minor list changes

[John Foust]

At 08:21 PM 3/7/2005, Jim Brain wrote:
>One can't help but wonder if the web forum thread is half-serious, half troll.  
>Especially considering the list makeup.  I probably should feed the troll, 
>but the stereotyping thing seemed a bit overkill.

Yes, not only am I trolling but I'm also playing the devil's advocate 
because I grow tired of the unending Windows bashing.  (I'm plenty capable 
of that, too, have no fear.)  It's not necessary for an enthusiasm for
classic computers, so it's off-topic and flame-baiting.  But I began to
suspect that the bashing was often, at root, bashing against today's 
entire computer environment: anti-web, anti-GUI, anti-high-bandwidth.  
Why is it necessary to say that today's technology is bad just to
affirm that yesterday's is/was good?

At 07:17 PM 3/7/2005, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>> There's also a persistent geek belief-system where, once they 
>> believe a device is technologically superior, they think it 
>> should be popular and all those who believe otherwise are idiots. 
>
>The irony is, one person here seems to have precisely that perspective
>when it comes to web forums. I wonder who that is. Hmm.

For the record, I rarely consult the web version of this list.  
My earliest message from it is dated November 1997, and all my 
archives of it are in 'mbox' format.

>> To wit, I'll summarize some of the savvy arguments posted so far against
>> web-based forums:  Web sites are slow.  Not all browsers can use them.
>> [...]
>
>And these are bad arguments why? Are these reasons somehow unjustified?
>Especially things like connect charges, software incompatibilities, ...

For a group (there I go, stereotyping and lumping again to create a Them)
that's technologically adept and eager to invest immense amounts of time
and energy and even money in obscure archaic technologies, you'd think
They'd be wise enough to recognize that today's Web users and developers
face exactly the same issues we faced 30 years ago, and they're just as 
capable of addressing and solving them in their own way, driven by their 
perceived needs.  

Surely there are assumptions to be questioned.  To wit, a web user is less 
concerned about hoarding precious ASCII files.  They assume the connection 
will always be "on".  They have no need to 'grep' a local copy because 
they assume it'll still be Out There somewhere.  They don't need to 'grep' 
a local copy because the web site has an index or search engine or
they can rely on Google.  If it's valuable enough, it'll be mirrored.  
If they really want an offline copy, they can make it, but it'll be 
in HTML, and they know how to cut-and-paste to ASCII if they need it.
If you want to edit in your favorite editor, just cut-and-paste.  BFD.
I bop between web, Windows, Mac, Linux and DOS all day long.

At 07:03 PM 3/7/2005, Tony Duell wrote:
>Well I cetainly can't do any of those. I have never been offered a PC 
>faster than a 286. I certainly can't afford broadband.

I don't know your circumstances.  You're in the UK.  I suspect 
broadband is available your area for about $30 a month.  If time
is worth anything to you, it'll be worth it compared to dial-up.
What do you pay for dial-up?

Around here in East Bumblefrick USA, clients are begging me to haul away 
their old 600 Mhz PCs as well as any previous generations.  You find them 
on the curb.  Are you truly not using a web browser, ever? 

>And I don't mind 
>admitting I am not clever enough to repair modern PCs, I don't have a BGA 
>rework station 

You're trying too hard.  See above for a source of a new PC.

>I much prefer mailing lists to web fora. I prefer large-format film 
>cameras to digital cameras. And so on. 

I just picked up a gorgeous Leitz Focomat IIc enlarger for $300, 
I'm debating whether to keep it or eBay it and get ~$3000.

At 10:39 PM 3/7/2005, der Mouse wrote:
>I don't dislike reverse video because it's New and Modern; I dislike it
>because I've used it and find it significantly more tiring to my eyes
>(when used for any significant length of time - reverse video *is*
>easier to read for very brief stuff, say a line or two, but gets very
>wearing for much more than that, at least on self-luminant displays).

Footnote for future-kids reading this in the archives:  Note that 
'der Mouse' refers to "reverse video" and means "illuminated glyphs 
on a dark phosphor background" although at this point in history, 
the vast majority of Web-using computerists considered that mode to 
be "reverse video" because web and GUI interfaces typically drew 
non-illuminated glyphs on lighter backgrounds.

- John