Comments for 7 November 1995

Its been a while since the last edition of Ad Nauseam, and the email has been piling up. At least one reader wasn't a happy camper. What can I say? Quality takes time. But onto the emailbag ...

Speed Geek is still garnering some interest, mostly of the "traffic-school-sucks-hard" variety:

Date: Thursday, 07-Dec-95 05:39 PM
From: Micah
Subject: Traffic School...

Jim,

Just got through reading about your experience at traffic school, I
gotta go at the end of this month.  It really gives me something to look
forward to.  No, I'm just kidding, cool reading though.

                                    Later,

                                            Chaser

The Apple vs. Microsoft debate has easily drawn the biggest response, with no sign of a resolution on the horizon. Another perspective on the muddied situation first discussed in No way to lose:

Date: Sunday, 12-Nov-95 11:59 PM
From: Paul Freedman
Subject: Apple vs. Wintel

You probably know, but if not, the first version of Windows was
worked out with Apple Corp. and received not only their cooperation
but their official blessing. The Apple suit was not for Windows per
se but for upgrades to the approved licensed product (yeah, I think
it was initially understood that Gates was a sublessee of Apple
code) that Apple felt were, well, too successful. I don't know if
Apple was alerted to the sad fact that Microsoft was not committed
to a static product sustained by periodic mother-may-I's from Mac by
Windows 2 or 3.

Of course, (it is self-evident, isn't it), there's something creepy
about Gates's incrementalism. Probably some of it is in violation of
law. But Apple's windows sprung from no hacker's brows...Apple
entered into a joint development effort with Xerox, and pursuant to
this Apple was given the full skinny of Parc's point and shoot
developments.

I guess as long as the railroad companies own the railroads, track
standardization is always going to be a little brutal.

Not to mention the taxpayer supported defense money which the
Pentagon poured into early mainframe development and, by extension,
into Pasha Bill.

Enjoy your stuff.

Netcom vs. the World (at least, Netcom vs. a couple of hacker's world), as transcribed in The Netcom Incident, ended on a bit of a conspiratorial tone. You think I'm trivializing the situation? I point you to alt.conspiracy.netcom and this chilling (fnord) email from Freemason Central:

Date: Sunday, 17-Dec-95 03:32 PM
From: R. Fairley Raney
Subject: And by the way . . . 

I really enjoyed your dissertation on Netcom. It's funny ... every time
I say something controversial anyplace on the Internet, I'm finding
that my connection drops immediately. Could it be ... them?

(The last time it happened, I was asking people on an IRC which was
worse: A reporter, a lawyer or a hooker. My connection dropped like
sin.)

All difficulties aside, I like Netcruiser because I'm trying to get the
people in my office computer-literate, and this interface is less
involved and troubling than others, which require multiple dial-ups.

The less manual work they do, the more they work with the Net.

Anyway, cool.
Rebecca Fairley Raney

In my reply to Rebecca, I pointed out that she should start capitalizing the 'T' in 'Them' as a matter of proper Illuminatus grammer. I also pointed out that the ease of Netcruiser's setup is all part of the grand scheme to disembowel Netscape's and Microsoft's attempts to monopolize the Internet. As recent stock market activity shows, Netcom's not doing a very good job of it.

(Of course, you dolt! Do you really think They would allow something as public as the NYSE publicize their successes?)

Interestingly, its taken a few issues for The distributed wasteland to start bringing in the commentary:

Date: Thursday, 21-Dec-95 10:33 PM
From: Courtney Smith
Subject: Re:  The Distributed Wastland

I really enjoyed your article on USENET, which I have just read.
Although I may not be a newbie (I've been wasting time for 6 years with
it all), I can really relate!

thanks!

J. Courtney Smith

Not everyone was as easy to please. Mike Lee had this to say:

Date: Friday, 22-Dec-95 02:38 PM
From: Mike Lee
Subject: comp.lang.c autopost

I am the Mike Lee that you quote on your "verbage" web page ...
I take exception to one item:

> In other words, 2% of the people posting to the group accounted 
> for 20% of the messages and 40% of the verbage. I hate to point 
> these names out, because some of them may be real C gurus, trying 
> to help everyone they can with a mature programming knowledge.

To be fair, your should point out that over half the 40% figure was from one
person, the person who posts the comp.lang.c FAQ list.  This is a large
document which is incredibly helpful to any novice-to-expert C programmer who
takes the time to read it. It seems unfair to use that as evidence in your
missive.

Not counting the FAQ still leaves about 20% (more in line with the number of
articles figure).  

You entirely ignore the last two lines in the automated post which point out
people who had never posted to comp.lang.c before equalled the contribution
from the top 10, and far surpassed them if you include other articles from
those first-time posters in their first (inexpert) week.

       mikey

To respond, I need to first point out that I did not know that one of the top ten posters was actively posting the FAQ, but of course, this makes a great deal of sense. Mike's adjusted figure is the accurate one, but as I see it, 2% of the posters generating 20% of the spew is still an astonishing figure.

As far as the last two lines of the autopost, I included them but did not feel they were relevant to my overall point. Newbies will be newbies and will generate quite a bit of static there first time out. No big deal. I'm talking about the vultures circling overhead, waiting for the unsuspecting prey to expose themselves.

What can I say? I call 'em as I see 'em.