Re: Linux locking on boot
From: WTH (spamsucks_at_Ih8it.com)
Date: 04/05/04
- Next message: WTH: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Previous message: Jerome Werner: "How do I log the initscript messages at boot?"
- In reply to: Sybren Stuvel: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Next in thread: Andy Fraser: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Reply: Andy Fraser: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Reply: Sybren Stuvel: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:52:30 -0400
"Sybren Stuvel" <sybrenUSE@YOURthirdtower.imagination.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc70las.hqm.sybrenUSE@sybren.thirdtower.com...
> WTH enlightened us with:
> > 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.
>
> The advantage is that I can read the question and the answer in one
> go.
Did you read what I said for example one. "Assuming people have *read the
original post*..."
So, again, how is there an advantage to bottom posting since you obviously
do not need to read the question. Now, if you're referring to reading the
question and answering as part of the first reply to an original post,
surely you've already read the post *before* deciding to reply, yes? Ergo,
no need to bottom post.
> Usually, I don't pay much attention to the subject, since they
> don't really cover the content anyway. I recognise the post by it's
> contents, in which case it's very comfortable to read the question and
> then be able to read the answer to it in one go.
You make it sound like you decide to reply to a post before actually reading
it. You must answer, or started to answer, every post you've ever read
then.
> > 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.
>
> I agree with you here. If someone replies below the text that is being
> replied to, it should be readable on the first page of the post,
> without any scrolling.
But that defeats your original purpose of bottom posting in that case
because you're snipping. This is the problem with arguing for bottom
posting for (1)having the original question in your reply and (2)being able
to snip appropriately (which is appropriate.) Those two things are mutually
exclusive, either you're including their post for the purpose of supplying
their question to other readers or you're snipping the parts you do not wish
to address which ruins reason #1 for other readers. In either case, the OP
doesn't need to see you quote their question unless you're inlining your
comments in which case neither of us is top or bottom posting ;).
> > 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.
>
> Again I agree with you. Top-posting isn't the solution, though. As I
> see it, quoting a piece of text is to add context to a reply.
Then if you're addressing their entire post instead of responding piecemeal,
you either erase their entire post and appear to be a top poster or you
include the entire thing and force people to scroll all the way to the end,
through the post they've already seen, to read your reply.
> If I would have typed "I agree with you" without even the smallest piece
of
> context, you wouldn't have known what I was agreeing with, making my
> reply kinda pointless.
Again, not if you're agreeing with the context of their entire post (rare,
lol, but it does happen.) Otherwise you're inlining and instead of bottom
posting (unless it is a single item you're contesting/agreeing/expounding
upon) and then you just appear to be bottom posting.
> So I quote just enough text so people know what
> I'm talking about - but no more than that!
Then you generally don't bottom post, and we can eliminate this example for
the purposes of our discussion leaving the simple first example and the
second example. In which case, there don't appear to be any advantages to
bottom posting for example II except for people just joining the thread.
> > The advantage for top posting is that the current participants only
> > need to read the portion of the post which is instantly visible.
>
> But why quote the entire post if it isn't going to be read?
Who says you must? Many top posters, in my experience, just leave it in out
of convenient laziness. Some just send back their reply (which many top and
bottom posters find weird, lol. There's *3rd* group of poster out
there...)
> Someone who has missed the previous post can tell her Usenet client to
fetch
> it for her (alt+p with slrn) so she can read it anyway. That is why I
> see quoted text as a means to add context to a reply more than a way
> to fill in missing posts.
Sadly, the majority of bottom posters are just as lazy as the majority of
top posters and leave the entire article in becuase their newsreader pops
them to the bottom by default and they are too lazy to 'select all'
'delete'.
> >> In the English speaking world we read left to right, top to bottom.
> > But, imho, that's a terrible argument.
>
> IMO, it's a good argument.
I'd appreciate you either place a <SNIP> comment inline there or leave the
text as it stood otherwise you give people the impression that I did not
give a reason as to why I think it isn't a good argument:
"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."
> If I have to read a line, my eyes go to the
> line below that automatically.
Because that is what you're used to in your manner of posting. Certainly
you don't have difficulty reading inline comments, which is antithetical to
your conditioning of "my eyes go to the line below that automatically"
because the *stream of consciousness* type of discourse which 99% of ng
discussions have are broken by inlining (as I mentioned originally.)
> If I have to read bottom to top in
> order to read things in a chronological, sensible order, I have to
> take a lot more effort.
But, you see, no one is advocating that. Top posters believe that you
either top post when responding to the entire article/post, or comment
inline where appropriate. You don't force people to read through the entire
document not knowing if there are or are not inline comments just to get to
your reply (as possibly have missed some comments depending upon your
newsreader.) Bottom posters believe that you either bottom post when
responding to an entire article/post or comment inline where appropriate.
It is that simple.
> > NG posts are conversational, not literary, plus as soon as people
> > comment inline (*very* common) this value is gone.
>
> Inline posting is a form of bottom posting, since the text is typed
> below the text that it refers/answers to. Again, the post can be read
> in an order that comes natural to us.
That is coincidental, it isn't *bottom posting* which means to post your
replies at the bottom of the other post. That's some hair splitting ;).
You still did not address the (arguable) fact that your top to bottom
reading form of the progress of a series of posts is immediately broken by
inlining (not to mention your suggestion of snipping out portions of the
post which you're not directly addressing.) You can't have your cake and
eat it too ;).
> > Indeed. This is the most effective method between two participants.
>
> And between more participants as well.
No, it can't work that way. It becomes VERY confusing when two different
participants respond to the OP with inlined comments where they delete the
extraneous portions of the OP's post. They are immediately out of sync
(this isn't say it's impossible it is saying that it is a good way to have
multiple participants responding in the same series of posts
simultaneously.) Inlining works great, between two people, like we're doing
right now.
> > Aaah, but this almost NEVER happens because we have ng clients that
> > automatically place us at the bottom.
>
> That's just as bad an excuse as "my Usenet clients puts my cursor at
> the top so I top post". My client puts the cursor at the top too,
> because I instructed it to. That way, I can start snipping text and
> replying in one go, making it very comfortable to inline-reply.
I think you misunderstood my intent. I didn't proffer the fact that our ng
clients generally place us at the bottom as an excuse for why this is
acceptable, because I don't think it is acceptable, I'm pointing out that
most bottom posters *do not* snip the irrelevant portions of a post, out of
sheer laziness.
> > In all honestly Sybren, I really believe that top posters have the
> > most logical solution
>
> I have to disagree here. If I would have typed all the small pieces of
> my reply entirely at the top of this message, it would have had a lot
> lesser value than it currently has. I wouldn't be able to just say "I
> agree" without having to clarify what I was referring to.
That's a ridiculous example, here's the obvious reversal of that one:
"I have to disagree with bottom posting being the most logical solution
because if I had typed all the small pieces of my reply entirely at the
bottom, it would have had a lot lesser value than it currently has", right?
;)
> I think my way of posting is the more logical one, especially if you
> agree that people can always look up older posts (since the delay
> nowadays isn't days any more) so quoting text is for giving context
> instead of anything else.
Now you're arguing not for bottom posting but for always inlining.
WTH
- Next message: WTH: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Previous message: Jerome Werner: "How do I log the initscript messages at boot?"
- In reply to: Sybren Stuvel: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Next in thread: Andy Fraser: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Reply: Andy Fraser: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Reply: Sybren Stuvel: "Re: Linux locking on boot"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
