Re: Tuning archive

Hello there,

I've uploaded the archive

http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tuning/html2/index.html

Comments welcome!

The
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tuning
folder is excluded from all well behaved browsers via the robots.txt
file.

Then, following Manuel's suggestion, I'd put the title page somewhere accessible
to the browsers.

We could do it here if we don't mind about the adverts - no restrictions of
space or bandwidth.

Or maybe we can move it to a site especially for the TL, if we set one up later.

However, I'm not sure about the adverts, can be a bit distracting when one is trying
to read it, if you get the flashing gif type. The plain ones aren't too bad.

I'll give it some thought.

I'm going to have to remake it all again (already had to do it once before actually)

However, prob. won't notice anything needing to be done at first visit.

What it is, if you look at one of the links in one of the posts, you'll see an asterisk
after it. That takes you to a list of all the links for that section, with the titles
ftp-d for each. Then from that list, you can get to a list of all the links from all the
sections (a lot say things like 404 not found for the older posts, or sometimes because
of a url in a post that has a line break in it, but that also is informative).

What happened is that some of these lists got duplicated entries in them, which meant
that the asterisks from the individual posts don't always necessarily link to the
correct page.

Pretty minor point really!

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I've uploaded the archive
>
> http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tuning/html2/index.html
>
> Comments welcome!
>

Hello Robert!

This is just fantastic to have the Archives uploaded to a different
site for safekeeping... The advertising doesn't bother me at all,
either, since, after all, it pays for the space. It's great that the
space is unlimited.

I'm having one slight problem with the site. It doesn't work well
with Netscape 4.7... It freezes up the computer when trying to
access more than one message, particularly on the "first" and "last"
message designations.

There is no problem with the more recent release, Netscape 6.
Probably I will have to use that if I wish to work with the archives.
I use Netscape 4.7 because I prefer the fonts and it also is a
smaller program, so I can have more than one version of it running at
the same time... to access different things for reference.

Do you think there is any way that problem could be fixed??

I notice that in Internet Explorer there is also no problem.

I wonder what causes this?? In any case, like I say, I can easily
switch to a different browser, but it would be great if it would work
with Netscape 4.7....

Great job, though. NOW, it would be terrific if somehow all the
MILLS POSTS could be included on the same site.

Is that possible?? We've have quite a "permanent collection" in that
case...

Thanks!!!

______ ______ ______ __
Joseph Pehrson

Hello Joseph!

Yes, I'm not too bothered by the advertising.

Soon will have zips ready too.

However, need to redo the whole thing yet again - keep finding
little bugs that mean I need to redo it, and each time that happens
it is a matter of a couple of hours or more.

But, will be much better. I wonder if you noticed that some
of the message lines end in = or =20
and that some of the html parts have coloured backgrounds.

That's becaue I didn't realise that some of the messages
were encoded in printed-quotable format, - a format in
which returns, and spaces are shown using '=' + hexadecimal for
the ascii character. (and so '=' itself as "=3D")

It decodes those now, so next upload will be okay for that.

I wonder what it is about the pages in netscape? They are rather large
for html tables, - a single large table with 100 entries, each
of which has several cells.

I could do it with, say, 50 entries to a page. How about a little
try out of that, say, one of the sections at 25, 50, and
100 entries, and see if it fixes it?

Yes, will be possible to do the Mills posts. I'll think a bit more
about it once this one is done.

Re the FAQ:

it's
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tree/on_site_tree/tree.html

I did a post to you at the TL about it a few days back, but I think it
was while you were at the microfest, so you may easily have missed it.

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21078

> I wonder what it is about the pages in netscape? They are rather
large for html tables, - a single large table with 100 entries, each
> of which has several cells.
>
> I could do it with, say, 50 entries to a page. How about a little
> try out of that, say, one of the sections at 25, 50, and
> 100 entries, and see if it fixes it?
>
> Yes, will be possible to do the Mills posts. I'll think a bit more
> about it once this one is done.
>
> Re the FAQ:
>
> it's
> http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tree/on_site_tree/tree.html
>
> I did a post to you at the TL about it a few days back, but I think
it
> was while you were at the microfest, so you may easily have missed
it.
>
> Robert

Thanks, Robert...

Maybe that would be a good experiment... then I can figure out why
the archive crashes my computer when I use Netscape 4.7. Let me know
if you do it...

Of course, I CAN use other browsers... I just happen to like the font
on 4.7.

Thanks for the FAQ reference. Well, not too much is happening with
that nowadays... it's losing steam.

I think we need a few more willing "content providers..."

best

_______ ______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>Thanks for the FAQ reference. Well, not too much is happening with
>that nowadays... it's losing steam.

>I think we need a few more willing "content providers..."

What happened to Daniel Wolf's entry? There was certainly a lot more
back-and-forth leading to the final product on that one than on a lot of the
stuff that's in there now . . .

J,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Of course, I CAN use other browsers... I just happen to like the
> font on 4.7.

What are you talking about? Default font preferences can be set in
both Netscape and IE, going back to at least version 3.0's!

> I think we need a few more willing "content providers..."

I'll have a Partch entry just after the Partch Centennial in late May
(sorry, but that's my priority right now, so the FAQ entry writing
must wait in line...)

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Joseph,

> Maybe that would be a good experiment... then I can figure out why
> the archive crashes my computer when I use Netscape 4.7. Let me know
> if you do it...

Okay, I'll do it, and let you know.

I wouldn't want the archive to cause crashes, and prob. lots are
using 4.7.

> Thanks for the FAQ reference. Well, not too much is happening with
> that nowadays... it's losing steam.

Perhaps, I'll be doing a bit more programming on the FAQ tree program
after this, hopefully only needs another day or so, but we'll see.

Then maybe others might like to have a try running it to make
the tree on their hard disk? Also to try the option to edit the tree to
make custom versions which one could then print out,
with whichever sections one most wanted to read.

You can always try adding a few of the faq drafts to the files area
and to the database yourself, but then of course the original writers of
them won't be able to edit them.

I think we aren't sure exactly what John's plans are, but if
I understand correctly, his idea is that one should post a
faq to the TL first if poss. and then either at same time
or later, add it to the tree.

At any rate, seems appropriate to add the ones that have been
discussed at length to the tree. The original drafters of them,
if they want their entries in the tree, need to upload them to
a url, such as the files area of the TL, or anywhwer else on the
WWW. Or else if they want someone else to take on the task of
uploading them for whatever reason, they need to say so.

Note to faq drafters:

A good place would be under files area / faq / your name
Make sure you leave no spaces in your name, as the spaces
confuse the applet, replace them by underlines as robert_walker
and also replace spaces by underlines in the file names.
There's nothing we can do about this unless someone writes
a new version of the tree applet without this limitation.

One doesn't have to fill in the form with the details,
as it is only a matter of a few minutes for either of us
to do it. Could be helpful if one said which folder on
the tree one wanted the entry to go into, or what name
to give for a new folder, if one thinks one is needed,
as whoever adds it to the tree will have to make that decision
for you otherwise.

When I get back to work on the FAQ tree, I'll add an option to
add an entry to the working draft tree only, which one can
use if it is just a try out of an idea. Then it can remain
there for comment for a while, then can be either removed
(perhaps to be recycled to use for other entries later) or
added to the on site tree.

> I think we need a few more willing "content providers..."

I have a few ideas of things I might add (e.g. perhaps the
material I did on how to find the number of subsets
of a scale under rotation, and some more for the
calculations page such as a hypermos scale generator,
which would fit in with the other entries already in the tree)

I'll get round to them eventually, unless someone else does
them first.

Prob. many have ideas.

Looking forward to Seth's entry!
(I've been keeping an eye out, and I don't think I've
missed it).

If you update the database, let me know as I have stopped
checking it as nothing has been added for some time.

Later on, when FAQ tree program is completely ready, I think
we need to have a system by which several people have the
ftp password, and can update the FAQ tree, so that it
can be done frequently. Maybe the same people could also
take on the job of adding faq entries as they are uploaded
to the files area, (or wherever)?

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21148

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> >Thanks for the FAQ reference. Well, not too much is happening with
> >that nowadays... it's losing steam.
>
> >I think we need a few more willing "content providers..."
>
> What happened to Daniel Wolf's entry? There was certainly a lot more
> back-and-forth leading to the final product on that one than on a
lot of the stuff that's in there now . . .

Yes, it's true... that was quite a good FAQ, and it's too bad it
wasn't in there. However Daniel Wolf made it clear that he didn't
consider it a finished product and, in fact, that he really didn't
want to finish it, so I guess we will have to get his "approval"
before just going in the Archives and copying it to the FAQ...

________ ______ ______ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21149

> J,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Of course, I CAN use other browsers... I just happen to like the
> > font on 4.7.
>
> What are you talking about? Default font preferences can be set in
> both Netscape and IE, going back to at least version 3.0's!
>

You are quite right, Jon and, in fact, you now have me "graduated" to
Netscape 6. It only takes two hours to load in... lots of hidden
"bells and whistles, obviously." I need more memory to run it.

Also lots of other little annoying concerns with it, but too OT for
right now. At least it doesn't crash when retrieving Robert Walker's
Tuning List archives...

_________ ______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21234

> Yes, it's true... that was quite a good FAQ, and it's too bad it
> wasn't in there. However Daniel Wolf made it clear that he didn't
> consider it a finished product and, in fact, that he really didn't
> want to finish it, so I guess we will have to get his "approval"
> before just going in the Archives and copying it to the FAQ...

Yes, please do. Mr. Wolf is quite touchy about reproduction
of his Tuning List posts.

I once hoped to make the Tuning List posts available as books
(hard copy - a project long ago put on the back burner), and
Mr. Wolf specifically asked that I exclude his posts.

Be sure to get his explicit permission before doing anything
with his work.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> Yes, please do. Mr. Wolf is quite touchy about reproduction
> of his Tuning List posts.

They are all available on his website, though, for easy perusal.

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21155

>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> > Maybe that would be a good experiment... then I can figure out why
> > the archive crashes my computer when I use Netscape 4.7. Let me
know if you do it...
>
> Okay, I'll do it, and let you know.
>
> I wouldn't want the archive to cause crashes, and prob. lots are
> using 4.7.
>

I will try it out, but now Jon Szanto has me switched to Netscape 6.
Actually, there is one thing VERY nice about it. When I post to the
Tuning List from the Web, as I am doing now, the lines come out better
in 6. With 4.7 I was always "adjusting" the spacing. So that was one
"hidden asset..."

> Perhaps, I'll be doing a bit more programming on the FAQ tree
program after this, hopefully only needs another day or so, but we'll
see.
>
> Then maybe others might like to have a try running it to make
> the tree on their hard disk?

I'm not quite certain how this would work... Would it be an HTML file
on the hard disk?? Is this a program you are creating?? Sounds like
it.

>
> I think we aren't sure exactly what John's plans are, but if
> I understand correctly, his idea is that one should post a
> faq to the TL first if poss. and then either at same time
> or later, add it to the tree.
>

It seems logical that we should discuss the FAQ on the list before it
is finalized. Seems like a good place to do it... and we can all
learn that way!

HOWEVER, I am very much in favor of the "modern" method of writing
information (the old schoolers would call it "lazy" and "dyslexic") of
just "letting it be" so to speak, in the various modes of expression
of the posters/participants... without much rigorous "standardization"
or editing, so to speak.

So, essentially, there is not all that much for John to do, as long as
the basic facts are straight and have been discussed on the List.

_______ _____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21256

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, please do. Mr. Wolf is quite touchy about reproduction
> > of his Tuning List posts.
>
> They are all available on his website, though, for easy perusal.

Exactly - *he* insists on maintaining absolute control of their
dissemination.

Thanks for mentioning this, Paul... I knew and overlooked it.

-monz

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21265

> I will try it out, but now Jon Szanto has me switched to Netscape 6.
> Actually, there is one thing VERY nice about it. When I post to the
> Tuning List from the Web, as I am doing now, the lines come out
better in 6. With 4.7 I was always "adjusting" the spacing. So that
was one "hidden asset..."
>

Well, I take back my laudatory comments on Netscape 6. I am finding
now I can't even run video on it... I installed Quicktime THREE
TIMES and reinstalled Netscape 6 TWO TIMES and it still isn't doing
it. Nothing "intuitive" about that!

I think the problem was the jump from 4.7 to 6, without even a 5
between! It was a MAJOR software change.

Maybe it will be time for a "bug fix." My guess is that Netscape 6.1
or 6.2 will be a MUCH better product.

Until then, I believe I am "retreating" to Netscape 4.7...

__________ ________ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_20886.html#21265
>
> > I will try it out, but now Jon Szanto has me switched to Netscape 6.
> > Actually, there is one thing VERY nice about it. When I post to the
> > Tuning List from the Web, as I am doing now, the lines come out
> better in 6. With 4.7 I was always "adjusting" the spacing. So that
> was one "hidden asset..."
>
> Well, I take back my laudatory comments on Netscape 6. I am finding
> now I can't even run video on it... I installed Quicktime THREE
> TIMES and reinstalled Netscape 6 TWO TIMES and it still isn't doing
> it. Nothing "intuitive" about that!
>
> I think the problem was the jump from 4.7 to 6, without even a 5
> between! It was a MAJOR software change.
>
> Maybe it will be time for a "bug fix." My guess is that Netscape 6.1
> or 6.2 will be a MUCH better product.

One would hope so. I found out about ver. 6 a few weeks
ago and tried it - bleech!

> Until then, I believe I am "retreating" to Netscape 4.7...

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I will try it out, but now Jon Szanto has me switched to Netscape 6.

Um, all I did was tell you how to adjust the fonts. *I* won't switch
to Netscape 6 until it is settled down, and I base this on all the
feedback on web design lists. If the webmasters can't get it to work,
I am not giving up precious development time on it.

> Well, I take back my laudatory comments on Netscape 6. I am
> finding now I can't even run video on it... I installed
> Quicktime THREE TIMES and reinstalled Netscape 6 TWO TIMES and it
> still isn't doing it. Nothing "intuitive" about that!

With all computer issues, you must be specific: what kind of video:
Quicktime? Windows media? AVI? MPEG?

Plug-ins are notorious problems, and they have been since most
browsers were 3.0. You might want to check the MIME settings in the
plug-in preferences (or get your favorite computer guy over there...
barter,barter,barter...)

> I think the problem was the jump from 4.7 to 6, without even a 5
> between! It was a MAJOR software change.

Yep, sure was, including an entire company bought and sold, almost an
entire software development team switched (was in all the trade
media). Very long and difficult gestation and labor. And it shows.

> Until then, I believe I am "retreating" to Netscape 4.7...

Or you could try IE, which almost makes me ill to utter, but having
to design for the web, I've gotten used to both platforms.

Cheers,
Jon (who would NOT tell someone to move to an unstable browser... :)

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21397

> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > I will try it out, but now Jon Szanto has me switched to Netscape
6.
>

> Um, all I did was tell you how to adjust the fonts. *I* won't
switch to Netscape 6 until it is settled down, and I base this on all
the feedback on web design lists. If the webmasters can't get it to
work, I am not giving up precious development time on it.
>

Sorry, Jon.... I really misunderstood you. I thought your suggestion
of changing fonts was a tacet suggestion for me to "upgrade" to the
newest model. Since I knew NOTHING about all the hoopla over this
flawed product, I had no idea that such a suggestion would reflect a
negative, rather than positive light on you! After all, in MANY
cases the hottest, newest product is the way to go... (even if it has
a few bugs... but this browser seems like nothing BUT bugs)

> > Well, I take back my laudatory comments on Netscape 6. I am
> > finding now I can't even run video on it... I installed
> > Quicktime THREE TIMES and reinstalled Netscape 6 TWO TIMES and it
> > still isn't doing it. Nothing "intuitive" about that!
>
> With all computer issues, you must be specific: what kind of video:
> Quicktime? Windows media? AVI? MPEG?
>

Hi John. I said there Quicktime...

> Plug-ins are notorious problems, and they have been since most
> browsers were 3.0. You might want to check the MIME settings in the
> plug-in preferences (or get your favorite computer guy over
there... barter,barter,barter...)
>

Actually, I knew enough to try that, and I was trying to change those
setting to no avail. But really, one shouldn't HAVE to do all of
that just in order to install Quicktime! I've installed it like a
"snap" on every Netscape brower before that and on Internet
Explorer...(maybe it even worked WITHOUT a special install on
Internet
Explorer...)

> > I think the problem was the jump from 4.7 to 6, without even a 5
> > between! It was a MAJOR software change.
>
> Yep, sure was, including an entire company bought and sold, almost
an entire software development team switched (was in all the trade
> media). Very long and difficult gestation and labor. And it shows.
>

Thanks for the update. It sure "felt" like something like that...
glad to hear my worst fears are bearing out... That's always
comforting.

> > Until then, I believe I am "retreating" to Netscape 4.7...
>
> Or you could try IE, which almost makes me ill to utter, but having
> to design for the web, I've gotten used to both platforms.
>

You know, I did, and IE ALWAYS works great. But, isn't that a bit
SICKENING??

________ _____ ___ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Sorry, Jon.... I really misunderstood you. I thought your
> suggestion of changing fonts was a tacet suggestion for me
> to "upgrade" to the newest model. Since I knew NOTHING about all
> the hoopla over this flawed product, I had no idea that such a
> suggestion would reflect a negative, rather than positive light
> on you!

No problem whatsoever, just sorry that it caused you more trouble.

> After all, in MANY cases the hottest, newest product is the way to
> go... (even if it has a few bugs... but this browser seems like
> nothing BUT bugs)

These days I rarely go with a *.0 release, and wait til *.1 at the
very least. And if at all possible, do it as a new *additional*
program, and not a replacement for another; that way if it sucks,
you've still got the original on the side.

> Hi John. I said there Quicktime...

Yeah, I know, but *after* you said *video* and I was just trying to
find out what kind of content was causing the problem. There are a
number of plugins for video, some handling multiple formats. I don't
have a good answer for you, and I know how ugly it is to have to
tweak this stuff. I just spent the last two hours installing a new
hard drive and copying the old drive onto it...

> But really, one shouldn't HAVE to do all of that just in order to
> install Quicktime!

Tell that to the rocket scientists in marketing that have shortened
development cycles to 1/64th notes at 1/4 note = 220 (the preceding
brought to you in a vain attempt to return this station to music)

> > > Until then, I believe I am "retreating" to Netscape 4.7...

Still works for me, though it crashes. I actually would use it if
only for the way it handles bookmarks better than IE.

> You know, I did, and IE ALWAYS works great. But, isn't that a bit
> SICKENING??

Well, he's only the *2nd* richest man in the world now, so maybe we
should start feeling sorry for Bill G. and start venting on Sam W.

Also, you might want to investigate the Opera browser, except that
plugins are really too well supported.

Any more browser stuff, let's go off-list...

Cheers,
Jon

Hi everyone:

New archive for all the Yahoo posts:
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tuning/arch./index.html

Up to date as of yesterday (takes a while to upload all the
html).

It still has a few posts with =9E, =3D, =20 etc in them - those
are the ones that have the information to say
that they were printed-quotable in part of the message that
the program removed on download while searching for the from
/ subject / date fields, and htat I downloaded before I knew
about need to decode them.

So, I've downloaded those again and will be remaking the message
posts for the archive. The on-line one already has a few
that I re-did specially, such as Pierre Lamonthe's first post to
the TL which is in french and has lots of =9Es.

Zip will be about 20 + Mb, so may do in two zips of about 10 Mb
each, say, or 4 of 5 Mb each, or whatever - any preferences?

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20886.html#21979

> Hi everyone:
>
> New archive for all the Yahoo posts:
> http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/tuning/arch./index.html
>
> Up to date as of yesterday (takes a while to upload all the
> html).
>
> It still has a few posts with =9E, =3D, =20 etc in them - those
> are the ones that have the information to say
> that they were printed-quotable in part of the message that
> the program removed on download while searching for the from
> / subject / date fields, and htat I downloaded before I knew
> about need to decode them.
>
> So, I've downloaded those again and will be remaking the message
> posts for the archive. The on-line one already has a few
> that I re-did specially, such as Pierre Lamonthe's first post to
> the TL which is in french and has lots of =9Es.
>
> Zip will be about 20 + Mb, so may do in two zips of about 10 Mb
> each, say, or 4 of 5 Mb each, or whatever - any preferences?
>
> Robert

Hi Robert!

My guess is that 5 megs would be about right...

Thanks for doing all this and saving the archive!!!!

(Now noone can say all is lost if Yahoo goes "belly up!"

_________ _______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson