Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

From: Bill Yakowenko <yakowenk_at_cs.unc.edu>
Date: Sun Jan 24 15:07:45 1999

On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Geoff Roberts <netcafe_at_pirie.mtx.net.au> wrote:

] I personally feel the 10 year "rule" is useful as a guide, however, I also
] consider that there are several machines that rightly qualify as "Classic
] Computers" that are less than 10 years old. There is a particular "grey"
... snippage ...

Unless the list-maintainer gets active, "on-topic" is by concensus.
We all started with the ten-year rule in the sign-on message, but it
is obvious that not everybody takes that seriously.

So, since it is a matter of concensus, here is my vote.

1. Ten years is just a guideline. If something is only 9 years old,
   I won't much mind hearing about it. I might even like it. But if
   it is only two or three years old, there must be a surviving
   users-group or something. Go find it, or start your own, but please
   don't clutter up my mailbox with it.

2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's
   just an indisputable fact. :-)

3. Guns, cars, schools, Star Trek, and politics are not classic computers.
   (This is not to disparage people interested in those things, just to
   point out that those discussions belong on other mailing lists.)

4. Simply having origins in something that is classic does not make a
   thing classic. Otherwise *everything* would be classic.

5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
   in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
   not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use,
   there will be other places to discuss it.)

6. Do I really need to add "IMHO" here? :-)

        Cheers,
        Bill.
Received on Sun Jan 24 1999 - 15:07:45 GMT