lets not go BACKWARDS! [list]

I'm a little concerned about Chris' listserv at Columbia, since it
seems a "step back" into the old e-mail and Digest days.

I *used* to get the Tuning List in Digest mode, but, quite frankly,
I'm *much* happier with the Web list, where I don't have to
accumulate unnecessary e-mails, even Digests, regardless of where
they're kept.

It seems much more *progressive* to me to have the Web interface, and
also the possibility of LINKING to the archive and to other Web
resources.

So far, I haven't even found a way of posting BY THE WEB with Chris's
listserv.

I'm not a happy camper... I think I'll stay here, ads and all,
unless I can find out how to post on the Web.

Now a *really* fine Web forum is the one on the Sibelius site. It's
threaded and very clear. It seems that even Usenet is more versatile
than the Columbia listserv.

So, why doesn't somebody set up something at Usenet? I could
probably get used to *that* at least...

Thanks, though, Chris for all the work!

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> I'm a little concerned about Chris' listserv at Columbia, since it
> seems a "step back" into the old e-mail and Digest days.

That is simply your opinion, Joe. You are going to have to get used to the fact that not everyone loves a web interface for simple old text messages. Many, many people in business and technology dread HTML email, which is a bloat on the system and causes incompatibility problems.

I only want you to understand one thing: there are many ways to serve up information, and people have their own preferences. You've expressed yours, and others will, and are, expressing theirs. Anyone can stay here at Yahoo, ads, dropouts, security problems, privacy issues, spam and all. When they ask for a subscription fee, or when they get out of 'groups' business, then you can join any other list that may be up and running at that time.

As for forums like the Sibelius list, I don't think you realize how much programming it might take to run something dedicated like that, and we don't have anyone ready to do it for this group. What we *do* have is a free, reliable mailing list. Just like other lists where I (and this is *my* statement of preference) get tons of information in a fast and easy-to-use manner.

We've discussed the lists. Join or not, Chris doesn't care. I won't say anything more about it unless you want to chat on metatuning...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36224

>
> We've discussed the lists. Join or not, Chris doesn't care. I won't
say anything more about it unless you want to chat on metatuning...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Hi John.

I would vote moving to Usenet, if somebody can figure out how to do
it, if we are going to move at all.

That's it from me on the topic! Now for other people's opinions,
hopefully.

best,

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> I'm not a happy camper... I think I'll stay here, ads and all,
> unless I can find out how to post on the Web.

I don't think this move will work without a web componet.

> So, why doesn't somebody set up something at Usenet? I could
> probably get used to *that* at least...

I could post a CFD about it.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> I could post a CFD about it.

Wouldn't that hurt? Would you need to take a muscle relaxant, or at least switch to a high-fibre diet first?

Seriously, I know a lot of acronyms, but what is a CFD?

Cheers,
Jon

In-Reply-To: <a8j10l+qf2r@eGroups.com>
jpehrson2 wrote:

> I'm a little concerned about Chris' listserv at Columbia, since it
> seems a "step back" into the old e-mail and Digest days.

It's Mailman, not listserv.

> I *used* to get the Tuning List in Digest mode, but, quite frankly,
> I'm *much* happier with the Web list, where I don't have to
> accumulate unnecessary e-mails, even Digests, regardless of where
> they're kept.
>
> It seems much more *progressive* to me to have the Web interface, and
> also the possibility of LINKING to the archive and to other Web
> resources.

It should be possible to do that. As it stands, the archive is private,
but that isn't the case for most Mailman lists. There should be a way of
changing it.

> So far, I haven't even found a way of posting BY THE WEB with Chris's
> listserv.

I don't think you can post with that interface. But you can use a normal
web-based e-mail account.

> I'm not a happy camper... I think I'll stay here, ads and all,
> unless I can find out how to post on the Web.

The problem I'm having is that I can only be subscribed with one e-mail
address. So far, I've been able to post from home or work to the tuning
list, and it always knows it's me. It seems to be possible for Mailman to
have accounts it doesn't deliver to, but I don't see this option, and
don't want to get two copies of everything.

> Now a *really* fine Web forum is the one on the Sibelius site. It's
> threaded and very clear. It seems that even Usenet is more versatile
> than the Columbia listserv.

What do they use? Do you have a URL?

> So, why doesn't somebody set up something at Usenet? I could
> probably get used to *that* at least...

One feature of Mailman is that you can synchronize a mailing list with a
newsgroup. So we can have both.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36230

>
> > Now a *really* fine Web forum is the one on the Sibelius site.
It's threaded and very clear. It seems that even Usenet is more
versatile than the Columbia listserv.
>
> What do they use? Do you have a URL?
>

Hi Graham!

***The Sibelius site is really fine. Even *better* than Yahoo was
before the ads. It's also *threaded* which is very cool.

Unfortunately, I believe you have to purchase the Sibelius product in
order to be allowed on the list!

Here is the URL:

http://www.sibelius.com/cgi-bin/home/home.pl

It's under "Help Center" "Chat Page" but, like I said, I believe you
have to enter in your Sibelius registration number.

jp

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>

> I would vote moving to Usenet, if somebody can figure out how to do
> it, if we are going to move at all.

Real bad idea. Not everyone can get Usenet, mine had been
down since Comcast.net took over @Home.com. And I really
don't like kludgey web pages like Yahoo and Google groups.
How long does one have to wait for their message to show up
on Google? Hours?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

>>Now a *really* fine Web forum is the one on the Sibelius site. It's
>>threaded and very clear. It seems that even Usenet is more versatile
>>than the Columbia listserv.
>
>What do they use? Do you have a URL?

They don't say what it is; it might be proprietary. The point that
Joe doesn't ever seem to get is that there are several free, drop-in
solutions available here, which would require somebody's time to
setup and manage, but no programming as Szanto claims. Many of them
are far more powerful than the Sibelius chat center, to boot.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> They don't say what it is; it might be proprietary. The point that
> Joe doesn't ever seem to get is that there are several free, drop-in
> solutions available here, which would require somebody's time to
> setup and manage, but no programming as Szanto claims.

Szanto was tending to use the term "programming" in a very generic way, to imply that someone had to do some 'computer work' (i.e. manage, setup, cajole, etc.) behind the scenes. I hate to get too technical when people are actually having problems getting email to work.

> Many of them are far more powerful than the Sibelius chat center,
> to boot.

Undoubtedly. Carl, how about *you* setting up something like this? :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> Seriously, I know a lot of acronyms, but what is a CFD?

Call For Discussion, which is informal, unlike the RFD (Request For Discussion), which needs to be done in a particular way according to the arcane rules of newsgroup creation.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36244

I hate to get too technical when people are actually having problems
getting email to work.
>

**I don't know why, Jon, you always have to be so insulting, but I
guess it's in your nature.

The fact of the matter is I don't like to have to register *two* e-
mail addresses. That's not *stupidity* on my part, it's
cumbersomeness of the interface.

*You* may like the e-mail interface, but I don't, so I'll have to
evaluate my continued participation based upon this.

Who knows, I may just get a lot more composing done *without* the
lists!

jp

--- In tuning@y..., David Beardsley <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

> Real bad idea. Not everyone can get Usenet, mine had been
> down since Comcast.net took over @Home.com.

Anyone with Internet access can get Usenet, but it may require geekiness. There are free newsservers, so there is no need to have one on your ISP, and Google also will work.

And I really
> don't like kludgey web pages like Yahoo and Google groups.
> How long does one have to wait for their message to show up
> on Google? Hours?

It may take a few hours using Google; it would normally be much faster using a newsserver.

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36243

> >>Now a *really* fine Web forum is the one on the Sibelius site.
It's
> >>threaded and very clear. It seems that even Usenet is more
versatile
> >>than the Columbia listserv.
> >
> >What do they use? Do you have a URL?
>
> They don't say what it is; it might be proprietary. The point that
> Joe doesn't ever seem to get is that there are several free, drop-in
> solutions available here, which would require somebody's time to
> setup and manage, but no programming as Szanto claims. Many of them
> are far more powerful than the Sibelius chat center, to boot.
>
> -Carl

well, let's see the money

jp

----- Original Message -----
From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>

> --- In tuning@y..., David Beardsley <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
>
> > Real bad idea. Not everyone can get Usenet, mine had been
> > down since Comcast.net took over @Home.com.
>
> Anyone with Internet access can get Usenet, but it may require geekiness.
>There are free newsservers, so there is no need to have one on your ISP,
>and Google also will work.

It has nothing to do with geekiness. It requires me to call up
Comcast and ask them "why the f*ck doesn't this work
after they bought the @home network?".

Hint: Comcast is the new ISP.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_36222.html#36244
>
> I hate to get too technical when people are actually having problems
> getting email to work.
> >
>
> **I don't know why, Jon, you always have to be so insulting, but I
> guess it's in your nature.

Joe, Please!, I'm sorry that it seemed that way! I did *not* mean it as an insult in the least. You had said you couldn't figure out how to reply to a message, the list was set up as email, and I simply meant that it wouldn't serve any purpose to see if it was a more difficult 'technical' issue if there was some simple email answer.

I wrote and asked you if you were comfortable and fluent with plain email (which I assumed, but wasn't sure) and you didn't write back. I was merely trying to figure out the problem and help.

> The fact of the matter is I don't like to have to register *two* e-
> mail addresses. That's not *stupidity* on my part, it's
> cumbersomeness of the interface.

It's not stupidity on your part, but understanding the medium and it's quirks. I also was not aware that you couldn't *send* mail from work, which is fairly clunky, so the problem was not entirely clear.

I won't say anything more, and sorry if my help seemed insulting.

Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36257
>
> I won't say anything more, and sorry if my help seemed insulting.
>
> Jon

***No problem, Jon. Let's forget about it...

Joe

>>They don't say what it is; it might be proprietary. The point that
>>Joe doesn't ever seem to get is that there are several free, drop-in
>>solutions available here, which would require somebody's time to
>>setup and manage, but no programming as Szanto claims. Many of them
>>are far more powerful than the Sibelius chat center, to boot.
>>
>>-Carl
>
>well, let's see the money

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Joe. As I explained to Jon
off-list, I don't have the expertise/time to set something like
this up, but I do happen to have money, if it should come to
that. Or do you mean you just want to see examples? Well, I've
posted links to other discussion tech. here many times before, and
you ignored it. Search the archives.

-Carl

>>Anyone with Internet access can get Usenet, but it may require geekiness.
>>There are free newsservers, so there is no need to have one on your ISP,
>>and Google also will work.
>
>It has nothing to do with geekiness. It requires me to call up
>Comcast and ask them "why the f*ck doesn't this work
>after they bought the @home network?".
>
>Hint: Comcast is the new ISP.

David, there are many excellent free news servers, as Gene said.
I've used:

dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu
newscache1.freenet.de

with great luck in the past. In fact, I found they have far more
stuff than the news servers at most ISPs, and they're faster, too.

Sorry to hear you were a victim of the @home debacle. Is DSL
available in your area?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36271

> >>They don't say what it is; it might be proprietary. The point
that
> >>Joe doesn't ever seem to get is that there are several free, drop-
in
> >>solutions available here, which would require somebody's time to
> >>setup and manage, but no programming as Szanto claims. Many of
them
> >>are far more powerful than the Sibelius chat center, to boot.
> >>
> >>-Carl
> >
> >well, let's see the money
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, Joe. As I explained to Jon
> off-list, I don't have the expertise/time to set something like
> this up, but I do happen to have money, if it should come to
> that. Or do you mean you just want to see examples? Well, I've
> posted links to other discussion tech. here many times before, and
> you ignored it. Search the archives.
>
> -Carl

***All I'm saying, Carl, is we can't really decide if we want to move
someplace until somebody invests the time and/or money in setting
something adequate up!

Frankly, I don't believe Chris Bailey's Columbia list is "up to
snuff..." at least as it stands.

And, nobody has presented or set up something yet remotely comparable
to Yahoo, at least as regards the Web interface, which I like to
use...

So, I voted *no* to moving the list on the poll, but I might vote
*yes* if I could actually see a place we were moving to that I
considered an "improvement."

That, basically, is all there is to it.

best,

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
.
> I've used:
>
> dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu
> newscache1.freenet.de
>
> with great luck in the past.

I've been using

news.cis.dfn.de

and it works fine.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> Frankly, I don't believe Chris Bailey's Columbia list is "up to
> snuff..." at least as it stands.

I think it's great to have it in case we need to bail, a prospect that had been worrying me, so I'm a lot happier now.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36287

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I don't believe Chris Bailey's Columbia list is "up to
> > snuff..." at least as it stands.
>
> I think it's great to have it in case we need to bail, a prospect
that had been worrying me, so I'm a lot happier now.

****I suppose that makes sense, Gene. Besides, I'm already
getting "used" to it.

There are so many lists, anyway, this is just *one more* so we can
post to it or not as we see fit. No biggie...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36222.html#36287

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I don't believe Chris Bailey's Columbia list is "up to
> > snuff..." at least as it stands.
>
> I think it's great to have it in case we need to bail, a prospect
that had been worrying me, so I'm a lot happier now.

***Bail, and Christopher "Bailey!"

jp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>

> Sorry to hear you were a victim of the @home debacle. Is DSL
> available in your area?

I hope so, I'll be looking into it.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley