JAP escribió:
Y por si a alguien le queda dudas,
http://download.bblug.usla.org.ar/netiquette.png
JAP
Jajajajajajajajajajajajajaja :) :) :)
s...@lu2
Walber
--
JHS/o
+-===|
(o_
//\Linux Registered User
V_/_ #480598
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
BLITZVERSAND
#
Liebe Kunden Wir erweiteren unseren Service und garantieren ihnen einen
Lieferung bis um Nächsten Werktag für Bestellungen die bis 18 uhr 30 getätigt
werden, und über Sofortüberweisung oder Paypal getätigt werden.
Hi,
I came across your company in my research on potential firms
and marketers (ad agencies, PR firms) that may be active in Internet
Marketing, including S.E.O. or Search Engine Optimization for ranking higher
on Google.
I'd like to invite you to my upcoming free webinar on the Top Ten Free
¿Anyone?
--
Thanks,
Jordi Espasa Clofent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
¿Anyone?
I'm not using ldap right now, but I think you are missing the system users
in your ldap.
there was/is a setting to tell ldap from which user id it should count, or
better you say pam/nss to use ldap only with ids above a give one.
It's always a matter of
Hi all,
In /var/log/auth.log I see a lot of LDAP connections attemps:
Aug 20 11:00:07 xen-ad0010 top: nss_ldap: reconnected to LDAP server
ldap://192.168.10.1/
Aug 20 11:00:07 xen-ad0010 top: nss_ldap: reconnected to LDAP server
ldap://192.168.10.1/
Aug 20 11:00:08 xen-ad0010 top: nss_ldap
9429866.1458201249746949394.javamail.nab...@isper.nabble.com:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:42:48 -0500, Cybe wrote in message
20090806164248.2ce57...@wizardstower:
[snip]
etc...
So now it's top-posting, heh..?
I thought about that before sending my email. But, since
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:25:25AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In 4a781792.8050...@cox.net, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-08-04 02:47, Alex Samad wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:20:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-08-03 16:04, Alex Samad wrote:
[snip]
waiting for root
it to work properly
any ideas ?
Grub config file misconfigured?
I think not, because grub hands over to the initiramfs scripts and its
local-top that is waiting - but this is an assumption on my part.
--
- Sodomy non sapiens, said Albert under his breath.
- What does that mean?
- Means
and it will boot
up but I would like it to work properly
any ideas ?
Grub config file misconfigured?
I think not, because grub hands over to the initiramfs scripts and its
local-top that is waiting - but this is an assumption on my part.
There are two layers to this cake:
1. Grub fires up if you tell
chioce and now when it is finished and
tries to reboot I can't find the root fs :(
any ideas ?
Grub config file misconfigured?
I think not, because grub hands over to the initiramfs scripts and its
local-top that is waiting - but this is an assumption on my part.
There are two layers to this cake
Hi
I have just installed a machine from a daily build deb installer, I did
the whole disk encryption chioce and now when it is finished and tries
to reboot I can't find the root fs :(
I have been able to boot the partition by hand and I have updated the
system to the latest packages and tried
On 2009-08-03 16:04, Alex Samad wrote:
Hi
I have just installed a machine from a daily build deb installer, I did
the whole disk encryption chioce and now when it is finished and tries
to reboot I can't find the root fs :(
I have been able to boot the partition by hand and I have updated the
On Fri,26.Jun.09, 21:24:42, Paul E Condon wrote:
* make sure the sound channel levels are up and unmuted (using
alsamixer),
I not sure. alsamixer display did not look familiar and it was not at all
clear what the
iconic display was indicating. Further I wasn't able to change the
On 2009-06-27_11:50:02, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Fri,26.Jun.09, 21:24:42, Paul E Condon wrote:
* make sure the sound channel levels are up and unmuted (using
alsamixer),
I not sure. alsamixer display did not look familiar and it was not at all
clear what the
iconic display was
On Sat,27.Jun.09, 11:50:01, Paul E Condon wrote:
Since you are intending to patch the last bullet point in the release
note, I suggest that you also recast the other bullet points where you
suggest specific commands to type and the specific results to be
expected.
I filed #534797, because
I have a computer on which I did a clean new install of Lenny about a month
ago. Lots of problems and I am just now confronting fact that there is no
sound. (I got Flash working earlier today, and with that knew, for sure: no
sount)
There is some advice on possible problems in Lenny in the
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 13:40 -0400, Tony Baldwin wrote:
Barclay, Daniel wrote:
Paul E Condon wrote:
... [gdm] needs a window manager before the user has even logged in.
No. xdm/kdm/gdm don't use a window manager (that's why the look and
feel is so different). Just run ps ax from a console
Paul E Condon wrote:
On 2009-05-26_09:40:05, Foss User wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Foss User foss...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i ? gnome ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Paul E Condon wrote:
... [gdm] needs a window manager before the user has even logged in.
What features of a window manager does it need or use?
(I don't use gdm. Does it have multiple windows that the user might
need to move around or that the user might want to see decorated?)
Daniel
--
Foss User wrote:
4. Can someone share the equivalent 'aptitude why' output from a
system running KDE?
On Kubuntu (which I know isn't debian, but it's all I have at the moment):
mu...@muzer-desktop:~$ aptitude why twm
i kdm Recommends kdebase | x-session-manager | x-window-manager
p
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:03, Barclay, Daniel dan...@fgm.com wrote:
Paul E Condon wrote:
... [gdm] needs a window manager before the user has even logged in.
What features of a window manager does it need or use?
(I don't use gdm. Does it have multiple windows that the user might
need
Barclay, Daniel wrote:
Paul E Condon wrote:
... [gdm] needs a window manager before the user has even logged in.
What features of a window manager does it need or use?
(I don't use gdm. Does it have multiple windows that the user might
need to move around or that the user might want to see
On 2009-05-26_09:40:05, Foss User wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Foss User foss...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i ? gnome ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Depends
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (= 1:2.24.3~2)
i A gnome-desktop-environment Depends gdm (= 2.20.9)
i A gdm Depends gnome-session |
x-session-manager |
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 13:48, Foss User foss...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (=
1:2.24.3~2)
i A gnome-desktop-environment Depends gdm (= 2.20.9)
i A gdm
Foss User wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (= 1:2.24.3~2)
i A gnome-desktop-environment Depends gdm (= 2.20.9)
i A gdm Depends gnome-session |
Claudius Hubig wrote:
Foss User foss...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (= 1:2.24.3~2)
i A gnome-desktop-environment Depends gdm (= 2.20.9)
i A gdm
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 16:10, Tony Baldwin photodha...@gmail.com wrote:
Foss User wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (=
1:2.24.3~2)
i A gnome-desktop-environment Depends gdm
In 3f8297b20905251348x79208dfdo70ba473b5be36...@mail.gmail.com, Foss User
wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (=
1:2.24.3~2) i A gnome-desktop-environment Depends gdm (= 2.20.9)
i A
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Foss User foss...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the following output I generated from Squeeze.
$ aptitude why twm
i gnome Depends gnome-desktop-environment (=
1:2.24.3~2)
i A
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
2009/3/30, santilin sa...@gestiong.org:
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
wikipedia es tu amiga ;)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Env
santilin escribió:
Top-posting es contestar arriba del mensaje respondido en vez de abajo,
cosa que hace incómoda la lectura:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
Cross-posting es preguntar lo mismo en varias listas, lo que ocasiona
cierta mescolanza cuando alguien responde:
http
2009/3/28 Chris Jones cjns1...@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:10AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote:
I was asking one of the top-posting advocates to elaborate on archaic
mail readers .. written in the 1980s .. I believe he wrote..
I would assume he is not using one himself
confusing. :o
So in that situation I was happier[2] seeing a silly top posting
message.
[2] Only because I didn't have to press space a dozen or so times.
As you use mutt, 'S' should skip to the end of each section of quoted
text, or, if you know there is no interleaved quoting, just press
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:26AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:11:38PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
Now then.. I have two bottom posters .. and one top poster..
OK.
What do I do?
Snip out the irrelevant bits. Do you use vim as your editor? If so you
can put
is using if you put in your .muttrc:
I was asking one of the top-posting advocates to elaborate on archaic
mail readers .. written in the 1980s .. I believe he wrote..
I would assume he is not using one himself .. but then who knows..
-
# What headers are displayed
ignore *
unignore From
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:04:54PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median
line and insert your comments is the center of it, splitting
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:43:28AM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
Then, of course, it follows that not posting at all is ideal.
I *should* have said:
Without triming bottom posting
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:08:35PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
What mailer are you referring to? I use mutt and it threads messages
reliably, flagging malformed mails that it adds to a thread when it
You can see what mailer he is using if you put in your .muttrc:
-
# What headers are
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:11:38PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
Now then.. I have two bottom posters .. and one top poster..
OK.
What do I do?
Snip out the irrelevant bits. Do you use vim as your editor? If so you
can put a number before the 'dd' command: 40dd will delete 40 lines.
--
Chris
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has
spent too much time using Windows.
Or who reads
On 2009-03-24 07:06, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has
spent
top posting
message.
[2] Only because I didn't have to press space a dozen or so times.
As you use mutt, 'S' should skip to the end of each section of quoted
text, or, if you know there is no interleaved quoting, just press the
'End' key to go right to the bottom ;-)
--
Bob Cox. Stoke
in that situation I was happier[2] seeing a silly top posting
message.
[2] Only because I didn't have to press space a dozen or so times.
As you use mutt, 'S' should skip to the end of each section of quoted
text, or, if you know there is no interleaved quoting, just press the
'End' key
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel dan...@fgm.com
mailto:dan...@fgm.com wrote:
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad
; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after a meal, etc,
Hmmm. Manners or No Manners; it's an easy choice.
Bottom posting of course
On Sunday 22 March 2009 23:07:29 Dave Patterson wrote:
* Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net [2009-03-22 20:34:50 -0500]:
That's hyperbole, at the very least. The original Pentium was released on
March 22, 1993. 3 1/2 disks had been available for a while. While the
first GB disk
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net
mailto:ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
...
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting
Chris Jones wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote:
[..]
I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the
discussion progresses, of course), especially if a thread has run for
a while.
Most business mail runs something like this:
-
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel dan...@fgm.com wrote:
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people
In 143f0f6c0903230837k4d6bc8a5r55fe985e82993...@mail.gmail.com, Christofer
C. Bell wrote:
What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Top-posting.
What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Top-posting.
Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
What
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:57:09AM EDT, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote:
[..]
I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the
discussion progresses, of course), especially if a thread has run
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:37:21AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel dan...@fgm.com wrote:
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting
.. with the advantage that the bean-counters can print
each and every mail and .. file it, I guess.
You've already seen what it looks like when top-posted in a modern
mail reader (ie; it follows the order in which people normally read
text).
No, it doesn't. The individual messages are hard
Johnson wrote:
On 2009-03-22 12:27, Jesus Arocho wrote:
Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after a meal, etc,
Hmmm
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:09:29AM -0700, Angus Auld wrote:
[snipped **H E A P S** of unnecessary text]
Proof reading might also be a good idea, as is evidenced by my mistakenly
saying that top-posting is the established method here. ;)
Bottom-posting of course is the prevailing method
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:09:29AM -0700, Angus Auld wrote:
[snipped **H E A P S** of unnecessary text]
Proof reading might also be a good idea, as is evidenced by my mistakenly
saying that top-posting is the established method here. ;)
Bottom
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent
too much time using Windows
Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after a meal, etc,
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting
On 2009-03-22 12:27, Jesus Arocho wrote:
Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after a meal, etc,
Hmmm. Manners or No Manners
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
Then, of course, it follows that not posting at all is ideal.
--
Bob Holtzman
Light a man's fire and he will be warm for a night.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest
as it forces the reader to display a bunch of extraneous
In fact, reading bottom-posted threads in a *modern mail reader* is
It looks no different than a discussion forum or other normal conversation.
text.
Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
Mail 3: Q: Why is top
On Sunday 22 March 2009 17:18:44 Ron Johnson wrote:
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after a meal, etc,
Hmmm. Manners or No Manners; it's an easy choice.
No - the poster has a valid point. Both the cases he cites are cases where
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:52:54 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
The only person who can say that with a straight face
Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median
line and insert your comments is the center of it, splitting a word if
necessary.
Bob Holtzman writes:
Then, of course
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:52:54 -0500
Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This isn't true. Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade
ago. ;-) Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of
which, incidentally, support HTML email). Because
On 2009-03-22 11:52, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
The only person who can say that with a straight face
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:27:13 -0400
Jesus Arocho jesus_aro...@comcast.net wrote:
Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after
In non-tech lists, top-posting suggests that the writer is (a)
unaware that Westerners read from top down, or (b) unable to edit
plain text. Or both.
Debian-users ought not wish to appear so inconsiderate incompetent.
Wendell Cochran
West Seattle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:04:54PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median
ROTF
line and insert your comments is the center of it, splitting
On 2009-03-22 14:28, Celejar wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:27:13 -0400
Jesus Arocho jesus_aro...@comcast.net wrote:
Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off
On 2009-03-22 14:32, Wendell Cochran wrote:
In non-tech lists, top-posting suggests that the writer is (a)
unaware that Westerners read from top down, or (b) unable to edit
plain text. Or both.
Debian-users ought not wish to appear so inconsiderate incompetent.
Or... only technically-astute
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
Or... only technically-astute people should be allowed on the Internet.
That way, it doesn't degenerate into the Intarweb of tubes and spam.
I remember the days before 1994 and the Great AOL Floodgates opening...
--
2009/3/23 Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com:
This isn't true. Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade
ago. ;-) Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of
which, incidentally, support HTML email). Because *you* are a curmudgeon
doesn't mean
* Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net [2009-03-22 16:06:06 -0500]:
Except that Our arguments are Right, and Theirs are Eeeevil.
Here we go. I can imagine the hearings now:
Are you now, or have you ever been, a top poster?
--
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com [2009-03-22 16:24:52 -0500]:
I remember the days before 1994 and the Great AOL Floodgates opening...
A 286 accelerator card in an 8086 IBM with a 20 Mg hard drive and 5 1/4
floppy drive. 56k modem. Hotrod machine for the day.
I don't miss
In 20090323010320.gb7...@gecko.davescrunch.org, Dave Patterson wrote:
* Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com [2009-03-22 16:24:52
-0500]:
I remember the days before 1994 and the Great AOL Floodgates opening...
A 286 accelerator card in an 8086 IBM with a 20 Mg hard drive and 5 1/4
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote:
[..]
I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the
discussion progresses, of course), especially if a thread has run for
a while.
Most business mail runs something like this:
- hey, Dee.. got my fax?
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:56:35AM +1000, Adrian Levi wrote:
2009/3/23 Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com:
[snip]
I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally
unnecessary.
--
Chris
Now imagine you are CC'd in on the conversation with no
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:27:13PM -0400, Jesus Arocho wrote:
Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by
associating them with use of Windows?
The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table,
burp/not burp after a meal, etc,
true
On 2009-03-22 19:52, Dave Patterson wrote:
* Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net [2009-03-22 16:06:06 -0500]:
Except that Our arguments are Right, and Theirs are Eeeevil.
Here we go. I can imagine the hearings now:
Are you now, or have you ever been, a top poster?
You must have missed
* Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net [2009-03-22 21:20:30 -0500]:
You must have missed the Editor Wars...
Why do we have to hide from the police, Daddy?
Because we use vi, son. They use emacs.
Escape Meta Alt Control Shift
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
EMACS Makes Any
ever been, a top poster?
You must have missed the Editor Wars...
Why do we have to hide from the police, Daddy?
Because we use vi, son. They use emacs.
Escape Meta Alt Control Shift
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
EMACS Makes Any Computer Slow
Then just use another OS besides Emacs
* Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net [2009-03-22 20:34:50 -0500]:
That's hyperbole, at the very least. The original Pentium was released on
March 22, 1993. 3 1/2 disks had been available for a while. While the
first GB disk wouldn't be seen until 1995, 100MB drives were
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:32:20 +0100
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
...
now, when I respond to specific points in the quoted message, I bottom
post. unfortunately, many people are not used to this, and find it hard
to continue the discussion consistently: they often don't understand
levels
Sander Marechal a écrit :
[snip]
Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment. There
is no mailinglist or archive to see the entire discussion there. Suppose
you are discussing something with a coworker over e-mail. With top
posting every reply carries the entire thread
Comments inline ;-p
Daniel Burrows a écrit :
My experience has also been that attempting to bottom-post in a
corporate environment confuses people because they can't find your
reply. When people know the conventions, bottom-posting is a lot
clearer, but if it just confuses them, there's
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Bob Cox debian-u...@lists.bobcox.com wrote:
From: Bob Cox debian-u...@lists.bobcox.com
Subject: Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 12:55 PM
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 00:12:15 -0500, Kumar Appaiah
(a.ku
--- On Fri, 3/13/09, Angus Auld aonghas_a...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Angus Auld aonghas_a...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
To: debian-user debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 10:55 AM
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Bob Cox
debian-u...@lists.bobcox.com
Alex Samad wrote:
isn't that a reason for top posting?
No, because with bottom posting you can quote just a little bit of an
e-mail and put your response directly below it. This is a big boon with
larger e-mails because you can respond to multiple statements or
questions in turn.
Of course
upwards. It
becomes really bad when some replies are more than a page long because
you now have to scroll back down to read it, then scroll up to find the
next reply. Weeding through top-posts makes me want to kick someones
cat.
There's something worse than that: A mixture of top
Daniel Burrows wrote:
My experience has also been that attempting to bottom-post in a
corporate environment confuses people because they can't find your
reply.
That's when the sender needs to trim out what doesn't need to be there.
It's not necessary to quote the entire previous e-mail.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:00:28AM +0100, Sander Marechal wrote:
Alex Samad wrote:
isn't that a reason for top posting?
No, because with bottom posting you can quote just a little bit of an
e-mail and put your response directly below it. This is a big boon with
larger e-mails because you
For all you posters discussing Top posting vs Bottom posting and taking
other threads off topic here is a thread for you.
First my opinion, Since this mailing list historically has been Bottom
posting then we stick with it.
Using both top and bottom posting in the mailing list will lead
Steven Demetrius wrote:
For all you posters discussing Top posting vs Bottom posting and taking
other threads off topic here is a thread for you.
First my opinion, Since this mailing list historically has been Bottom
posting then we stick with it.
good point.
personally the most e-mails i
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 07:23, randall rand...@songshu.org wrote:
personally the most e-mails i receive and sent are in a corporate
environment and everybody uses top posting there, i clearly see it has
benefits since it is used more as a notification to have the latest one
(and probably most
Nuno Magalhães wrote:
I think most people top post in corporate enviroments 'cos they just
click and type and don't really care about proper use of email or
computers in general. It's just the thing to send messages.
Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:18:52PM +0100, Sander Marechal wrote:
Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment. There
Not really.
is no mailinglist or archive to see the entire discussion there. Suppose
you are discussing something with a coworker over e-mail. With top
301 - 400 of 1631 matches
Mail list logo
