dvdpst:
>
> > > Not all Linux can go on older machines. If you are looking for an
> Linux to
> > > put on an pre 90s machine. Try looking at Puppy Linux. It can run
> on an
> > > machine with 128 mb or less. There are others too. I have Puppy
> running on
> > > an 186 with 128 mb ram.
> >
>
Pascal:
>
> > Did I miss something along the way? I always thought replying to
> threads on mailinglists is incompatible with top-posting. I do not
> mean to be pussy about that issue, but I agree that it is easier to
> read/understand. Too much text in the original message to quote it
> all? Cut it out in the response and put [snip] instead as a placeholder.
>
Scott:
>
> This particular list has more or less given up on proper posting style, as
> everytime it's brought it, it goes to a long, usually nasty, thread.
>
Bart:
This message is written using a style that I have seen in lists
with very long conversations; it works rather well. However, please note
that the list rules haven't been updated in a decade. And there are
factors in favor of top-posting that did not exist back then; a lot of
mail interfaces include the first few lines of the message as a preview.
Also, improved email handlers and faster machines greatly reduce the
value/cost ratio of digest form lists.
In general, if there is a short reply that requires a long quote,
top-posting tends to work better. Otherwise, putting the quotes
chronologically, with a top-level line for each one listing the author,
can make a lot of sense out of a deeply nested conversation.
Therefore, top-quoting is better for those who wish to just browse
the messages, and chronological (and therefore bottom) quoting is better
for those who wish to follow/get involved with conversations. The best
depends on what is desired for the list by the list owners.
Bart
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (32) |
No comments:
Post a Comment