Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Today's Messages (on)  | Unanswered Messages (off)

Forum: Commodore 64
 Topic: Software Support International (1994)
Software Support International (1994) [message #411304] Mon, 27 September 2021 00:30
Anonymous
Karma:
Software Support International (1994)
- - - http://darth-azrael.tumblr.com
Forum: Computer Folklore
 Topic: What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?
Re: What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work? [message #411311 is a reply to message #411221] Mon, 27 September 2021 08:52
cross is currently offline  cross
Messages: 8
Registered: May 2013
Karma:
Junior Member
In article <2fkskgluiu6o31kjfcgsmbh28m4jrek0bq@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:13:06 -0000 (UTC),
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>> Sure it is. The level of difficulty depends entirely on
>> your processes and practices and how robust your test and
>> staging infrastructure is. Some places do it very well.
>> Others, not so much.
>
> If you feel like robusticizing the "processes and practices and test
> and staging infrastructure" for a Fortune 500 financial services
> company, I can give you a name to which you can send your sales pitch.
> Make it shiny enough and put a big enough hook in it and he may even
> bite.

So you admit that those processes and practices are below
those of industry standards in more modern organizations.
Cool.

- Dan C.
 Topic: Re: Obit - Sir Clive Sinclair, Computing Pioneer
Re: Obit - Sir Clive Sinclair, Computing Pioneer [message #411312 is a reply to message #411263] Mon, 27 September 2021 10:59
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 554
Registered: January 2012
Karma:
Senior Member
On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:31:23 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 13:55:07 GMT
> Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Then, snipping is most important?
>
> Indeed, there is some art in retaining the minimum useful context.
> Once upon a time it was common for USENET servers to reject posts that had
> a poor ratio of new material to quoted material. Of course in those days
> bandwidth[1] and storage were much more expensive - but human attention span
> hasn't increased in line with those things so it is still useful to be
> brief.
>
> [1] In the early days of USENET many leaf sites had a 15 minute daily slot
> to exchange data over a modem line using UUCP - all email, USENET and file
> transfer (very unpopular with admins) traffic had to fit in that slot.

Ah, the good old days of ftpmail for binaries for home computers.
 Topic: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter?
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411303 is a reply to message #411302] Mon, 27 September 2021 00:41
Mike Spencer is currently offline  Mike Spencer
Messages: 938
Registered: January 2012
Karma:
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>
> It is common politeness, when joining a group, to adopt the
> conventions of that group, it is a joy when those conventions are also
> sensible and a minor burden when they are not.

Just so. I occasionally top-post when a previous post may be needed
for reference but my own contribution is essentially stand-alone and
not in the nature of conversation. This appears to be common in
business email where I find it workable and correct -- at worst a
"minor burden".

Most Usenet posts are more or less in the nature of conversation so
top-posting is a stumbling block as is massive quoting -- failure to
trim -- when responding to some small element of a previous post.


--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411305 is a reply to message #411303] Mon, 27 September 2021 01:54
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Grant Taylor

On 9/26/21 10:41 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> I occasionally top-post when a previous post may be needed
> for reference but my own contribution is essentially stand-alone
> and not in the nature of conversation. This appears to be common
> in business email where I find it workable and correct -- at worst a
> "minor burden".

Why would you ever reply to a message / thread with something that's
stand-alone as opposed to starting a new thread?

Your logic makes sense. But I don't understand why you would be in the
situation you describe.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411306 is a reply to message #411305] Mon, 27 September 2021 03:01
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4261
Registered: June 2012
Karma:
Senior Member
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:54:19 PM UTC-6, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 9/26/21 10:41 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> I occasionally top-post when a previous post may be needed
>> for reference but my own contribution is essentially stand-alone
>> and not in the nature of conversation. This appears to be common
>> in business email where I find it workable and correct -- at worst a
>> "minor burden".
> Why would you ever reply to a message / thread with something that's
> stand-alone as opposed to starting a new thread?
>
> Your logic makes sense. But I don't understand why you would be in the
> situation you describe.

I agree with his logic. I could see the situation emerging where the
quoted post is being used as reference material rather than one
directly replying to it.

John Savard
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411307 is a reply to message #411301] Mon, 27 September 2021 04:58
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: gareth evans

Netiquette is not etiquette.

Perhaps those who take offence so easily over
such a trivial matter were the prototype
woke generation?

Wherever the new material is placed, whether at the
top or the bottom (or both, in this case) you get
to read it and assimilate its intelligence, so
why have an emotional reaction in addition?

On 26/09/2021 21:20, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 9/26/21 1:51 PM, gareth evans wrote:
>> Top or bottom posting; does it really matter?
>
> Yes, netiquette still matters.
>
> Netiquette is independent of online medium.

Netiquette is not etiquette.

Perhaps those who take offence so easily over
such a trivial matter were the prototype
woke generation?

Wherever the new material is placed, whether at the
top or the bottom (or both, in this case) you get
to read it and assimilate its intelligence, so
why have an emotional reaction in addition?
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411308 is a reply to message #411302] Mon, 27 September 2021 05:00
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: gareth evans

But are conventions determined by historical
personages some of whom are long dead, or do
the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?



On 26/09/2021 21:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>
> It is common politeness, when joining a group, to adopt the
> conventions of that group, it is a joy when those conventions are also
> sensible and a minor burden when they are not.
>

But are conventions determined by historical
personages some of whom are long dead, or do
the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411309 is a reply to message #411308] Mon, 27 September 2021 06:03
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4406
Registered: January 2012
Karma:
Senior Member
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:00:40 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 26/09/2021 21:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>>
>> It is common politeness, when joining a group, to adopt the
>> conventions of that group, it is a joy when those conventions are also
>> sensible and a minor burden when they are not.
>>
>
> But are conventions determined by historical
> personages some of whom are long dead, or do
> the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?

The origins of conventions are generally obscured by time, even when
everyone involved is present they can be difficult to pin down, whatever
documentation may remain is usually only a thin remnant of the original
discussions and thinking. Once established they tend to have enormous
inertia by virtue of group acceptance and tend only to change if pretty much
everyone finds them irksome.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411313 is a reply to message #411307] Mon, 27 September 2021 11:03
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 554
Registered: January 2012
Karma:
Senior Member
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:58:58 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Netiquette is not etiquette.
>

In a way, yes it is. But then again, I always felt Emily Post was a
bit off in her head.
Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? [message #411314 is a reply to message #411303] Mon, 27 September 2021 13:45
Arne Luft is currently offline  Arne Luft
Messages: 301
Registered: March 2012
Karma:
Senior Member
On 2021-09-27 00:41, Mike Spencer wrote (in part):
> Most Usenet posts are more or less in the nature of conversation so
> top-posting is a stumbling block as is massive quoting -- failure to
> trim -- when responding to some small element of a previous post.

Indeed, trying to follow a conversation with top-posting inserted in
bottom-posting (not to mention responses that do not clearly dilineate
previous posts) can give me headaches.

N.



Current Time: Mon Sep 27 14:52:29 EDT 2021

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01265 seconds