Re: Linux locking on boot

From: WTH (spamsucks_at_Ih8it.com)
Date: 04/03/04 

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:41:38 -0500

> Apology accepted. Just know that you aren't a subtle person yourself
> either.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> Perhaps if you can tell me one good argument for top posting, I might
> see it as "another style of posting" instead of annoying, illogical and
> incorrect.

Here we're going to get into a very subjective argument; however, I shall
endeavor to do so; however, to get anywhere the discussion cannot devolve
into a case of "well, I can configure my news client to do this..." because
that, imho, simply indicates that the feature is usually put in place to
both offer a feature and overcome a short coming (which I will agree is
arguable.)

Now, *I* bottompost; however, I can see a great advantage in people top
posting in certain situations.

There are, shall we assume, certain discussion types that occur on ngs.

I. Short discussions where somebody makes an original post that has a one
response type of answer, such as: "Where is modules.conf?"
II. Long discussions where somebody starts a train (wreck) of thoughts such
as: "Was the night of the long knives a purge in the historical sense?"
where there are many answers over a very long series of posts (most likely)
where people merely add to the length of the post in summations and do not
comment inline
III. Long discussions (using the above example) where people comment inline.

In example one, *assuming* people have read the original post, what is the
advantage to bottom posting in your reply? I don't see one. I can see a
very minor advantage in top posting because people who have just read the
original post will not have to scroll through the original post in your
reply before seeing your actual textual reply. This is mostly a *who cares*
type of scenario where people's personal tastes are the only discriminating
factor.

In example two, the situation is much different. 10 posts in, everytime a
participant wishes to vew your reply they must scroll and scroll and scroll
(because they cannot assume that you have not inlined some of your comments)
to check throughout the entire progression of the post before coming upon
your reply. The advantage for bottom posting is that if someone has just
joined the discussion, the normal *readable* progression of the discussion
can occur (only if there has been no inlining of comments) and the person
can 'catch up' in one fell swoop; however, this forces the actual
participants to do extra work for the sake of that person. The advantage
for top posting is that the current participants only need to read the
portion of the post which is instantly visible. No scrolling (again
assuming no inline commenting in this example) because top posters who
inline (like with office documentation) say things like "comments inline" or
"comments in body" because (unless they're idiots) they can't assume that
you'll read their post and then scroll through looking for changes. So it
would seem to me (a bottom poster) that in longer discussions top posting
has great convenience advantages.

Example three is a *** situation where it doesn't really matter if you
top or bottom post because you're ending up a 'middle poster' irregardless.
Advantages to bottom posting in this scenario? None I can really think of.
Advantages to top posting in this scenario? None really unless the top
poster ends their 'top post' with "no more comments" or something similar
(which I've never seen so it doesn't really count as an advantage.)

That's my honest opinion. I'm used to bottom posting, I bottom post, but
when I look at it objectively, overall top posting appears to be more
participant friendly and bottom posting appears to be more 'initial
observer' friendly, except that the initial observer can simply follow the
posts from their start (as they should in any case because we know how much
stuff gets <SNIP>ed, lol.)

> In the English speaking world we read left to right, top to bottom.

But, imho, that's a terrible argument. NG posts are conversational, not
literary, plus as soon as people comment inline (*very* common) this value
is gone.

> The best response type is "in-line" posting, that is, remove all the
> quoted text that does not apply to your response, adding your comments
> in context underneath as you go.

Indeed. This is the most effective method between two participants.

> The distributed nature of Usenet is causing that not everyone sees all
> posts in a particular thread in the right order or or even at all. If
> you make sure you put your reply in a top-to-bottom order, people will
> be able to easily read through it from top to bottom.

Do people realize that this 'fact' is a holdover from the early days of
usenet where messages would take (potentially) days to appear?

> Be sure to remove all excess quoted text though. There is nothing more
> annoying than having to scroll down three pages of quoted text you
> already read, just to read a two-lined reply ;-)

Aaah, but this almost NEVER happens because (slamming ourselves for a
second) we have ng clients that automatically place us at the bottom.
Bottom posters do not do this. Top posters do this often (and I actually
find it a little annoying because sometimes I read their response and then
want to see what exactly I had said previously and then I have to go find
the darn post ;).)

In all honestly Sybren, I really believe that top posters have the most
logical solution, I just don't want to change.

    WTH