Re: Posting style (Was Re: [LINUX_Newbies] Re: Installation)
> > > Not all Linux can go on older machines. If you are looking for an
> Linux to
> > > put on an pre 90s machine. Try looking at Puppy Linux. It can run
> on an
> > > machine with 128 mb or less. There are others too. I have Puppy
> running on
> > > an 186 with 128 mb ram.
> > Did I miss something along the way? I always thought replying to
> threads on mailinglists is incompatible with top-posting. I do not
> mean to be pussy about that issue, but I agree that it is easier to
> read/understand. Too much text in the original message to quote it
> all? Cut it out in the response and put [snip] instead as a placeholder.
> This particular list has more or less given up on proper posting style, as
> everytime it's brought it, it goes to a long, usually nasty, thread.
This message is written using a style that I have seen in lists
with very long conversations; it works rather well. However, please note
that the list rules haven't been updated in a decade. And there are
factors in favor of top-posting that did not exist back then; a lot of
mail interfaces include the first few lines of the message as a preview.
Also, improved email handlers and faster machines greatly reduce the
value/cost ratio of digest form lists.
In general, if there is a short reply that requires a long quote,
top-posting tends to work better. Otherwise, putting the quotes
chronologically, with a top-level line for each one listing the author,
can make a lot of sense out of a deeply nested conversation.
Therefore, top-quoting is better for those who wish to just browse
the messages, and chronological (and therefore bottom) quoting is better
for those who wish to follow/get involved with conversations. The best
depends on what is desired for the list by the list owners.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
>Just because people are developing code doesn't mean that anyone is stuck with running those programs. The beauty of Linux is that it is pretty end user configurable. Distributions of Linux should be considered starting points, that are customized for use. With a distribution I feel one is only buying into a package management scheme, and a software repository, to some extent.
> I'm a bit puzzled by that statement as well. I am also wondering if the
> quoting got messed up on this list, as it frequently does, because,
> especially for a desktop machine that isn't doing that much, I wouldn't
> have more than one swap partition. Usually, as I run fairly minimal
> desktops, I never have more than 1 GB of swap, save on servers, but that's
> a different thing. Yes, Linux only requires one swap partition, and you
> could, in a pinch, even get by without that--depending upon what you're
> doing--if you never do anything memory intensive, then you might be able to
> do without it.
> HOWEVER--as far as it being lighter on resources, most Linux developers
> these days are like their Windows and Apple counterparts, and sad to say,
> running Fedora requires more resources than Windows XP (though not more
> than Windows 7). Fedora won't do a GUI install if you have less than 512MB
> of RAM, and RH has crippled the text install.
> However, there are other versions of Linux, including Debian and Slackware,
> and probably Ubuntu minimal, that still run on low resource machines.
> Scott Robbins
I know I like to personalize my systems to suit my desires. This system for instance I installed with a Debian net image but since then I have been adding plenty to it that Debian does not offer. All of the things I use the most in fact.