Re: [gentoo-user] Re: make of gentoo-sources-3.2.12 fails

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 05:26:44PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> in my opinion it isn't. with top posting I see the newest message
> immidiately, while otherwise I need page through sometimes
> huge amounts of mostly obsolete comments.
> where it's possible, I put my messages on top, and I've found
> more than once forum-rules that require or at least recommend
> top posting.
> but I garantee that I will get flames, why I do this and urge me
> to change my habits.
> obviously this is an ingrained habit on gentoo-users, but from
> now on I'm going follow my habits and damn the flames.
>
> regards
>
> michael
>
> --
> Michael Scherer
> Univ.klinik f. Psychiatrie
> email: michael.scherer@×××××××××××××.at
> phone: [phone]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ny6p01@×××××.com>
> To: <gentoo-user@l.g.o>
> Sent: Monday, 14 May, 2012 04:13
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: make of gentoo-sources-3.2.12 fails
>
>
> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:44:31AM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> >
> >> regrettably no. at this point make (correctly) assumes that mounts.o
> >> should have been built, but it didn't.
> >> sorry for my delayed replay, I've tried I lot of possibilities, needless
> >> to say without success.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> michael
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Scherer
> >> Univ.klinik f. Psychiatrie
> >> email: michael.scherer@×××××××××××××.at
> >> phone: [phone]
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "walt" <w41ter@×××××.com>
> >> To: <gentoo-user@l.g.o>
> >> Sent: Saturday, 12 May, 2012 20:17
> >> Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: make of gentoo-sources-3.2.12 fails
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 05/10/2012 07:20 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> >> >>   LD      init/mounts.o
> >> >> ls -Al -m elf_x86_64 -r -o init/mounts.o init/do_mounts.o
> >> >>   init/do_mounts_initrd.o init/mounts.o: No such file or directory
> >> >
> >> > Maybe that step is correct but it sure looks strange to me.  Looks
> >> > like 'ls' is being substituted for 'ld', maybe?  Is that a cut-and-
> >> > paste error?
> >
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php

*******

Below are a set of rules by which you should try and abide whenever posting
to a public area such as USENET or a mailing list.  They are designed with
one thing in mind: being polite to your fellow netizens.  Failure to do so
can make you look at best inconsiderate, if not plain stupid, or even lead
more "seasoned" netizens to believe that you're trolling (deliberately
stirring up a fuss in order to draw attention to yourself and/or start up a
fight - or flamefest).  In the long run you'll just get yourself PLONKED
(added to people's killfiles so they no longer have to read what you have to
say), which is fairly counter-productive if your intentions are worthy.

You can avoid yourself this embarrassment (and everybody else's displeasure)
by following the basic rules described here:

...

9. DO NOT TOP-POST and DO trim your replies!!! Top-posting is the annoying
practice of replying to a message by typing your response above that to
which you are responding.  This is a _Bad Thing_ because your readers will
have to scroll down and extract the essential of the existing thread in
order to grasp the context of your reply, and then scroll back up again to
read your reply.  Posting a "me too" comment at the bottom of a 100+ line
message is no better because people, have to scroll all the way down through
100+ lines they've already read in order to see your one-liner.  One word
comes to mind for that: frustrating.  The generally accepted "right way" of
doing things is called "inline posting", whereby you insert your comments
straight after that on which you are commenting, having stripped  
unnecessary text from the original quoted text.  The end result is something
which makes much more sense because it reads like a conversation.

********

Remember, in a list, you are not only writing for the person who you are
responding to.  You are posting for whoever may be interested in the topic. 
While I appreciate that you may not benefit from top posting since you know
the context, this is not true for someone who has linked to your message or
who is reading it days, weeks or years later.  :)

Terry