Jargons of Info Tech industry

[Xah Lee]

Jargons of Info Tech industry

(A Love of Jargons)

Xah Lee, 2002 Feb

People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious jargons.
The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous jargons, such
as in the Unix & Perl community. Unlike mathematicians, where in
mathematics there are no fewer jargons but each and every one are
absolutely necessary. For example, polytope, manifold,
injection/bijection/surjection, group/ring/field.., homological,
projective, pencil, bundle, lattice, affine, topology, isomorphism,
isometry, homeomorphism, aleph-0, fractal, supremum/infimum, simplex,
matrix, quaternions, derivative/integral, ... and so on. Each and every
one of these captures a concept, for which practical and theoretical
considerations made the terms a necessity. Often there are synonyms for
them because of historical developments, but never “jargons for
jargon's sake� because mathematicians hate bloats and irrelevance.

The jargon-soaked stupidity in computing field can be grouped into
classes. First of all, there are jargons for marketing purposes. Thus
you have Mac OS “X�, Windows “XP�, Sun OS to Solaris and the
versioning confusion of 4.x to 7 to 8 and also the so called
“Platform� instead of OS. One flagrant example is Sun Microsystem's
Java stuff. Oak, Java, JDK, JSDK, J2EE, J2SE enterprise edition or no,
from java 1.x to 1.2 == Java 2 now 1.3, JavaOne, JFC, Jini, JavaBeans,
entity Beans, Awk, Swing... fucking stupid Java and fuck Sun
Microsystems. This is just one example of Jargon hodgepodge of one
single commercial entity. Marketing jargons cannot be avoided in modern
society. They abound outside computing field too. The Jargons of
marketing came from business practice, and they can be excusable
because they are kinda a necessity or can be considered as a naturally
evolved strategy for attracting attention in a laissez-faire economy
system.

The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
& Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
tasteless term eunuchs. PERL is cooked up to be “Practical Extraction
& Reporting Language� and for the precise marketing drama of being
also “Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister�. These types of
jargons exudes juvenile humor. Cheesiness and low-taste is their
hall-mark. If you are familiar with unixism and perl programing, you'll
find tons and tons of such jargons embraced and verbalized by unix &
perl lovers. e.g. grep, glob, shell, pipe, man, regex, more, less,
tarball, shebang, Schwartzian Transform, croak, bless, interpolation,
TIMTOWTDI, DWIM, RFC, RTFM, I-ANAL, YMMV and so on.

There is another class of jargon moronicity, which i find them most
damaging to society, are jargons or spurious and vague terms used and
brandished about by programers that we see and hear daily among design
meetings, online tech group postings, or even in lots of computing
textbooks or tutorials. I think the reason for these, is that these
massive body of average programers usually don't have much knowledge of
significant mathematics, yet they are capable of technical thinking
that is not too abstract, thus you ends up with these people defining
or hatching terms a-dime-a-dozen that's vague, context dependent,
vacuous, and their commonality are often a result of sopho-morons
trying to sound big.

Here are some examples of the terms in question:

• anonymous functions or lambda or lamba function
• closure
• exceptions (as in Java)
• list, array, vector, aggregate
• hash (or hash table) � fantastically stupid
• rehash (as in csh or tcsh)
• regular expression (as in regex, grep, egrep, fgrep)
• name space (as in Scheme vs Common Lisp debates)
• depth first/breadth first (as in tree traversing.)
• operator
• operator overloading
• polymorphism
• inheritance
• first class objects
• pointers, references
• tail recursion

My time is limited, so i'll just give a brief explanation of my thesis
on selective few of these examples among the umpteen.

In a branch of math called lambda calculus, in which much theories of
computation are based on, is the origin of the jargon _lambda function_
that is so frequently reciprocated by advanced programering donkeys. In
practice, a subroutine without side-effects is supposed to be what
“lambda function� means. Functional languages often can define them
without assigning them to some variable (name), therefore the
“function without side-effects� are also called “anonymous
functions�. One can see that these are two distinct concepts. If
mathematicians are designing computer languages, they would probably
just called such thing _pure functions_. The term conveys the meaning,
without the “lamba� abstruseness. (in fact, the mathematics
oriented language Mathematica refers to lambda function as pure
function, with the keyword Function.) Because most programers are
sopho-morons who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless
possess human vanity, we can see that they have not adopted the clear
and fitting term, but instead you see lambda function this and that
obfuscations dropping from their mouths constantly.

Now the term “closure� can and indeed have meant several things in
the computing field. The most common is for it to mean a subroutine
that holds some memory but without some disadvantages of modifying a
global variable. Usually such is a feature of a programing language.
When taken to extreme, we have the what's called Object Oriented
Programing methodology and languages. The other meaning of
“closure� i have seen in text books, is for it to indicate that the
things in the language is “closed� under the operations of the
language. For example, for some languages you can apply operations or
subroutines to any thing in the language. (These languages are often
what's called “dynamic typing� or “typeless�). However, in
other languages, things have types and cannot be passed around
subroutines or operators arbitrarily. One can see that the term
“closure� is quite vague in conveying its meaning. The term
nevertheless is very popular among talkative programers and dense
tutorials, precisely because it is vague and mysterious. These
pseudo-wit living zombies, never thought for a moment that they are
using a moronic term, mostly because they never clearly understand the
concepts behind the term among the contexts. One can particular see
this exhibition among Perl programers. (for an example of the
fantastically stupid write-up on closure by the Perl folks, see
“perldoc perlfaq7� and “perldoc perlref�.)

in the so-called “high-level� computing languages, there are often
data types that's some kind of a collection. The most illustrative is
LISt Processing language's lists. Essentially, the essential concept is
that the language can treat a collection of things as if it's a single
entity. As computer languages evolve, such collection entity feature
also diversified, from syntax to semantics to implementation. Thus,
beside lists, there are also terms like vector, array, matrix, tree,
hash/“hash table�/dictionary. Often each particular term isto
convey a particular implementation of collection so that it has certain
properties to facilitate specialized uses of such groupy. The Java
language has such groupy that can illustrate the point well. In Java,
there are these hierarchy of collection-type of things:

Collection
Set (AbstractSet, HashSet)
SortedSet (TreeSet)
List (AbstractList, LinkedList, Vector, ArrayList)

Map (AbstractMap, HashMap, Hashtable)
SortedMap (TreeMap)

The words without parenthesis are Java Interfaces, and ones in are
implementations. The interface hold a concept. The deeper the level,
the more specific or specialized. The implementation carry out
concepts. Different implementation gives different algorithmic
properties. Essentially, these hierarchies of Java show the potential
complexity and confusion around groupy entities in computer languages.
Now, among the programers we see daily, who never really thought out of
these things, will attach their own specific meaning to
list/array/vector/matrix/etc type of jargons in driveling and
arguments, oblivious to any thought of formalizing what the fuck they
are really talking about. (one may think from the above tree-diagram
that Java the language has at least put clear distinction to interface
and implementation, whereas in my opinion they are one fantastic fuck
up too, in many respects.)

---------------------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/jargons.html
© Copyright 2002 by Xah Lee.

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[John Bokma]

Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:

Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today
already comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a message
saved to a file can be read very easily.

I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are, historically
have been, and should always be, plain text mediums. If I wanted to
look at prettily formatted HTML, I'd use a web browser to look at the
web.

Just have a look at some web based message boards, and you might see why it
would be another disaster on Usenet. Moreoever, why keep people insisting
on making Usenet "better"? If you want HTML and fancy mark up, start a
message board. You probably can get even more people.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

"T Beck" <Tr********@Infineon.com> wrote:

If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and
adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around
since the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly
feasable. HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and
Shockwave.
They are not additions to HTML, like PNG is no addition to HTML, or wav,
mp3, etc.
The websites of today don't even resemble the websites of
10 years ago,
Depends a lot on what site you visit. You can make a website of 10 years
ago look modern with roughly the same HTML of 10 years ago, and a style
sheet. (E.g. visit: http://johnbokma.com/ and turn off the stylesheet. And
there are way better examples)
e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so
Because there is no real alternative to email? If there was, email would
have died, at least for me, long ago.
the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
heavy-handed and anachronistic.

No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned
earlier). However, Usenet is a stranger to most people on the Internet,
even with Usenet access, and hence, there is no real reason to see it
changed into something that is "available" for years and years to more
people: www.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[joe]

"T Beck" <Tr********@Infineon.com> writes:

Mike Schilling wrote:

"Rich Teer" <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@zen.rite-group.com...

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:

> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer
> today already comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so
> that a message saved to a file can be read very easily.

I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are,
historically have been, and should always be, plain text
mediums.
Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
intelligent discussion, is there?

Not to mention that e-mail is practically to the point where it is
{not} a plain text medium. I notice this especially in a corporate
environment (where, at least where I work, I get at least 10 times the
number of e-mails at work than I do on my private account) HTML e-mail
is the de-facto standard. I have a tendancy to send out plain text
e-mail, and I'm practically the only one, as HTML formatting is the
default for the mail client on every corporate machine at my job.

If you're using exchange for email servers it might be reformatting
mail sent as plain text anyway. Waste of bandwidth.
But let's not forget that most people which send me e-mail personally
also have HTML tags in e-mail... So if e-mail {is} a plain text
medium, somebody needs to tell the general public, because I think they
must've missed a memo.

If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and
adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around since
the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly feasable.
HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and Shockwave. The
websites of today don't even resemble the websites of 10 years ago,
e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so the argument
that usenet should never change seems a little heavy-handed and
anachronistic.

That's a good point, but just because things are evolving doesn't mean
they're making more sense. Html does waste bandwidth, it does open up
avenues for malware that text mail doesn't, etc.

It seems to me that any intelligent person has to turn off so many
"features" in html mail clients that they lose many of what are seen
of as advantages.

I suspect I either missed some of this thread or I'm misunderstanding
some of it. If what the OP was trying to suggest was a more confined
form of html, say, something that doesn't allow links, I'd consider
that a good thing. I doubt anyone will use it though, I think MS wants
all the bells and whistles, and all the embracing and extending it can
do. If they don't support such an html subset for email I suspect it
won't go anywhere.

But why bother? An html subset that takes everything away but
formatting sounds pretty much like what I'm doing right now with
gnus.

Joe

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:

[Off Topic discussion of netiquette, seen on comp.lang.perl.misc:]

Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
intelligent discussion, is there?

Discussion about netiquette on any of these cross-posted groups cannot
by definition be "intelligent": there are proper places to discuss the
netiquette (they'd have "news" as their top hierarchy, not "comp"),
and your posting was cross-posted to none of them.

[f'ups set] [I have been trolled, mea culpa]

[Mike Schilling]

<jo*@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:m3************@invalid.address...

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:

"Rich Teer" <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@zen.rite-group.com...

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today
>> already comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a
>> message saved to a file can be read very easily.
>
> I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are,
> historically have been, and should always be, plain text mediums.

Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
intelligent discussion, is there?

Errm, isn't that what you're doing as well then? Rich just gave an
opinion, you've been giving an opinion. Rich's opinion happens to have
a lot of history and good reasons behind it. I don't see why it should
be viewed as some kind of discussion ending dogmatism.

I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y will
always be the only proper way."

Don't you?

[Rich Teer]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, John Bokma wrote:

Just have a look at some web based message boards, and you might see why it
would be another disaster on Usenet. Moreoever, why keep people insisting
on making Usenet "better"? If you want HTML and fancy mark up, start a
message board. You probably can get even more people.

Right. I avoid web based forums like the plague. Why? Because apart
from the (usually) very low SNR, for me interacting with a browser is
more effort than using my email/news client of 10+ years, pine.

I find that fact that something is technically possible (e.g., HTML
email and Usenet) is not necessarily a good argument for actully
DOING it.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: [phone]
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

[usenet]

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
heavy-handed and anachronistic.
No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned

.... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.
earlier). However, Usenet is a stranger to most people on the Internet,
even with Usenet access, and hence, there is no real reason to see it
changed into something that is "available" for years and years to more
people: www.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

--
Chris Green

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
heavy-handed and anachronistic.

No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned

... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.

That is because NNTP and its applications didn't evolve to feed the
glitzy need lots of users have.

Sadly web forums (esp. the ugly, sloooow PHPBB, and the unspeakable
Google groups) are increasingly replacing usenet, but there are
exceptions (DragonflyBSD).

On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
replacing Usenet, with some obvious disadvantages: go on vacation,
return after a week, and -- yahoo! -- all your RSS feeds only turn of
the, say, most recent 30 articles, while your newsgroups all show
everything you missed.

There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e. contain
a small description and a web link as message text), or why a newsgroup
shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or user-provided)
CSS sheet. If things were that way, suddenly people *would* use Outlook
and Thunderbird for news-reading, while today everything is just
Browser+HTTP.

Oh, yes:</rant>

--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert

[Alexander Zatvornitskiy]

ðÒÉ×ÅÔ Xah!

11 aug 2005 at 18:23, Xah Lee wrote:

XL> Jargons of Info Tech industry
XL> (A Love of Jargons)
XL> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
XL> People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
....skipped...

Look at this site for some info: http://lleo.aha.ru/na/en
Alexander, za**@bk.ru

[Rich Teer]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:

CSS sheet. If things were that way, suddenly people *would* use Outlook

No no no! Let's keep those Outhouse lusers away from Usenet. There's
tto much top posting as it is!

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: [phone]
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

[John Bokma]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

> the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
> heavy-handed and anachronistic.

No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards.
Those alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset
mentioned

... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.

Yup, Slow because of all the HTML and avatars. And you suggest to introduce
such a thing to Usenet?

And which useful tools do you require?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
replacing Usenet,
LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?
There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
contain a small description and a web link as message text),
It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).
or why a
newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
user-provided) CSS sheet.
It's called www. It's already here (or there)
If things were that way, suddenly people
*would* use Outlook and Thunderbird for news-reading,
But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook). Why
do you want more people on Usenet?
while today
everything is just Browser+HTTP.

And what's wrong with that?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Mike Meyer]

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:

Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)

No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
doesn't.

HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web
authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this), so
you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features you
want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in the
HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java, and any
form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.

No problem.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Paul Rubin]

Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes:

Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)

No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
doesn't.

Lynx?

[John Bokma]

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes:

> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today
> already comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)

No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
doesn't.

Lynx?

Emacs?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Gordon Burditt]

>HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web

authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this), so
you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features you
want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in the
HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java, and any
form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.

And links. And cookies. And any kind of external site or local
file access. And browser history.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Chris Head]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:
[snip]

... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.

[snip]

Arrgh, I *emphatically* *hate* Web-based-(almost anything). Why, oh WHY,
would we subject ourselves to Web-based message boards and Webmail
services? When using a proper e-mail client, your bandwidth usage
consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail service, your
bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message, PLUS the entire
user interface. Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with only
the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer. I mean, the way
Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
e-mail program for every single message you want to view!

Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
imaginable?

....

</rant>

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDDoRR6ZGQ8LKA8nwRAvinAKCVi3Sfztpm3ILUk7Tnun PJxBEVzwCguvAu
ME8mWt2eVNpPUckJ3NT39KY=
=TdTk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[BJ Swope]

So says Chris from his webmail account...

On 8/25/05, Chris Head <ch*******@hotmail.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:
[snip]

... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.

[snip]

Arrgh, I *emphatically* *hate* Web-based-(almost anything). Why, oh WHY,
would we subject ourselves to Web-based message boards and Webmail
services? When using a proper e-mail client, your bandwidth usage
consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail service, your
bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message, PLUS the entire
user interface. Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with only
the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer. I mean, the way
Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
e-mail program for every single message you want to view!

Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
imaginable?

...

</rant>

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDDoRR6ZGQ8LKA8nwRAvinAKCVi3Sfztpm3ILUk7Tnun PJxBEVzwCguvAu
ME8mWt2eVNpPUckJ3NT39KY=
=TdTk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[CBFalconer]

Chris Head wrote:

.... snip ...
Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing
hypertext pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every
application imaginable?

Because the Lord High PoohBah (Bill) has so decreed. He has
replaced General bullMoose.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[CBFalconer]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web
authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this),
so you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features
you want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in
the HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java,
and any form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.

And links. And cookies. And any kind of external site or local
file access. And browser history.

What is the risk with browser history?

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Denis Kasak]

Mike Schilling wrote:

I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y will
always be the only proper way."

Don't you?

Y would not be useful because of the bandwidth it consumes, the malware
it would introduce, the additional time spent focusing on the format
rather than quality of the content and, frankly, because it's useless.
As Rich already said, if one wants to look at neatly formatted content,
one can always visit the web. Usenet is meant to be an
information-sharing facility, and I cannot see *any* reason why it
should be exposed to all the disadvantages stated in numerous places in
thread to gain a pale "advantage" such as flashy content. We already
have a World Wide Web, no need to make Usenet it's clone.

-- Denis

[John Bokma]

Chris Head <ch*******@hotmail.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:
[snip]

... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower. [snip]

Arrgh, I *emphatically* *hate* Web-based-(almost anything). Why, oh
WHY, would we subject ourselves to Web-based message boards and
Webmail services? When using a proper e-mail client, your bandwidth
usage consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail
service, your bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message,
PLUS the entire user interface.

Not necessary when using (i)frames + cache
Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with
only the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer.
Nowadays, more then futile.
I mean, the way
Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
e-mail program for every single message you want to view!
This can be designed much better by using iframes, maybe even Ajax.
Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
imaginable?

Because it works?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Chris Head]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Bokma wrote:
[snip]

usage consists of downloading your e-mail. When using a Webmail
service, your bandwidth usage consists of downloading the message,
PLUS the entire user interface.

Not necessary when using (i)frames + cache

True. Perhaps Hotmail is not very well designed, but it doesn't use
frames. I'm not really familiar with other Webmail systems, but the one
provided by my ISP doesn't either.

Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with
only the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer.

Nowadays, more then futile.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Even on my 2.8GHz Pentium 4,
using Thunderbird to juggle messages is noticeably faster than wandering
around Hotmail. Complex HTML rendering still isn't absolutely
instantaneous. It's significantly more painful when I use my 433MHz
Celeron. It simply takes a long time to jump between message, inbox,
other message, inbox, other other message, inbox, etc.

I mean, the way
Webmail works, you're at the message list and click on a message to
view. This causes a whole new page, user-interface and all, to be
loaded. In comparison, that's like shutting down and re-opening your
e-mail program for every single message you want to view!

This can be designed much better by using iframes, maybe even Ajax.

Agreed. Judicious use of frames (internal or otherwise) or
Javascript-based partial reloads could seriously improve the situation.
They might also provide an easier way for Webmail providers to implement
their pages in valid HTML: if you render the entire e-mail message alone
in a frame, you don't have to start stripping out pieces of e-mail
because they already exist (html and body elements, for example)

Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
imaginable?

Because it works?

.... and purpose-built client applications (e.g. Thunderbird) don't?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still very much prefer thick clients. They
simply feel much more solid. Perhaps part of it is that thin clients
have to communicate with the server at least a little bit for just about
everything they do, while thick clients can do a lot of work without ANY
Internet round-trip delay at all. Hotmail has to talk to the server to
move a message from one mailbox to another. Thunderbird doesn't. Ergo,
Thunderbird is faster as soon as the Internet gets congested.

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDDqXh6ZGQ8LKA8nwRAsVyAKCjwP9iyrPRBnMsI1pB+w qZdANE6ACfYeGx
w8SLwXln0VjpuwF+L7BDfKM=
=pZ/B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mike Schilling]

"Denis Kasak" <de*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de**********@news1.xnet.hr...

Mike Schilling wrote:

I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y
will always be the only proper way."

Don't you?

Y would not be useful because of the bandwidth it consumes, the malware it
would introduce, the additional time spent focusing on the format rather
than quality of the content and, frankly, because it's useless.

Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
useless frills.

[Gordon Burditt]

>>> HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web

authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this),
so you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features
you want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in
the HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java,
and any form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.

And links. And cookies. And any kind of external site or local
file access. And browser history.

What is the risk with browser history?

spyware and viruses (which can come from places other than email)
sending it somewhere. Actually, there's not much point in keeping
a browser history if all it can contain is mail in YOUR mailbox
that may or may not have been already deleted.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

John Bokma wrote:

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
replacing Usenet,

LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?

I said "information side", meaning stuff like RSS is used for.

There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
contain a small description and a web link as message text),

It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).

Yes, but for some reason people jumped onto the RSS hype. I wonder why.
Heck, even I am subscribed to a bunch of RSSes, because those
institutions don't offer NNTP ;)

or why a
newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
user-provided) CSS sheet.

It's called www. It's already here (or there)

Well, but forums only emulate the posting/reply structure. It would
make more sense to use NNTP for that, and use $WHATEVER, e.g. HTML, for
markup inside the posts. WWW is something else; a bunch of pages with
hyperlinks to each other. Maybe we shouldn't call web forums and other
dynamic websites www, as they don't really follow that purpose. They
are just abuses of HTTP/HTML/JS for thin clienting. ;)

If things were that way, suddenly people
*would* use Outlook and Thunderbird for news-reading,

But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook). Why
do you want more people on Usenet?

No, I'm not talking about usenet. I'm glad if the SNR keeps as high
(haha) as it is, and messages in plain text.

I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.

Oh, and I've heard there are people reading our in-house newsgroup with
Outlook.

while today
everything is just Browser+HTTP.

And what's wrong with that?

It's slow and pointless. All interaction that's more than clicking a
link has to be emulated with Javascript (heard of Ajax already?) to make
it more smooth.

NNTP has advantages like giving you only the headlines first, so you can
choose what to check out. Then you can get the article if you like (in
the communication case) or the news description (in the RSSoid case) and
maybe click on a link inside. Saves bandwidth and is quite faster than
waiting for some overloaded PHP server to send you a bunch of HTML
tables. Responding doesn't involve *any* HTTP requests, just a keypress
and you're typing.

Web forums are stone-age, as are most web-pages.

--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert

[usenet]

In comp.lang.perl.misc Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
heavy-handed and anachronistic.
No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those
alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned
... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.

That is because NNTP and its applications didn't evolve to feed the
glitzy need lots of users have.

I don't think they have "glitzy need", they are just fed glitzy (but
slow) forums as the way to get support etc. If they were told about
the alternatives as well and told how to use them then I thiink those
alternatives would be used.

"NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
I've ever seen.

Sadly web forums (esp. the ugly, sloooow PHPBB, and the unspeakable
Google groups) are increasingly replacing usenet, but there are
exceptions (DragonflyBSD).
One good solution is a furum which is also accessible by NNTP.

On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
replacing Usenet, with some obvious disadvantages: go on vacation,
return after a week, and -- yahoo! -- all your RSS feeds only turn of
the, say, most recent 30 articles, while your newsgroups all show
everything you missed.

Same applies to most newsfeeds, depending on retention. If you want
to look a long way back in a thread, use Google Groups.

--
Chris Green

[usenet]

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

> the argument that usenet should never change seems a little
> heavy-handed and anachronistic.

No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards.
Those alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset
mentioned
... and generally these "web based message boards" (i.e. forums I
assume you mean) have none of the useful tools that Usenet offers and
are much, much slower.

Yup, Slow because of all the HTML and avatars. And you suggest to introduce
such a thing to Usenet?

No, quite the opposite, I like Usenet News as it is.

And which useful tools do you require?

A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
interfaces, filtering, kill files, etc. etc. A forum provides a
single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
the user to change it radically.

--
Chris Green

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Mike Meyer wrote:

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:

Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser)

No, they don't. Minimalist Unix distributions don't include a browser
by default. I know the BSD's don't, and suspect that gentoo Linux
doesn't.

HTML is designed to degrade gracefully (never mind that most web
authors and many browser developers don't seem to comprehend this), so
you don't really need a "subset" html to get the safety features you
want. All you need to do is disable the appropriate features in the
HTML renderer in your news and mail readers. JavaScript, Java, and any
form of object embedding. Oh yeah, and frames.

That's a good idea. I have parts of it disabled. The advantage of
disabling them all is that you don't have to visit all those crappy
modern websites, because they don't work.

What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that they
want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc. and
then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow cookies
for that site. Some people really don't have a clue, but kludgy "web
standards technologies" (by the oh-so-omnisavant W3C) kind of force it.

--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert

[John Bokma]

Chris Head <ch*******@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:

Additionally, a user interface operating inside an HTML
renderer can NEVER be as fast as a native-code user interface with
only the e-mail message itself passed through the renderer.

Nowadays, more then futile.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Even on my 2.8GHz Pentium 4,
using Thunderbird to juggle messages is noticeably faster than
wandering around Hotmail. Complex HTML rendering still isn't
absolutely instantaneous.

It can be made much faster. There will always be a delay since messages
have to be downloaded, but with a fast connection and a good design, the
delay will be very very small and the advantages are big.
It's significantly more painful when I use my 433MHz
Celeron. It simply takes a long time to jump between message, inbox,
other message, inbox, other other message, inbox, etc.
....

This can be designed much better by using iframes, maybe even Ajax.

Agreed. Judicious use of frames (internal or otherwise) or
Javascript-based partial reloads could seriously improve the
situation. They might also provide an easier way for Webmail providers
to implement their pages in valid HTML: if you render the entire
e-mail message alone
in a frame, you don't have to start stripping out pieces of e-mail
because they already exist (html and body elements, for example)

Yup.

Why can't we use the Web for what it was meant for: viewing hypertext
pages? Why must we turn it into a wrapper around every application
imaginable?

Because it works?

... and purpose-built client applications (e.g. Thunderbird) don't?

if A -> B, it doesn't say that B -> A :-) I.e. that it works via HTML
doesn't mean it doesn't with a dedicated client ;-).

I live in Mexico, most people here rely on so called Internet cafes for
their connection, and even the use of a computer. For them Thunderbird
*doesn't work*.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still very much prefer thick clients.
They simply feel much more solid. Perhaps part of it is that thin
clients have to communicate with the server at least a little bit for
just about everything they do, while thick clients can do a lot of
work without ANY Internet round-trip delay at all.
Each has it's place. A bug in a thick client means each and everyone has
to be fixed. With a thin one, just one has to be fixed :-D.
Hotmail has to talk to the server to
move a message from one mailbox to another. Thunderbird doesn't.
Depends on where your mailbox resides. Isn't there something called
MAPI? (I haven't used it myself, but I recall something like that).
Ergo,
Thunderbird is faster as soon as the Internet gets congested.

Ah, yeah, wasn't that predicted to happen in like 2001?

Also, unless you have some program that kills spam on the server, you
have to download all with Thunderbird. I remember a funny day when I got
2000 messages/hour due to a virus outbreak :-( With hotmail, if you have
100 new messages you download them when you read them. Or kill them when
you don't want to read.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Denis Kasak]

Mike Schilling wrote:

Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
useless frills.

Interestingly enough, I have explained my opinion in the part of the
post you have trimmed. On the other hand, things you mentioned are far
from being useless. They introduce no intrinsical slowdown due to
increased bandwidth consumation, nor potential security problems. They
have no downsides I can possibly think of and have many advantages. They
are useful. HTML on Usenet is not.

-- Denis

[John Bokma]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is
replacing Usenet,
LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?

I said "information side", meaning stuff like RSS is used for.

Nah, I wouldn't call it a replacement. Maybe of mailinglists with latest
news.

There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
contain a small description and a web link as message text),

It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).

Yes, but for some reason people jumped onto the RSS hype.

You think so? Like on push technology, VRML, and what more? Most of my
friends have no clue what RSS is. Maybe in IE7, when it's more hidden,
people will use it. But I wouldn't call it a hype, unless a hype is
something many people shout you have to have it (hmm...)
I wonder
why.
Heck, even I am subscribed to a bunch of RSSes, because those
institutions don't offer NNTP ;)
But they probably have (or had) a mailing list.

or why a
newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
user-provided) CSS sheet.

It's called www. It's already here (or there)

Well, but forums only emulate the posting/reply structure. It would
make more sense to use NNTP for that,

Why? It now works in the browser, you don't need to install another
client. Moreover, many people, especially where I live, don't have a
computer at home. Same for many students I know, they use the computer
at school. And many people I know with a job use the computer at work.
And not everybody wants to install a client for each and every protocol.
Hence why things like webmessenger are used.
and use $WHATEVER, e.g. HTML,
for markup inside the posts. WWW is something else; a bunch of pages
with hyperlinks to each other. Maybe we shouldn't call web forums and
other dynamic websites www, as they don't really follow that purpose.
Nonsense.
They are just abuses of HTTP/HTML/JS for thin clienting. ;)
Like UUencode is abuse of ASCII? LOL!

But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook).
Why do you want more people on Usenet?

No, I'm not talking about usenet. I'm glad if the SNR keeps as high
(haha) as it is, and messages in plain text.

I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.

What is exactly crappy about those forums?
Oh, and I've heard there are people reading our in-house newsgroup
with Outlook.
Amazing, since I always understood that it can't do NNTP.

while today
everything is just Browser+HTTP.

And what's wrong with that?

It's slow and pointless.

The huge success of web based message boards seems so say something
entirely different. When I post with X-news, there is a delay, when I
post with my browser, there is a delay. I have no idea which delay is
more significant. Maybe they are too close.
All interaction that's more than clicking a
link has to be emulated with Javascript (heard of Ajax already?
Yes, I even mentioned it in this thread. And what's the problem?
) to
make it more smooth.
HTML was never a programming language, and will never be. Hence for
fancy stuff you have to use a programming language. Nothing wrong with
that.
NNTP has advantages like giving you only the headlines first, so you
can choose what to check out.
Funny, I see the same when I use phpBB. Headlines.
Then you can get the article if you
like (in the communication case)
Yup, same with phpBB, I click a link, and bzzzt.. there is the article,
and the replies to it.
or the news description (in the
RSSoid case)
Yup, there is a mod for phpBB that makes it possible to give each post
besides a title a short description.
and maybe click on a link inside. Saves bandwidth and is
quite faster than waiting for some overloaded PHP server to send you a
bunch of HTML tables.
Hence, overloaded servers shouldn't use PHP, or use special caching
tricks. I can't remember having seen slow boards, even not the ones with
hundreds of simultaneous users (for example phpbb.com).
Responding doesn't involve *any* HTTP requests,
No, but it requires sending your post to an NNTP server. Which takes
time (when I press send, I don't see this window close immediately).
just a keypress and you're typing.
Just a mouse click.
Web forums are stone-age, as are most web-pages.

Maybe you should visit one and check out for yourself. Age has little to
do with it, Usenet is way older, works. IRC is way older, works.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

"NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
I've ever seen.

Example(s). And do users need those sophisticated things?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
[ web based boards ]

And which useful tools do you require?

A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
interfaces,

- different browsers, different stylesheets, different board styles
(themes).
filtering,
There is often a search function, which filters away everything that
doesn't match. There are also things like word filters, etc.
kill files,
<http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=150586&highlight=ignore>
etc. etc.
http://www.phpbb.com/mods/
A forum provides a
single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
the user to change it radically.

Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
quite radically :-)

And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.

Oh, yes, I would love to see an XML interface on the board I use. Maybe
I can just install a mod, or write one myself.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that
they want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc.
and then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow
cookies for that site.

So your browser doesn't warn you?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

Denis Kasak <de*********@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike Schilling wrote:

Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
useless frills.
Interestingly enough, I have explained my opinion in the part of the
post you have trimmed. On the other hand, things you mentioned are far
from being useless. They introduce no intrinsical slowdown due to
increased bandwidth consumation, nor potential security problems.

You can't be sure: errors in the handling of threads can cause a buffer
overflow, same for spelling checking :-D
They
have no downsides I can possibly think of
Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.
and have many advantages. They
are useful. HTML on Usenet is not.

Of course can HTML be useful on Usenet. The problem is that it will be much
more often abused instead of used.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[usenet]

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.

What is exactly crappy about those forums?

They are slow

They are inflexible

They are slow

They don't allow the user to choose how to view them, the interface is
imposed on the user.

They are slow

They don't have killfiles or scoring

They are slow

--
Chris Green

[usenet]

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

"NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
I've ever seen.

Example(s). And do users need those sophisticated things?

Kill files

Selecting posts and threads based on a scoring system

A huge variety of different newsreaders allowing different users to
access the news in they way they want.

I don't use all the possibilities (e.g. I don't use kill files) but I
do use a 'minority' text based newsreader because it is ideal for me.
I don't get the option of a text based forum reader - I doubt many
forums work with lynx.

--
Chris Green

[usenet]

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

They
have no downsides I can possibly think of

Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.

So they can choose a newsreader that doesn't have these facilities, no
extra memory use, no risk.

--
Chris Green

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

John Bokma wrote:

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
[ web based boards ]

And which useful tools do you require?

A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
interfaces,

- different browsers, different stylesheets, different board styles
(themes).

But the UI is still *forced* on you by the website; no choice. There's
only a very limited choice, and it invariably *includes* the UI. With
NNTP *you* choose how to interpret and display the data you get.
http://www.phpbb.com/mods/
Great. How can I, the user, choose, how to use a mod on a given web
server? What if the web server runs another board than PHPBB?

A forum provides a
single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
the user to change it radically.

Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
quite radically :-)

The look, not the feel.
And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.
As I wrote earlier, you *could* run a web forum over NNTP, and use HTML
posts instead of plain text. It would have the advantages of NNTP.
Oh, yes, I would love to see an XML interface on the board I use. Maybe
I can just install a mod, or write one myself.

What would that XML be for? Any particular *use*?

--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

John Bokma wrote:

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that
they want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc.
and then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow
cookies for that site.

So your browser doesn't warn you?

About what? I have cookies off, with explicit exception for sites where
I want cookies. When the crappy website doesn't bother to MENTION that
it wants cookies, i.e. give me an error page, how am I to know that it
needs cookies? Do I want EVERY website to ask me "do you allow XY to
set a cookie?" NO!

--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert

[axel]

In comp.lang.perl.misc Mike Schilling <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Denis Kasak" <de*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de**********@news1.xnet.hr...

Mike Schilling wrote:

I see a difference between "X would be useful for A, B, and C" and "Y
will always be the only proper way." Don't you?

Y would not be useful because of the bandwidth it consumes, the malware it
would introduce, the additional time spent focusing on the format rather
than quality of the content and, frankly, because it's useless.

Threaded mail-readers too, screen-based editors , spell-checkers, all
useless frills.

All dependent on and only affecting the user who employs them. It
does not require other users to do anything.

It is none of my business whether you used vi, emacs, ed or whatever
to compose your message; whether you ran a spell checker over it;
or how you read messages and respond to them - perhaps you telnet'd
to the news server and made your transactions manually.

Axel

[John Bokma]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

>
> I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of
> reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.
What is exactly crappy about those forums?

They are slow

I have no problems with it. Moreover, since I use an NNTP server which is a
bit remote, it's way slower compared to the web forums I use.
They are inflexible
Examples?
They don't allow the user to choose how to view them, the interface is
imposed on the user.
False. The user can pick themes, often several. The user can use a user
stylesheet or several. And you can always write your own client :-D.
They don't have killfiles or scoring

You can install a mod to kill people.
And I have no doubt that there is a scoring mod, or one can be written in a
few hours.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> "NNTP and its applications" have evolved to provide a set of much more
> sophisticated means of accessing and giving information than any forum
> I've ever seen.
Example(s). And do users need those sophisticated things?

Kill files

there is a mod for that (at least for phpBB)
Selecting posts and threads based on a scoring system
If there is no mod, one can be easily written.
A huge variety of different newsreaders allowing different users to
access the news in they way they want.
Different browsers, stylesheets, themes.
I don't use all the possibilities (e.g. I don't use kill files) but I
do use a 'minority' text based newsreader because it is ideal for me.
I don't get the option of a text based forum reader - I doubt many
forums work with lynx.

But have you tested it? You just blurb out random statements, based on gut
feelings. Yes, phpBB works with lynx. And I doubt it's a rare exception.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:
[ web based boards ]

And which useful tools do you require?

A choice of news readers to suit different people with different
interfaces,

- different browsers, different stylesheets, different board styles
(themes).

But the UI is still *forced* on you by the website; no choice.
There's only a very limited choice, and it invariably *includes* the
UI. With NNTP *you* choose how to interpret and display the data you
get.

With a web based forum too. Example:
http://johnbokma.com/perl/phpbb-remote-backup.html

http://www.phpbb.com/mods/

Great. How can I, the user, choose, how to use a mod on a given web
server?

Ask the admin?
What if the web server runs another board than PHPBB?

Check if there is a mod, and ask the admin.

Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
quite radically :-)

The look, not the feel.

Wild guess: (signed) javascript and iframes? on your local computer?

Otherwise: fetch HTML, parse it, restructure it, and have the
application run a local webserver. Python, Perl, piece of cake.

And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.

As I wrote earlier, you *could* run a web forum over NNTP, and use
HTML posts instead of plain text. It would have the advantages of
NNTP.

Oh, yes, I would love to see an XML interface on the board I use.
Maybe I can just install a mod, or write one myself.

What would that XML be for? Any particular *use*?

RSS feeds? XML-RPC? Access to the board with a better mark up then HTML
supports?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> wrote:

What I hate about most are the sites that don't even *mention* that
they want cookies. Often I have to wonder, reinput input fields etc.
and then after ten minutes trying *bang*, the idea, maybe to allow
cookies for that site.
So your browser doesn't warn you?

About what?

That the site wants to set a cookie? Lynx does that.
I have cookies off, with explicit exception for sites where
I want cookies. When the crappy website doesn't bother to MENTION that
it wants cookies, i.e. give me an error page, how am I to know that it
needs cookies? Do I want EVERY website to ask me "do you allow XY to
set a cookie?" NO!

So what do you want? An error page for every site that wants to set a
cookie?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[John Bokma]

us****@isbd.co.uk wrote:

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote:

> They
> have no downsides I can possibly think of

Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.

So they can choose a newsreader that doesn't have these facilities, no
extra memory use, no risk.

That's besides the point, the point was that extra functionality has no
downsides. They have.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Dragan Cvetkovic]

John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> writes:

A forum provides a
single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way for
the user to change it radically.

Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
quite radically :-)

And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.

Sounds scary. When I want to read a text, I don't need the whole multimedia
experience.

Bye, Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

[John Bokma]

Dragan Cvetkovic <[e-mail]> wrote:

John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> writes:

A forum provides a
single, usually rather limited, interface for the user with no way
for the user to change it radically.

Does the user want this? And with a user stylesheet you can change it
quite radically :-)

And in return the user gets: colors, fonts, font sizes, embedding of
images, flash, you name it. Moving avatars, even sounds.

Sounds scary. When I want to read a text, I don't need the whole
multimedia experience.

so use Lynx :-)

One forum I visit is about scorpions. And really, it talks a bit easier
about scorpions if you have an image to look at :-D.

In short: Usenet = Usenet, and www = www. Why some people want to move
people from www to Usenet or vice versa is beyond me. If 80% of the current
Usenet users stop posting, Usenet is not going to die :-D

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Denis Kasak]

John Bokma wrote:

You can't be sure: errors in the handling of threads can cause a buffer
overflow, same for spelling checking :-D
Yes, they can, provided they are not properly coded. However, those
things only interact locally with the user and have none or very limited
interaction with the user on the other side of the line. As such, they
can hardly be exploitable.
Some people never use them, and hence they use memory and add risks.
On a good newsreader the memory use difference should be irrelevantly
small, even if one does not use the features. I would call that a
nitpicky argument. Also, the risk in question is not comparable because
of the reasons stated above. The kind of risk you are talking about
happens with /any/ software. To stay away from that we shouldn't have
newsreaders (or any other software, for that matter) in the first place.
Of course can HTML be useful on Usenet. The problem is that it will be much
more often abused instead of used.

No, you missed the point. I am arguing that HTML is completely and
utterly /useless/ on Usenet. Time spent for writing HTML in Usenet posts
is comparable to that spent on arguing about coding style or writing
followups to Xah Lee. It adds no further insight on a particular
subject, but _does_ add further delays, spam, bandwidth consumation,
exploits, and is generally a pain in the arse. It's redundant.

-- Denis