Re: [SLE] Empty Trash

• Previous message: Dylan: "Re: [SLE] Installing OpenOffice & nfs"
• In reply to: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Next in thread: Synthetic Cartoonz: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:54:11 -0800

Carlos,

On Tuesday 09 November 2004 16:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> The Monday 2004-11-08 at 18:22 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last
> > > mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)
> >
> > Really? The quantity of data received on the SuSE-Linux-E list is a
> > significant proportion of your link's capacity? You must be on one
> > damn slow link!
>
> Yes, it is. It can cope, of course, but if everybody in this list
> were using html, my ISP inbox would fill up easily: some have 3 Mb,
> some 25Mb. I could not take a few days out, because it would fill up
> quite soon.

Well, people with such stingy ISPs can hardly afford to be on this list
if they're not going to retrieve their mail rather frequently, it
seems.

> A quick calculation is below.
>
> > > I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of
> > > those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.
> >
> > OK. I guess it's "only" 1700+ bytes...
>
> But it doesn't go up.

Again, that's the point. An empty message would be that big. The
percentage of growth for using styled text must take that fixed
baseline into account.

> About 80% of the list is over 3000 bytes, 10% is over 5Kb, and only a
> few are over 20Kb. Those 20Kb, minus 2 is 18. Plus 200% for the html
> part, thats 36. Total 36+18+2=56Kb (meaning around 10 second for each
> to download). Those of 5Kb would increase to about 11Kb.

That is ridiculous. Markup is only bigger where there are markup
elements specified. It is by no means a uniform percentage larger and
it's certainly not twice as large unless there are style variations
throughout the message. That does not reflect any kind of ordinary
usage pattern.

And again, sending multipart with a plain text counterpart would not be
required if people would use modern software. It's this atavistic
contingent that's holding sway against a modern form of written
communication in this (and many other) forums.

> For example, last Monday I got 298 emails from this list alone:
> assuming 4Kb each, thats around 1.2 Mbytes; including a html part, it
> would increase to 2.4Mb per day. That means that it would fill up in
> 3 or 4 days for the average 10 Mbytes account - with this list alone.

You're assuming that every post would be styled. That's an entirely
unreasonable assumption. Unless, of course, you think all the people
who claim to have no need to use stylistic variation in their posts are
lying and as soon as you open the door to styled mail you'll get
nothing but styled mail from them and that, furthermore, that each
posting will be laden with style mark-up.

> > > And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for
> > > example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but
> > > not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all.
> > > Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact.
> >
> > That's another part of the point. Using antiquated software is
> > _not_ a reason to resist using a richer medium of communication.
> > Not when it's supported by bona fide standards.
>
> Yes, it is.

No. It's not. Clinging to old software just does not justify resistance
to progress. If if were, we'd have no Web, programmers would be writing
in BAL assembler and computers would do nothing but billing and
bookkeeping and computing ballistics tables.

> It would force us to use certain kind of email clients.

It would preclude certain antiquated ones. That's all.

> > > Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.
> >
> > Which is silly, but nonetheless is a value judgement on the part of
> > the list administrator. We should keep in mind, too, that with a
> > change in proprietorship for SuSE as a whole, all these things are
> > potentially subject to change. Perhaps Novell is more enlightened
> > than the old SuSE folks. After all, isn't Germany part of "Old
> > Europe?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist... I hate Bush at least as much
> > as any fundie hates the devil, by the way.)
>
> Then it would be the time to quit the list and SuSE :-|

Right. It's your way or the highway.

> > ... Electronic mail is simply one
> > means of communication. If HTML, with its embedded style, layout
> > and images, is a useful medium for communication--and I think we
> > all agree it is--then why should it be excluded from electronic
> > mail?
>
> Not from electronic mail, but from this list. That's what we are
> complaining about. There is no real need for it, there are technical
> reasons against it, and so are the rules of this list.

The stated technical reasons are vacuous. I obey the rules, but they are
foolish rules.

And do you think I'm trying to get the rules of this list changed? I'm
not. I'm trying to get people to realize that there is no valid
objection to doing it in general. Do you expect 5, 10, 25 years from
now that bulletin boards and mailing lists should still be nothing but
plain text? At what point will you admit that you're operating at the
equivalent of the telegraph and accept something more modern?

> ...
>
> > > ĦBut it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to
> > > say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like
> > > it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine
> > > knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to
> > > be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second
> > > one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach
> > > 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It
> > > is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and
> > > who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/
> >
> ...
>
> > What doesn't exist? You're simply wrong, you know. There most
> > certainly is such a standard. Do you think I'd go on like this over
> > a fantasy / hallucination? <URL:
> > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1896.html>. <URL:
> > http://mango.human.cornell.edu/kens/etf.html> is a nice explanatory
> > page.
>
> /usr/share/doc/rfc/rfc1896.txt.gz is nearer to me ;-)

Wow. 62+ MB of compressed RFC text.

> Ok, it does. What programs support it, in Linux?

I don't know. The KMail developers are clearly in the atavistic
contingent as far as anything but plain-text email is concerned (I've
read bits of the developer lists).

> ...
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

• Previous message: Dylan: "Re: [SLE] Installing OpenOffice & nfs"
• In reply to: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Next in thread: Synthetic Cartoonz: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]