From: mont@netcom.com (Mont Pierce)
Subject: Re: FAQ - do you prefer the long form or the short form
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:32:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na

In article <#19m41j.pdh@netcom.com> pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
>mont@netcom.com (Mont Pierce) writes:
>
>>Why are you taking it upon yourself to customize someones posting???  The
>>people in charge of posting the FAQ should be the ones combining it as one
>>if there is good reason.  If you don't like the way they post it you should
>>tell them, and if they don't agree, then too bad.  
>
>From what I gather from just a small amount read, it seems that Brian was
>actually conducting a test to see if indeed a single composite posting was
>workable.  I don't know the results (I did get it) but I don't see any
>reason to flame him for trying.

No.  According to on of the FAQ coordinators (I don't remember his name)
Brian has been doing this for some time even though they asked him not to.
I think I would also be upset if I was trying to provide a service and 
someone took all my work, reformated it and reposted it!

>>Really, it's pretty simple for an individual to combine the part on their
>>own.  I don't see why you need to do this for them.
>
>FAQ maintainers are already very busy.  If someone has an idea they feel is
>worth trying, I don't see why they can't give it a shot.  What Brian might
>has risked is flamage from systems administrators who might not like large
>articles.  But the total size is no more than the sum of the parts sent
>separately, so what would it matter now?

Well, I think that what Brian is trying to do is find out now is how many
of us prefer the way he posts the FAQ verses the way the FAQ coordinators
post it.  This has been an ongoing fued so to speak between him and some
of the coordinators.  I'm glad he's taking a pole, and I'm just voicing
my opposition to his REposting and that I prefer the multiple part posting.

>
>
>>There is more involved then propagation on the net.  When I go to download
>>the FAQ to my PC at 2400 baud I like it in the multipart form, and this
>>may be a concern for some of the SLIP connects too.  If the communication
>>link drops for some reason (wife or kids pick up the other phone) while it
>>is being downloaded, it gets aborted and I have to start all over.  So, I
>>don't loose as much time restarting the download when I do it in parts, I 
>>only have to restart the part that was interrupted.
>
>The "split" command on UNIX will let you split it up in the sizes you like,
>and you won't have to edit out the redundant headers afterwards anyway.
>It's available on every UNIX I have seen, and certainly NETCOM.

That's true, except split doesn't care about the content or headers of the
files it splits.  I like to print them out with the subject headers at the
top of the first page.  Since the original multi-part posting are already
split in such a way, all I need to do is download and print.

>
>
>>>If the FAQ article can be successfully transported in a single large
>>>posting, there is a net win in saved header bandwidth and user frustration
>>>with having to assemble the multiple parts - or skip the message they've
>>>already seen.
>
>>Header bandwidth is pretty small, this isn't much of an argument.  And it's
>>not hard for anyone with minimal knowledge of newsreaders to assemble the 
>>parts, the news reader will do it for you.
>
>How many different news readers do you have the time to read all the
>documentation for to make such a broad statement?

Look, ALL, I repeat ALL news readers have a save option.  Try it, you'll 
like it.

Well, Brian ASKed for our opinions.  My comments were in response to his
request, not to flame him.


73,
-- 
Mont Pierce

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ham Call: KM6WT             Internet:  mont@netcom.com                  |
|    bands: 80/40/20/2        IBM vnet:  mont@vnet.ibm.com                |
|    modes: cw,ssb,fm                                                     |
|      qth: Fremont, CA       Religion:  Jehovah's Witnesses    9/72      |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc