Re: debian on icebook (it can be done)
On 18 Tammuz 5761, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> 1. Didn't see a URL, so I guess we'll have to check Slashdot
> He gave it in his next message a couple minutes later.
Didn't get that one yet here, otherwise I wouldn't have said
anything about that.
>> 3. Perhaps you could tell MSN Explorer or whatever evil email
>> client you use, to send your posts in plaintext? I think a lot
>> more people on this list will read your posts if you do that,
>> since I don't believe HTML is acceptable on this list. Thanks!
> I don't believe hotmail will allow you to do this.
I do get plaintext from people with hotmail accounts, I think. But
perhaps they are sending with some customizable mailer and using their
hotmail account as from: and reply-to:.
> I really don't understand what the problem with html mail. It was a
> pain until I figured out how to get mutt to use links or lynx to
> output it as text... but now everything is peachy.
I can view these in similar ways, but that isn't the point.
> If they send pictures you have Xwindows and a bunch of viewers...
> executables are a pain, but you chose non-windows for a reason,
But this isn't sending pictures (which would probably be offtopic for
this list anyway), this is sending text, with no added markup
whatsoever most of the time. If you're sending text, why not send
text/plain? Then you guarantee the maximum audience, you aren't
putting people at the mercy of their varied and largely incompatible
browsers (what if I send you something that is IE5 only? Or Mozilla
only? That would be annoying in Lynx, I should think), you aren't
wasting bandwidth on multiple-encoding and a ton of HTML tags, you
aren't wasting everybody's hard drive space, and you are "keeping it
simple, stupid" (the stupid is not aimed at you or him, it's just a
saying). Besides, sometimes you don't have X11. I use my system as
much from terminals as I do at the console. I'm doing this in a tty
even as we speak.
> Actually, I think we should be sending rtf mail everywhere. It's an
> open standard, it hasn't been extended in a long time, and it has
> more features than html.
If we're going to go that far, why not LaTeX? Or PostScript? Or
better yet, PDF? There you get all the benefits of HTML etc. and all
the drawbacks of Yet Another Non-Plaintext format.
RTF, for most people, has to be compiled from source or a GUI, as does
PostScript or PDF. What a hassle.
(Not trying to start a fight, just explaining my position. And I note
that Ethan Benson just went to the trouble of "plonk"-ing the OP. If
you are sending to this list in a format which won't be read by the
most avid and helpful poster, maybe it's time to reconsider your
Charles Sebold 18th of Tammuz, 5761
"Did you sleep well?" "No, I made a couple of mistakes."
-- Stephen Wright