SPAM - RFC from list admin

From: Christopher Smith <csmith_at_amdocs.com>
Date: Thu Feb 21 12:31:25 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Donzelli [mailto:aw288_at_osfn.org]

> about some relatively new Windows bug, slamming AOLers
> because they are
> such "losers", and pot shots at Bill Gates. There are plenty of other
> places to rip these people to shreds. On this list, it is
> just plain old
> _noise_.

I guess I can agree there. The impression I got was that that you'd
like not to see any of it. I might even agree with that, but given
the topic of the list, it's bound to come up, and that was my point.

> > PeeCees (I assume in the IBM sense) older than 10 years, are,
> > according to the FAQ, and no matter how much you or I may dislike
> > them _on topic machines_

> The term "PeeCee" generally means cheap clone. Real IBMs get better
> respect that that. I am talking about crappy 386plus
> machines. Talking
> about them really dilutes the interest in this list.

I agree, except (I'm not good with chronology) that I think some cheap
generic 386 clones may be on topic these days. Again, according to
what I've read about the topic of this list, they can't be considered
off-topic. I don't like them, but I'm sure some people do.

> With this argument, almost _anything_ electronic can be
> related to classic
> computers. You have to draw the line somewhere. Are digital watches

Ok, so I was on a roll ;)

> included? Microwave ovens? Alarm systems? Radios and Radars?
> CD players?
> Audio amps? All of these _could_ be called "computers", simply because
> they have some sort of analog computation or digital electronics, but
> I think that might really be going over the line.

Seriously, though, I think at least any digital computer should be
considered (and perhaps analog computers). That's personal opinion;
take it for what it's worth.

I'd also note that I haven't seen any spark computer (as opposed to
sparc computer) discussions in the old car threads.

> The problem here is that _almost_invariably_ the threads turn
> to "Linux is
> so great, Windows sucks, I have Linux running on

True, though, again, strictly speaking, a thread on the historical
ratio of bugs in windows vs. linux may be on topic.

> such-and-such Pentium".

This, of course, wouldn't.

> This is NOT classic computing at this point, and should be moved to an
> appropriate forum (and there are several hundred of them, at
> least). This

True -- the minute you remove the "classic" stuff from the discussion,
it becomes off-topic.

> is _not_ a Unix sysadmin list. If you want to run Linux on an
> old machine
> - great (although I don't see why - the fastest way to
> cheapen a VAX is
> to have it run Unix - personal opinion) - but keep the topic

FWIW, I share that particular opinion too.

> focussed on the old machine, _not_ the newest version of Linux. Linux
> _itself_ is basically off topic, as only a tiny percentage of the talk
> about it refers to the early releases.

In that sense, yes, but there are plenty of 10+ year old computers
that will handle running it, so if the discussion were on how to get
one of these computers to talk with linux, I'd consider it on topic.

> It just might be common sense, however. I am _not_ saying that these
> threads should be nipped off at the bud. If a moderator was
> to exercise a
> little control when the threads get out of hand, perhaps throwing the
> offenders in the "penalty box" for a short amount of time,

I'm not a big fan of "penalty boxes," but you're right in saying that it
might help. My original beef with the idea was only that the subjects
you mentioned as off topic were sometimes very plausibly "dead on."

Chris


Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL

/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
 
Received on Thu Feb 21 2002 - 12:31:25 GMT