Re: Design to fail.

On Jan 28, 7:25 pm, j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article
<84086bc2-8182-4292-bb12-ad82ee763...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

andrelie...@xxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven) wrote:
On Jan 8, 10:56 pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 Andre Lieven wrote:
So, the real problem is YOUR Thunderbird program. Got it.
No, the problem is that you should never post to English-language
Usenet groups using a non-Roman character-set, and preferably
without using any diacritical marks. Ever.
Try that in plain English. I've said that I'm using Google Groups.

In plain english, the meaning is "If you want to be readily understood
in English-language groups, post using the basic US-English character
set".

Thats pretty much what I do use. The only time that any different
letters,
etc., might creep in, is when I copy and paste some material, and
then,
I do look it over before I hit the "send" key.

Otherwise, I'm just typing it in, in, well, Canadian English... (Ergo,
"colour"...)

No accented characters, no foreign-language characters, no currency
symbols apart from the basic $ sign, no fractions, no ligatures, no
dashes apart from the basic hyphen. If you can type it without using
fancy codes or lots of modifier keys on a basic US/Canadian English-
language keyboard you should be fine.

Thats what I'm doin'...

The reason for this comparatively stone-age system is that the actual
standards for Usenet are also fairly stone-age. The limitations I
describe above are a layman's approximation to "ASCII", which stands for
"American Standard Code for Information Interchange", which describes a
very basic set of characters and the codes to be used to display them,
to be used as a common standard for moving text between different kinds
of computer. That is what Usenet was defined to use.

Indeed. When I started getting on Usenet, my initial sequential pair
of computers rose to the level of a 386 box. With 14.4 dialup.

So, I'm personally aware of the issue of keeping it basic and not,
say, including even moderate bandwidth items when posting to
Usenet. Even now, when using more current computers, and
high speed connections, I just copy and paste text only segments,
plus the related source URLs.

There is a problem in that many, many tools that you can use to access
Usenet will use different and fancier methods of encoding characters
that can cope with a larger range of characters. There are a lot of
these methods, and their mutual compatibility is poor. This program I'm
using, for example, will use the extra characters that Microsoft Windows
defines. These are not the same as the ones that are defined by Mac OS
X; there are probably several different sets of extensions that you can
use on Linux (I don't know for sure), and so on. Also, many programs are
confused about what they actually use, and label text as something
different to what it really is. It's a complicated sub-field of
programming, and it isn't getting any easier with time.

I understand. Its issues such as this, and the "operating manual"
relative complexity that has, so far, deterred me from getting a
standalone newsreader program.

I tried a couple on my box at home, and I found them clunky and
very user unfriendly. Google Groups, OTOH, works (for me) fairly
similarly to my old box's TerreTerm text based reader.

Since Google Groups is web-orientated, I think it uses the web's
standards for representing character sets. There are a lot of these, and
they're quite confusing, so different programs sometimes interpret the
standards differently. That's basically what the problem was with
Thunderbird. And many news reader programs won't display HTML properly,
or at all. This one is amongst the latter, and I keep it partly because
of that, because that makes it absolutely immune to several categories
of "malware" - hostile software, some of which has been, in the past,
embedded in HTML.

Ah. Well, that still appears to me to be a more of a problem for
those
who choose to use those programs, that do that, to read Usenet with.

Why has this terrible situation come into existence? Because so many
companies think it's preferable to try to enforce their standard on the
world than comply with other people's.

Blu-Ray V/ HD, VHS V/ Beta, PAL V/ NSTC V/ SECAM... <g>

It is certainly less up-front
programming work; all it takes is a certain amount of self-deception
about the chances of success. Google are not blameless in this respect,
although Microsoft are worse. If you want a route to straighten it out,
that might actually work, I'd suggest acquiring control of a large
nuclear arsenal and holding the world to ransom.

My evil secret lair budget got wiped out in the financial meltdown, so
I had to downsize. Though, when it comes to cutting severance costs,
dropping laid off minions into an active volcano does cut back the
payouts... Now, to use that new info when looking at the AIG executive
list...

Legislation won't touch
it, because police forces have better things to do than enforce it.
Telling everyone "it would all be fine if you use Google Groups" won't
work, because compared to a good Usenet reader, Google Groups, in my
experience, is like using braille; far harder, and terribly slow. If
it were the only available route, I'd give up Usenet.

<shrug> Until and unless I can find, or someone can suggest, a
good newsreader program that is as easy to use as TerraTerm or GG,
I'll stick with what works for me, and allows me to access Usenet
from computers which are 1) Not mine, and thus 2) are not mine
to load with new programs.

I'm fine with looking at some programs, but I would be inclined to
reject a command that I "must" do so. What if I "demanded" that,
say, Keith actually watched some TV...<g>

Andre
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Newsgroup
    ... :>>cope with more than 100 characters these days - actually most of it ... there's not much reason to keep the posting widths down. ... :>Nearly everyone who's been on Usenet long enough to know its real name ... good reasons for the usenet 'standards' that people always whinge about. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: Line widths in postings, usenet vs. bulletin boards (forums)
    ... of options of the text editor used in this forum. ... Each user, however, reads, posts, and edits using specific software ... Usenet peering servers may have some limit, but you might never hit it. ... other than 512 characters for protocol command lines. ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Design to fail.
    ... Usenet groups using a non-Roman character-set, ... I've said that I'm using Google Groups. ... No accented characters, no foreign-language characters, no currency ... standards for Usenet are also fairly stone-age. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Special characters in kmail
    ... Include context when you post to Usenet. ... using a standard US keyboard. ... > characters all the time, for typing in French, German and Norwegian. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: TAN: Is RATSA still alive??
    ... Robin Coutellier wrote: ... Characters that we used to love are behaving like jackasses, and characters that we loved to hate have become downright despicable. ... Many of us posting here have been posting for a VERY long time. ... Another factor is that many ISPs no longer carry USENET or if they do, they don't carry groups that they consider to be unnecessary. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc)
Loading