes. It also raises visability of your words. I am well aware that its against How? USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really. You obviously didn't read that link. Go and read it. You may understand why I feel this way. The examples are good and clear. Isn't the Perl way There is More Than One Way to Do It? Yes. However, we're now talking about english not perl. Bzt. You lose. Again. Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding on a point to point basis (as I am doing now). So I use both quoting styles. If you end up top-posting, then why bother quoting? Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client for hippy programmers. Sorry you lost me here. I can't understand whether you are being ironic or not and so your meaning is lost. Don't worry if it's over your head. You're obviously one of the kind of people that's being insulted. :-) I care more about the content people post and how easy it is to read than the way they quote it. Bzzt. You lose. YET AGAIN. The entire point of sensible quoting is *TO MAKE IT EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND*. You're really doing well here. People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp of logic will understand. I think the solution is client-side (filtering) rather than server-side. No - no filtering, just a few seconds thought when composing the article. Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time. So WTF are you doing it? If you hate broken quoting so much why don't you write a Perl script to fix it to the way you like and put all your mail through it? Because then you need to understand language. Well volunteered, since you think it would be so easy. Problem Over. Not at all. MBM (angry=630476ms). -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://colondot.net/
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
From: Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 12:36:55 PM [rant snipped] I've said this before and I'll (no doubt) have to say it again in the future. The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post strictly in line with the usual guidelines. Yes, we have (many) people on the list who have been on the internet for a long time and can quote RFCs at length to back up all of the netiquette rules, but it's a complete waste of time. Most people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given at work. Most people reply jeopardy style because that's what their mail client encourages them to do. If you shout at them, they'll just leave the list and complain how elitist we are. I don't want that to happen. If anyone thinks that's an acceptable outcome then perhaps they are on the wrong list. The battle against the invading barbarian hordes was lost years ago. Learn to live with it. Or annex your own part of the internet and impose your strict rules there. But don't do it on this list. There's nothing to see here. Move along now. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Niklas Nordebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: paraphrased: You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you That wasn't actually the intention. I will top quote when I think it makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case when you are writing more than you are quoting. A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote in order to get the new material. I read a _lot_ of email and such scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes. It also raises visability of your words. I am well aware that its against USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really. Isn't the Perl way There is More Than One Way to Do It? Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding on a point to point basis (as I am doing now). So I use both quoting styles. No, it's much, much simpler than that. By quoting at the top, you are implying that you have not read and taken in the rest of the mail. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post strictly in line with the usual guidelines. You are of course, absolutely correct. When small annoyances build up over time (like the quoting thing, which bugs me a bit, and other people probably more), it's very easy to forget that we have more in common than apart and that we are all gathered together for a reason, which is more important than flinging insults. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Procmail / Filters
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:05:33PM +, Rob Thompson wrote: Has there been a discussion about Procmail and/or mail filters ... you are very likely to want to look at: http://simon-cozens.org/writings/mail-audit.html and CPAN Mail::Audit. or Mail::Procmail, if the 'procmail' recipe syntax is more your thing. No personal experience, but Johan Vromans tends to plug it when someone else plugs Mail::Audit on newsgroups. To each his own style; just wanted to give an alternative. (I use Mail::Audit FWIW, though in a very limited way at the moment.) Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
* Dominic Mitchell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You are of course, absolutely correct. When small annoyances build up over time (like the quoting thing, which bugs me a bit, and other people probably more), it's very easy to forget that we have more in common than apart and that we are all gathered together for a reason, which is more important than flinging insults. Sorry for the one liner, but I could not agree more with the sentiments of this e-mail. Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 01:38:35PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: What are the classic (non-perl) computers books? There are several that come to mind, The Art of Computer Programming (1-3), the Dragon book (thanks leon!, KR, Computer Graphics (Foley et al). But what are the books that you guys really love? Cooper: Essentials of User Interface Design Schneier: Applied Cryptography The Lions Book -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Educating this luser would be something to frustrate even the unflappable Yoda and make him jam a lightsaber up his arse while screaming praise evil, the Dark Side is your friend!. -- Derek Balling, in the Monastery
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
* Matthew Byng-Maddick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Practice of Programming - Kernighan and Pike Now I regard Code Complete as a better book, but ho hum. Commentary on the Unix 6th edition, with source code - John Lions. My only complaint is that it doesnt fit on my bookshelves (its printed, well at least by copy is) in landscape. An Introduction to Algorithms - Cormen, Rivest and Leiserson I didn't think this would appeal to the masses, and to those who haven't read it, it is far more than a simple introduction, CLR (i seem to remember that being the abbrev in Uni, not CRL, but i may be wrong) is probably the best single book you can buy on Algorithms. Programming Perl (3rd Ed) - Wall, Christiansen and Orwant. Well as your mentioning Perl books, I'd recommended Effective Perl Programming, which not a lot of people (present company excluded) have probably heard of. Is this good, I've heard about it from others before, it may well have to migrate to my to get list. Very! Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are the classic (non-perl) computers books? There are several that come to mind, The Art of Computer Programming (1-3), the Dragon book (thanks leon!, KR, Computer Graphics (Foley et al). But what are the books that you guys really love? Programming Pearls. The Stevens networking books. -- David Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hirehttp://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com All the Purple Family Tree news http://www.slashrock.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: Procmail / Filters
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 02:39:13PM +0200, Newton, Philip wrote: Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: you are very likely to want to look at: http://simon-cozens.org/writings/mail-audit.html or Mail::Procmail, if the 'procmail' recipe syntax is more your thing. I like to use real procmail, and have it call perl stuff if I need to do any heavy lifting. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david The voices said it's a good day to clean my weapons
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 01:38:35PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: book (thanks leon!, KR, Computer Graphics (Foley et al). But what are the books that you guys really love? [...] And obviously: Programming Perl (3rd Ed) - Wall, Christiansen and Orwant. I have to disagree. Programming Perl (1st Ed) - Larry and Randall was a much more enjoyable read.
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: An Introduction to Database Systems - Chris Date I haven't heard of this one, my classic general DB books are Fundamentals of Database Systems and Introduction to SQL (van der Lans) Refactoring - Martin Fowler Oh, another I haven't head of, whats this like? And the other book suggested so far that I haven't got is the UI book that Dave Cantrell suggested. Ron will be pleased to hear I've put in another huge Amazon (boo hiss!) order ;-) Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 02:10:48PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: And the other book suggested so far that I haven't got is the UI book that Dave Cantrell suggested. It's worth reading Donald Norman's The Psychology of Everyday Things as well, although I wouldn't say it's a classic. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david There is no sigmonster
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 01:45:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: Schneier: Applied Cryptography This is a good introduction, but has many mistakes. From the little I've seen of the Handbook of Applied Cryptography (can't remember the authors and too lazy to search) this looks a lot better, though it's more detailed. I should have had Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment (W. Richard Stevens) on my list too. That really is a fantastic book. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://colondot.net/
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Mythical Man Month, which despite its age is still delightfully sane and readable. One of my favourites is _Inner Loops_ by Rick Booth (http://cseng.aw.com/book/0,,0201479605,00.html), for its sheer enthusiasm. A book-length hymn to the joys of performance coding, and the perfect antidote to yet more bollocks about methodology. Cormen, Leiserson and Rivest is commendable in its scope and a useful book to have around, but it hardly makes its topic come alive. I'd say the same for the dragon, actually; though some of you will disagree I bet. Richard Stevens would have the lot of them in a technical writing fight. If you want to get properly theoretical, check out volume 1 of the _Handbook of Logic in Computer Science_. It's beautiful, weighty and reassuringly expensive. It consists of 6 monographs (each of which could have been published as a book in itself), introducing a particular branch of the subject and expounding on it in depth. It's neither patronising like a textbook nor hopelessly impenetrable. And if you do get lost among the Lemmas, you can always close it and admire the interlocked quantifier symbols embossed on the front. .robin.
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
How could I forget Edward Tufte's beautiful, beautiful book _The visual display of quantitative information_. I've never, of course, been called upon to display quantitative information in a visual form - but oh, what a book! http://www.edwardtufte.com/1576494545/tufte/books_vdqi .robin.
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
From: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 2:10:48 PM * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: An Introduction to Database Systems - Chris Date I haven't heard of this one, my classic general DB books are Fundamentals of Database Systems and Introduction to SQL (van der Lans) Don't know if it's generally considered a classic. It was the standard textbook when I was at college. I think I had the first edition that included SQL :) Refactoring - Martin Fowler Oh, another I haven't head of, whats this like? It's a hardback. In the same series as the UML book. But if that's not what you mean, I think it's very good. A lot of what it says is common sense, but it's nice to see it all written down. The examples are all in Java. And as someone pointed out, many of the refactorings listed don't apply to Perl. Well worth a look. Ron will be pleased to hear I've put in another huge Amazon (boo hiss!) order ;-) Let the record show that I, for one, am very disappointed with Mr. McCarroll for continuing to use Amazon :) Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
RE: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
--On Thursday 18 October 2001 05:49 -0700 Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 1:38:35 PM What are the classic (non-perl) computers books? There are several that come to mind [...] [...] KR, [snip] Add to that list: The UNIX Programming Environment - Kernigan Pike The Practice of Programming - Kernigan Pike Programming Perls - Jon Bentley Design Patterns - Erich Gamma, etc An Introduction to Database Systems - Chris Date OK, where's the camera? Bookshelf above my desk has The UNIX Programming Environment K+R first edition Practice of Programming Programming Pearls (2nd Ed) Date 7th (25th anniversary) edition With the exception of Design Patterns they're even in the same order! Once I can get it back from my PHB the next in line is The Mythical Man-Month (Brooks) - again it's the recently released anniversary edition. Jonathan -- Jonathan McKeown, System Administrator. The College of Optometrists, 42 Craven Street London WC2N 5NG. Tel: +20 7839 6000 Fax: +20 7839 6800 Incorporated by Royal Charter and registered as a Charity No 1060431 http://www.college-optometrists.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
From: Robin Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 2:19:59 PM I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Mythical Man Month, which despite its age is still delightfully sane and readable. Oops. I didn't mention it, because it completely slipped my mind. Another couple of oldies that I've just remembered from college are: Software Engineering Economics - Barry Boehm Structured Analysis Design - Tom DeMarco Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Breaking News: YAPC::Europe
I've just heard an unsubstantiated rumour that next year's YAPC::Europe will be in Munich. In 2003 it'll probably be in Paris. Start working on your talks folks :) Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Add to that list: The UNIX Programming Environment - Kernigan Pike The Practice of Programming - Kernigan Pike Programming Perls - Jon Bentley Design Patterns - Erich Gamma, etc An Introduction to Database Systems - Chris Date The Unix programming environment is a good book, but is probably a little dated these days. It's still worht reading for a grasp of why shell scripts, when you should stop using shell scripts and the intro to make/lex/yacc[1]. But on the whole, I don't think that it's as relevant as their other titles. -Dom [1] Including everybodys favourite, the DIY virtual machine! -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 02:35:32PM +0100, Sue Spence wrote: Most (maybe all) of you have probably never used anything as antiquated as a non-relational/non-OO database. Does dbm count? -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation. -- Johnny Hart
Re: Writing a Perl Game
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: What sort of game? Maybe an adventure, maybe multiplayer, maybe some sort strategy or trading game. I don't mind, I'd just like to do it. How about one based around buffy? Can be multiplayer, loads of charaters to choose from. Just a thought.. I'd like to help anyway. Andy
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
Robin Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How could I forget Edward Tufte's beautiful, beautiful book _The visual display of quantitative information_. You need them all. Honest. I am not joking. Beautiful, beautiful books in so *many* ways. I could go on. And on. And on.
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
David Cantrell wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 02:35:32PM +0100, Sue Spence wrote: Most (maybe all) of you have probably never used anything as antiquated as a non-relational/non-OO database. Does dbm count? Sure, and we can add everyone who ever stores anything in some sort of flat file arrangement. Now keep the business records of a large corporation in 'em. :)
RE: Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
From: David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 2:56:33 PM On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 02:35:32PM +0100, Sue Spence wrote: Most (maybe all) of you have probably never used anything as antiquated as a non-relational/non-OO database. Does dbm count? Does the term CODASYL mean anything to you? Dave... [now _this_ is the kind of computer nostalgia that I can relate to] -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are the classic (non-perl) computers books? There are several that come to mind, The Art of Computer Programming (1-3), the Dragon book (thanks leon!, KR, Computer Graphics (Foley et al). But what are the books that you guys really love? non technical ones for a change:- Hackers (Levy) The Soul of a New Machine Computer Lib/Dream Machines (Ted Nelson - my edition is ironically the Microsoft Press reprint) The Journey is the Reward (about Steve Jobs) The Shockwave Rider (Brunner - out of print(?)) -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] given the choice between accomplishing something and just lying around, i'd rather lie around. no contest. -- eric clapton
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
Any one remember the Spirit for Algorithmics ?
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu 18 Oct, Alex Gough wrote: Footnotes [1] are used by writers [2] to add further detail to their prose [3] or to point to a source of reference [4]. The TeXbook, p 117: Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*]. [*] Yet Gibbon's iDecline and Fall/i would not have been the same without footnotes. Sometimes the use of footnotes [5] can reach a ridiculous level [6]. As in the TeX Edmac macros for critical editions which permit five series of footnotes, all on the same page: 'EDMAC provides five layers of notes in the belief that this will be adequate for the most demanding editions. But it is not hard to add further layers of notes to EDMAC should they be required.' Roger -- Roger Horne 11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Roger Horne wrote: The TeXbook, p 117: Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*]. [*] Yet Gibbon's iDecline and Fall/i would not have been the same without footnotes. I'm reading that[1] right now. I have it in a lovely six-volume set[2], but I also bought an electronic edition from http://www.peanutpress.com cos it's much easier to read on the train. It has the footnotes hyperlinked from the body text, which is good. What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find the right one. What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up the footnote over the top of the body text. Bah. 1 - Gibbon, not the TeXbook[3][4] 2 - Everyman edition, 50 quid for all six IIRC, from the British Museum shop. 3 - sorry for the footnotes, I couldn't resist 4 - but I bet Gibbon would use TeX if he were alive today -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave -- Fergus Henderson
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK,London]
Sue wrote:
Mark Fowler wrote:
A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and...
I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more
irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my
inbox today.
Erk, sorry. Didn't know it bothered you. How about I write you a
Mail::Audit script that can fix that too ;-) .
We know perl right? Can't we (collectivly) come up with a set of scripts
to fix (for certain values of fix, depending on personal style) all of
these problems before the data is actually presented to us. This *has* to
be better than ranting at people. I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.
Problems off of the top of my head that may or may not need fixing
depending on your personal point of view:
1) Non ASCII mail (i.e. when someone uses a pesky font with ukp signs in
it or something, or worse smart quotes)
2) Jeopardy Quoting
3) Lines 72 chars long (we - well damian - has fixed this one right)
4) Attachments (this is a biggie - but I'd like to see my attachments
automatically dumped in a password protected web directory that I can
access via the web if I really have to)
5) Silly cute footnotes
6) Any signature over 4 lines long
7) Mailing list unsubscribe info.
8) HTML mail (Or in my case something that can detect HTML mail and
then filter it to spam)
10) Numbered lists that don't have the right value (again, fixx0red by
damian)
Scripts (or Mail::Audit plugins/settings for your webclient of
choice better) to the list
Later.
Mark.
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t-Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t-Tgoto(cm,$_,$y). $w;select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
* nik butler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Any one remember the Spirit for Algorithmics ? Do you mean Algorithmics, The Spirit of Computing by David Harel. It is book #1 starting from the top left hand side of my computing book collection. Thats because the section Algorithms/General Programming comes first and the book got randomly place in there. It would make a good book for teaching an O Level / A Level class. Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:16:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: I have heard Mr Pratchet's name cited as the guilty party for the increased use of footnotes, especially as comic asides. I'd claim that Mr Pratchett, as with so many other things, stole that one from Mr Adams... Alex -- Four pints of milk, a turkey baster and some plastic tubing, that's all you need. http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire http://www.livejournal.com/users/diffrentcolours
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK,London]
Mark Fowler wrote: Sue wrote: Mark Fowler wrote: A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script / PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and... I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my inbox today. Erk, sorry. Didn't know it bothered you. How about I write you a Mail::Audit script that can fix that too ;-) . It doesn't, really. I was just being evil.
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hackers (Levy) Great book, perhaps the best book on computer history you can read, I cannot recommend this book enough. I think there was a C4 series loosely based on it, they got Capt Crunch to do some phreaking, or at least appear to do some. He looked like an overexcited kid, great stuff! So its a big 5 star rating for this book And of course the cuckoos egg. Which is a fun read. The Journey is the Reward (about Steve Jobs) Well the two books I like about Jobs/Apple are ... Infinite Loop - Malone Very heavy going, its a big book but well worth it Insanely Great - Levy Go for this if you want something smaller Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Fw: Taliban TV
I don't normally forward things around, but the program showing at 1:30am swayed me. /me goes back to lurking in the shadows. Begin forwarded message TALIBAN T.V. SCHEDULE 6.00 G-Had TV. Morning prayers. 8.30 Talitubbies. Talitubbies say Ah-ah. Dipsy and Tinky-Winky repair a Stinger missile launcher. 9.00 Shouts of Praise. More prayers. 11.00 Jihad's Army. The Kandahar-on-Sea battalion repulse another attack by evil, imperialist, Zionist backed infidels. 12.00 Ready, Steady, Jihad! Celebrities make lethal devices out of everyday objects. 12.30 Panoramadan. The programme reports on Americas attempts to take over the world. 13.30 Xena: Modestly dressed Housewife. Xena stays at home and does some cooking. 14.00 Only Fools and Camels. Dhal-Boy offloads some Chinese rocket launchers to Hamas. 14.30 Green Peter. The total of Kalashnikovs bought by the milk bottle top appeal is revealed. 15.00 Madrasah Challenge. Two more Islamic colleges meet. Bambah Kaskhain asks the questions.'Starter for ten, no praying.' 15.30 I Love 629. A look back at the events of the year, including the Prophet's entry into Mecca, and pagan idols. 16.00 Question Time. Members of the public face questions from political and religious leaders. 17.00 Koranation Street. Deirdrie faces execution by stoning for adultery. 17.30 Middle-East Enders. The entire cast is jailed for unislamic behaviour. 18.00 Holiday. The team go on pilgrimage to Mecca. Again. 18.30 Top of the Prophets. Will the Koran be No.1 for the 63,728th week running? 19.00 Who wants to be a Mujahadin? Mahmoud Tarran asks the questions. Will contestants phone a mullah, go 'inshallah', or ask the Islamic council? 20.00 FILM: Shariah's Angels. The three burkha-clad sleuths go undercover to expose an evil scheme to educate women. 21.30 Big Brother. Who will be taken out of the house and executed this week? 22.30 Shahs in their Eyes. More hopefuls imitate famous destroyers of the infidel. 23.30 They think it's Allah over. Quiz culminating in the 'don't feel it the Mullah' round. 0.00 When Imams attack. Amusing footage shot secretly in mosques. The filmers were also secretly shot. 12.30 a.m. The West Bank Show. Arts programme looking at anti-Israel graffiti art in the occupied territories. 1.30 Bhuffi the Infidel Slayer. 2.00 A book at bedtime. The Koran. Again End forwarded message -- For the wanderer, each person one meets might act as an angel, each shrine one visits may unlock some initiatic dream, each experience of Nature may vibrate with the presence of some spirit of place. Indeed, even the mundane and ordinary may suddenly be seen as numinous (as in the great travel haiku of the Japanese Zen poet Basho) - a face in the crowd at a railway station, crows on telephone wires, sunlight in a puddle... - Hakim Bey, Overcoming Tourism
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
But I'm sure with the assembled masses there are some recommendations for books that the rest of us may not of taking the time to exam. Jeez, I get back from an afternoon away and ... Anyway, pretty much everything I liked has been mentioned already but here's some more. Maximum Security - Greg Shipleu Reasoned Programming - Krysa Broda, Susan Eisenbach et al Practical File System Design with the Be File System - Dominic Giampaolo Operating System Design - Andrew Tannenbaum Computers under Attack - edited by Peter J. Denning Bebop to the Boolean Boogie - Clive Max Maxfield Maximum Security is just really good on, errm, security. Reasoned Programming is by some lecturers of mine and is a really good introduction to formal programming techiniques and logic and coding discipline. OpSys Design is just brilliant and has the whole Minix source code at the back :) Computers under Attack is a colelction of essay from people like Robert Tappan Morris Snr. and the original 'Stalking the Wiley Hacker' and a brilliant thing on quines and compiler boot strapping from Ken Thompson. Bebop is a fantastic book on digital electronics and is a very easy read. Plus it has a recipe for Cajun Gumbo in it :) -- : off the wagon and hitching a ride
Re: Writing a Perl Game
What sort of game? Maybe an adventure, maybe multiplayer, maybe some sort strategy or trading game. I don't mind, I'd just like to do it. camElite!
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 05:17:53PM +0200, Newton, Philip wrote: Greg McCarroll wrote: And of course the cuckoos egg. Which is a fun read. Cliff Stoll's book? Yup, I very much enjoyed reading that, too. Silicon Snake-oil really annoyed me, but I can't work out why. Most of the book seemed to be People are using computers inappropriately, therefore using computers is bad. It was quite a disappointing book. It was like one of those Wired articles where someone writes essentially computers suck because my Mac doesn't work only he span a whole paperback out of it. I think someone could (maybe has?) write a far more effective anti-computer book than that. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- philip k. dick
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
I understand exactly why you feel this way. You are blinkered in feeling you are right and everyone should agree with your particular way of writing emails. You actually believe that people will change the way they write in order with your own views. I believe you are mistaken and you will learn this with time I spy a parallell between this and refusing mails from mailservers from some people on the list because he doesn't agree with their network configuration =) I believe the phrase was If they want to mail it to me they'll fix it. On the contrary, it has made sure I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =) red
Re: Self-test
David H. Adler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of Meat. - Phillip, Goats, 20sep99 If the Juju had meant us not to eat people He wouldn't have made us of meat (from a Flanders Swann song, 1950s) Funny. Jon and Phillip never struck me as FS fans... *shrug* Everyone is a FS fan. Have some madeira, m'dear. -- http://www.the-anathema.org We can just have lesbian sex if you're not ready. - http://www.goats.com/archive/index.html?991227
Re: Writing a Perl Game
Redvers Davies wrote: What sort of game? Maybe an adventure, maybe multiplayer, maybe some sort strategy or trading game. I don't mind, I'd just like to do it. camElite! No - how dare you defile The Game with thoughts that you could better it :-) Greg what should his punishment be ? The other one.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:59:04PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find the right one. What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up the footnote over the top of the body text. Bah. Another way[1] is to have the footnote immediately below the paragraph ini which it appears. This isn't so bad in practice and the most likely course of action (you want to read it immediately afterwards) is well served. I think you can also include the footnote as a tool tip or similiar so it appears on a mouseOver. Paul [1] I believe O'Reilly use this scheme in their HTML books.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 05:27:36AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote: people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given at work. Bloody hell, Dave, can't you use an email client that includes In-Reply-To: headers so it displays threads? I mean, lordy! :-), Paul
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newton, Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cliff Stoll's book? And the cookie recipe is really good too. I've tried it. I'm not sure if that makes me more or less sad. That reminds me. I should see if any of the recipes in the Little Book of Mornington Crescent are actually cookable and edible. I don't really read serious compsci/geek books very often - too busy with all this biology. But was amused by the Hacker's Dictionary, especially the description of geek behaviour. I also got Evil Geniuses in a Nutshell to worry people on the bus, and Mr Bunny's Big Cup o' Java for pure entertainment. L. Thunder...thunder...thundercats!
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
I really can't believe I'm still reading this bloody thread, anyway, down at the bottom... Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which Steve is why their mail clients use top quoting. Did your Steve friends do usability studies? I did and asked a Steve non-technical user in the pub about this and they prefered Steve top posting. [...] BTW I prefer your Person type quoting style to the usual mess which makes it often impossible to see who has written what and makes misquoting (as seen on list today and ironically on this very thread about correct email usage) more likely. Is there a GNUS setting for this? Yes. If you're using Gnus you should check out 'supercite' which does all that magic for you. Personally, I don't like it because: 1. It chews up a ludicrous amount of the left hand margin with information that's only really of any use at the beginning of each quoted block. 2. It doesn't provide as much information about *when* in the thread a person said something. with 'classic' quoting, this information can be readily gleaned from the depth of the quotes. 3. Er... 4. That's it. Something which assigned different quote marks to different posters, and then used them in a similar fashion to the generic '' might be quite useful, but not useful enough that I can be arsed to either write it myself or to see if someone has already done so. -- Piers
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: their mail clients use top quoting. Did your friends do usability studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this and they prefered top posting. 'Top quoting' is a mindset I think. When I hit followup with quoting, Gnus popped up a message window with the cursor placed nicely at the top of the quoted message, where it was easy for me to scroll through the quoted material excising the stuff that wasn't relevant before adding my comments. People who blame Outlook for doing the same thing would appear to be missing the point. Also, taking the example of an intelligent user who isn't technical, Gill really doesn't like Usenet style quoting; she finds it confusing and annoying. Her preference is to have a straightforward reply at the top of the message, where she doesn't have to scroll through irrelevant crap that she's already read, but can, if she wants to, scroll down and refer to the original message. I, of course, disagree. But hers is a considered opinion and I respect it. Telling her she's flat out wrong is not really an option. Telling her that she will probably annoy any long time news and email users with this kind of quoting is fine, she tends not to swap mail with such people. But dammit people (This is, of course addressed to more than just Steve), take a chill pill would you. It's not the end of the world if someone doesn't quote how you want them to. And hectoring them *really* isn't going to help. Makes me wonder why I bothered to contribute really... -- Piers
OS X updater woes
So owing to a dearth of X.1 CDs I had a friend rip a copy for me, but it doesn't boot. Is there a way with the Mac to force it to boot off CD? What's more annoying is the f*cking retards at Apple have in their infinitesimally small wisdom decided to provide a firmware updater that only runs under OS 9, which of course since I'm an OS X developer (hello!), I don't have. If I run some variant of Linux / BSD am I likely to suffer more or less of this kind of ill-thought out crap? Paul
Message-ID header (was Re: Netiquette)
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: Most people can be bothered to make sure that their zones are RFC compliant. Most people who can't are spammers. (Note that I said most). That reminds me of a question I had. Can someone tell me who should be responsible for generating a Message-ID header in email? Specifically, * should the MUA generate the header when it sends the message to an SMTP server? * if it does, should/may the server overwrite that header with its own message ID? * if it doesn't, should the server generate a Message-ID header of its own? * must an RFC-2?822-compliant message contain a Message-ID header? The reason why I ask is that my mail client at home, Pegasus Mail 3.12c (I think), appears not to generate a Message-ID header. Previously, I sent mail through a dial-up provider's smarthost. However, I started using different dial-up providers at different times, and switching the mail server in the config became a bit annoying. At about that time, my first provider, whose POP3 service I was using the whole time, started using SMTP-after-POP authentication rather than IP-based authentication, at which time I switched to use his SMTP server for all outgoing mail, regardless of whom I was dialled into. Then I got a complaint about a message of mine not having a Message-ID header, and I found that my client apparently does not generate such a header and that his SMTP server apparently does not add one, either (my previously most-often-used SMTP server did). When I talked to the chap running the service, he seemed to think it's the client's responsibility; I can think it would be a good idea if the server added necessary headers that are missing (I've seen that done with 'Date:', for example, when I telnet directly to port 25 and only supply From: To: Subject:). What would you say? Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why Steve their mail clients use top quoting. Did your friends do usability Steve studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this Steve and they prefered top posting. As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc... The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't. If it's relevant, then your comments should be quoted near what it's related to, so I can read them together, in the proper order to understand the context of your response. If it isn't, DON'T QUOTE IT. So there's never a reason to top-quote. Except to demonstrate what a lazy bast*rd the poster is. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
pdcawley == pdcawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: pdcawley I have to disagree. Programming Perl (1st Ed) - Larry and Randall was pdcawley a much more enjoyable read. And if you miss that style, you should pick up Learning Perl (3rd). :-) Even if you know Perl. You might pick up a fact or three to fill in some of the potholes in the roadway of your education. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least Steve two distinct subcases of relevant material. Steve * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of Steve the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by Steve line base. The traditional way. Steve * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which Steve may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new Steve text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of Steve the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make Steve people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through Steve scrolling can. This is where URLs come in. It's either relevant, or it should be NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. Put it in an attachment if you must. But putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid. Inline ASCII is to be prefered to URLs for several reasons. You are assuming the person is reading the mail online with web access whereas they could be offline on the train. Also URLs break and go 404. Also in the context of a debate someone could also retrospectively change the URL content. Attachments too can be problematic in many programs (eg. the problems with the PGP/MIME signing by mutt with many programs). Plain inline ASCII isn't exciting but it certainly isn't stupid but reliable and actually likely to work. And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does* become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around and cutting and pasting. But if you'd just done it right in the first place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not *difficult*. I think you are really missing the point here. I am not saying top quoting is always good (after all I am not doing it now) but that it has occasional uses. You on the otherhand are saying it's always bad, by definition, regardless of context, which just seems to me dogmatic and unsupported by anything you or anyone else has said on this thread. How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the page down key. Really. And/or trim the quoted material. Really. When I top quote I _do_ trim the quoted material as I did in the original post if you care to go back and read it. Trimming isn't the issue and is unrelated to where you quote. I have seen plenty of people bottom quote and not trim. You are being rude to me, as the reader. And I will interpret that as you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with me. If you want to make that impression, go right ahead. But don't expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy communication. But I think top quoting (in rare circumstances) does aid clean easy communication. This has been the basis of my whole argument. Don't think of top quoting as such but more as an occasional extended footnote if that makes it easier for you to accept. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] humans hardly ever learn from the experience of others. they learn - when they do, which isn't often - on their own, the hard way. -- robert heinlein
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 07:24:11AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: And if you miss that style, you should pick up Learning Perl (3rd). Review's on the way - I've got about half the book read and annotated, will do the rest when I have any FT whatsoever. Alex -- Four pints of milk, a turkey baster and some plastic tubing, that's all you need. http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire http://www.livejournal.com/users/diffrentcolours
Re: Classic Computer Books (Non-Perl)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: pdcawley == pdcawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: pdcawley I have to disagree. Programming Perl (1st Ed) - Larry and pdcawley Randall was a much more enjoyable read. And if you miss that style, you should pick up Learning Perl (3rd). I might yet. And one day, I'll learn to spell your name correctly every time. -- Piers
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why Steve their mail clients use top quoting. Did your friends do usability Steve studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this Steve and they prefered top posting. As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc... The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't. No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least two distinct subcases of relevant material. * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by line base. The traditional way. * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through scrolling can. I don't see any reason why email styles should be fixed so rigidly as you think. Natural language evolves over time and I don't see any reason why email writing style also should be static. The quantity of email has increased greatly over time (and quality decreased) and I think some of the practices of the 1980s have to change to reflect this. Unless you want to keep worshipping the Net Ancestors of the 1980s for ever you have to accept that (like choice of text editor and reply-to munging) quoting style is a religious issue with no right or wrong answer and debate on the topic rapidly degenerates to mere assertion and counter-assertion. So there's never a reason to top-quote. Except to demonstrate what a lazy bast*rd the poster is. Actually it's harder for me to top-quote because my email client quotes traditionally. I do it, when I believe it helps, to reduce the scrolling work load on the reader and not to wind people up. BTW I prefer your Person type quoting style to the usual mess which makes it often impossible to see who has written what and makes misquoting (as seen on list today and ironically on this very thread about correct email usage) more likely. Is there a GNUS setting for this? -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] progress (n.): the process through which the internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals.
Re: Self-test
On 17 Oct 2001, Steve Mynott wrote: does anyone also remember 380Zs? Big black buggers, with 64K of RAM running CP/M ? Yeah. Made me a CP/M convert the year after the XT came out :) /J\
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least Steve two distinct subcases of relevant material. Steve * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of Steve the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by Steve line base. The traditional way. Steve * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which Steve may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new Steve text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of Steve the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make Steve people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through Steve scrolling can. This is where URLs come in. It's either relevant, or it should be NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. Put it in an attachment if you must. But putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid. And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does* become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around and cutting and pasting. But if you'd just done it right in the first place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not *difficult*. How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the page down key. Really. And/or trim the quoted material. Really. You are being rude to me, as the reader. And I will interpret that as you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with me. If you want to make that impression, go right ahead. But don't expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy communication. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
