Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: "Florian D." <flockmock@×××.at>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation [OT- html posts]
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:20:09
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation [OT- html posts] by Bob Young
Bob Young wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:news@×××××××××.org]On > Behalf Of Duncan Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:30 AM To: > gentoo-amd64@l.g.o Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile > failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation > > Clemente Aguiar posted > <6A0C419392D7BA45BD141D0BA4F253C78B26@×××××××××××××××××××××××××.pt>, > excerpted below, on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:02:31 +0000: > > >> How can I solve this problem?<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD >> HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Mensagem</TITLE> > > > First, please turn off HTML. Many on FLOSS (Free, Libre, and Open > Source Software) type lists consider HTML posts the mark of spammers > and malware authors, and may kill filter it or simply refuse to > reply. I reply, but I make it a point of asking folks to please turn > it off, and may not reply (and indeed, killfile) future posts if the > HTML remains. > > I know that many share this opinion, and although I don't want to > start a flame war, I do think there are some valid counter points in > favor of html. Everyone is of course free to filter content based on > his or her own preferences. However most of the reasons given against > posting html aren't really all that strong. In fact the only thing > suggests is that recipients "*might* > only be able to receive plain text emails." It goes on to note: "Most > email clients however... are able to receive HTML and rich text > messages." It's pretty rare that a modern email client can't deal > with html. I would argue that the very few desktops not using some > flavor of GUI should not force a limiting "least common denominator" > type policy.
yeah. lets get rid of the minorities.
> > Even the two reasons listed in the above reply don't stand up very > well to logical reasoning, it's obvious the OP was neither a spammer > nor a malware author, filtering all html email on the basis of those > two reasons alone is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath > water. > > The other common reason given against html is storage space/bandwidth > issues. This is a weak argument also; in cost per megabyte storage > is dirt-cheap. Premium NNTP providers are advertising retention times > of 90 days or more for large *binary* groups, where a single post can > be several hundred megabytes. If a few extra Kbytes here or there in > an email message is really causing a problem for someone, then an > upgrade should probably be priority. Most messages are much larger > than they need to be anyway because people don't trim quotes.
this is about private emails. emails in mailing lists should be short and concise. i wonder what the big archive-sites think about this..
> > Lastly there are some things that are just easier to communicate in a > html format, diagrams and tables come to mind, we've all seen ASCII > diagrams of various things and had to stare at them trying to > decipher what was the author actually trying to communicate. Even in > a mostly text message, bold, italic, enlarged/reduced, or colored > text used for emphasis or de-emphasis can make communication much > more clear. In short I just think that there is this "knee-jerk" > reaction to html email in the FLOSS community, and it isn't justified > by an objective evaluation.
if you don´t like ascii graphics, then you don´t know the textmode quake project ;-)
> > Must we be constrained to communicate with each other via nothing > more sophisticated than plain text forever and ever?
read Wittgenstein. plain text and very sophisticated.
> > Regards Bob Young > >
cheers, f -- gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
RE: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation [OT- html posts] Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com>