|
Grex > Coop6 > #97: software suggestion: the telegram program | |
|
| Author |
Message |
ryan1
|
|
software suggestion: the telegram program
| 
Feb 4 13:25 UTC 1995 |
Hey, I am creating this item to suggest some new software for grex. I
would like to have grex get this program called telegram. What it does
it, it sends a telegram to some one else online. It is kinda like
write, but people don't write back to you,
while you are in the middle of typing a message. they get the message AFTER you
hit enter. I've seen this on other freenets, and i really wish that grex
should get it.
*** WHAT DO YOU THINK? ***
|
| 63 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 1 of 63:
|
Feb 4 13:44 UTC 1995 |
Gosh, we've had this discussion how many times before? >8)
|
steve
|
|
response 2 of 63:
|
Feb 4 14:04 UTC 1995 |
If telegram gets its input from the terminal, and not a file, and just
sends a one-liner, then I don't see why not.
I don't like it myself, but thats only me.
|
gerund
|
|
response 3 of 63:
|
Feb 4 17:34 UTC 1995 |
M-Net type things keep creeping up on Grex, I swear.
Telegrams simply can be annoying as hell and are easier to abuse
than write. No me gusta.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 4 of 63:
|
Feb 4 18:10 UTC 1995 |
I have no ecxperience with it, but I haven't seen much support for it, and
would vote, but not argue, against it, if I had a vote.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 63:
|
Feb 4 19:23 UTC 1995 |
Could acceptance of telegrams be turned off, separately from the same
for write? If it can be turned off separately, I have no objection.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 6 of 63:
|
Feb 4 21:59 UTC 1995 |
Yes, you can turn it off! All you do is type mesg n just like you do for not
accepting messages with write
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 63:
|
Feb 5 05:28 UTC 1995 |
Right, but you can't do a "mesg n" for telegrams and a "mesg y" for writes.
It's both or neither.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 8 of 63:
|
Feb 5 06:16 UTC 1995 |
Ryan, I cannot believe you'd WANT this program! tel is the most
god-damned thing about m-net's setup, due to the fact that it is very
easy to abuse, moreso than write <see item #45 for more of my complaints
with tel>. I would never want to see a telegram come through to me on grex,
and I *do* leave my mesg y on, so that I am available to my friends.
This is ridiculous. We are already having a problem with write
harrasment. Why give them an easier tool to use?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 63:
|
Feb 5 08:18 UTC 1995 |
If tel cannot be turned off and write turned on simultaneously, I do
not want tel.
|
robh
|
|
response 10 of 63:
|
Feb 5 14:01 UTC 1995 |
Same here, rcurl. Maybe we should include this in newuser
or the motd, "We don't want tel, don't ask us for it." >8)
|
ryan1
|
|
response 11 of 63:
|
Feb 5 14:45 UTC 1995 |
Well, I guess that it is clear that most of the Grexers do not want tel. I
personally want it, but if so many people are against it it, I do not see why
we should have it.
But on the other hand, maybe it is possible to set it up, so that
you can turn it on and off differently than write. I will ask the people on
m-net if it is possible to make different commands to turn tel on and off.
(Even though you still might not want it.)
|
andyv
|
|
response 12 of 63:
|
Feb 5 17:24 UTC 1995 |
After reading for a while, I really don't see any reason to have tel.
Write seems to be adaquate. The opportunity for abuse seems to be reason
enough to keep it off especially after reading glenda's reply in
discussion about harrassment.
|
steve
|
|
response 13 of 63:
|
Feb 5 19:01 UTC 1995 |
Well, speaking in defense of tel (which I find amsuing since I don't
like the concept much, myself), having it only makes things slightly
worse than using write on someone, entering a one-liner and then hitting
^D.
|
mdw
|
|
response 14 of 63:
|
Feb 5 22:35 UTC 1995 |
We could certainly augment "write" to support split mesg/write
permissions. If the author won't change it (and there's every reason to
suppose he'd be interested in making this change) we could certainly
change it here. But from the sounds here, I think we'd probably want
the default to be "write yes telegrams no"; and let only those people
who want to accept telegrams to accept them.
|
scg
|
|
response 15 of 63:
|
Feb 5 22:49 UTC 1995 |
(Ryan -- there's already a discussion of this in one of the other items
here. I'm not sure which item it is, but it's one of the items that has
been active recently)
|
ajax
|
|
response 16 of 63:
|
Feb 6 07:34 UTC 1995 |
I agree with Marcus...permissions *could* be separated, and if the default
for tel permission were off, I don't see why anybody would complain (unless
they're the ones who have to install/support it). Though tel is less useful
if the default is off, so then I'm not sure if its fans would even want it.
|
carson
|
|
response 17 of 63:
|
Feb 6 21:27 UTC 1995 |
re "those who keep telling ryan1 that this discussion has been elsewhere":
chances are that Ryan doesn't know how to find that item, or
where to begin, or even to *want* to look for it. If you'd really
like for him to carry on this topic in *two* seperate areas, you
could at least tell him how to get there.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 18 of 63:
|
Feb 7 15:03 UTC 1995 |
Good point, carson. Ryan, it's item #45, in this cf.
|
glenda
|
|
response 19 of 63:
|
Feb 8 02:52 UTC 1995 |
No, thank you. I have enough problems with annoying writes let alone
something like tel. It might be a neat program, but there are just
too many twits out there that love to abuse things like this. I would
prefer not to make it easy for them.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 20 of 63:
|
Feb 8 03:56 UTC 1995 |
My point precisely, Glenda.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 21 of 63:
|
Feb 11 21:38 UTC 1995 |
It seems that the opponents of tel are numerous and
well represented here; is there anyone here besides
ryan1 who wishes to make him/herself known? Speak
now, or forever hold your peace !! :-)
|
steve
|
|
response 22 of 63:
|
Feb 12 05:14 UTC 1995 |
I'd be less opposed to it if we had a system to disable telegrams
while allowing writes. That is something I'd be vaguely interested
in working on sometime, but not now. I can see why people like telegram:
its fast and then its over. Which are exactly the reasons why I dislike
it.
|
srw
|
|
response 23 of 63:
|
Feb 12 07:48 UTC 1995 |
I have write conversations with the people I am helping in India on the
internet. I log into their system and do writes with them to communicate
informally. It's a riot. They do not use our "o" and "oo" conventions.
They end their messages with ^D and start a new write each time.
The point of all this being that it is trivial to use write as if it were tel.
I don't see what the brouhaha is all about. I don't see why people
really want tel when write works the same if you type ^D.
For extra speed, prepare your msg in advance and paste it into the comms
program. At the same time I don't see why people hate tel when write is just
as evil. This whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.
|
carson
|
|
response 24 of 63:
|
Feb 12 07:58 UTC 1995 |
golly gee, Steve, you're spoiling our fun! ;)
|