|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 74 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 50 of 74:
| 
Feb 1 15:20 UTC 2001 |
An "unseen" item is treated as an item that is up to date (so "read new"
won't show you ancient crud), but for which you haven't seen any
responses (so if someone else responds to it, you'll see what happened
before in that item.) Since it was previously "up to date", it's not
"brandnew", so a response to it makes it a "newresponse" item. Since
you haven't seen any responses in it, it's going to look very much like
a "brandnew" item - it's the same logic in any case, so I can't imagine
why you'd want it to look different. I suppose I could have invented a
3rd category, "newunseen", and perhaps even put more logic into the item
range processing so you could say things like "read new except
newunseen", but that seems a bit like overkill. (Then again, hmmm....)
There's a balance here between being too complicated or too simple.
What I think is more important is the behavior for "d new" (or when you
join a conference) - the "X newresponse and Y brandnew" message. That
should give you a notion of how busy this conference is, and what sort
of activity is going on. Counting "newunseen" items as "newresponse" is
I think more fair than counting them as "brandnew". That the
consequence of this is that "read newresponse" shows an item that looks
and acts much like a "brandnew" item is, I think, a reasonable tradeoff
for consistency's sake.
So, um, no, I don't agree this is a "bug" in PicoSpan, it's doing what
it was designed to do, and there are reasons why the design was so. You
could argue that the design is faulty, and that "unseen" items ought to
in general be treated differently, and you'd not be alone. Thing is, I
don't know of any graceful way to allow people to "catch up", and I'm
convinced I'd be catching flak no matter what solution I picked.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 51 of 74:
|
Feb 2 05:43 UTC 2001 |
No, mdw, I think you did it correctly as did janc.
I think Backtalk just breaks it out differently? Picospan is telling
you there are 7 new responses to 7 items that you didn't ever read after
you joined and 4 new items since you joined. Backtalk is saying there
are 11 items that you haven't read ( 7 posted before you joined and 4
posted since the last time you read).
I think mdw has actually put quite a bit of ('human engineering')
thought into how people actually can usefully use picospan - something
that is extremely rare for a programmer to do (consider Micro$oft Word
for example). 'janc' has done a far better job than most as well
(although I wish there was a way to show the poster's login on item list
so I can easily click the box to forget all of that horrible 'bdh's
posts...)
|
bdh3
|
|
response 52 of 74:
|
Feb 2 05:53 UTC 2001 |
(For example of shitty coding, consider programs (such as WORD(thless))
that have a 'fonts' option. How typically they display a list of font
names (only sometimes if you click on one displaying what they look
like) like I really am a typesetter and know the exact name of the font
I want to use (Personally, I really was and know far more about fonts
than I care to, but I am not your average (l)user). How better the
interface would be if the 'fonts' listed a chart of pictures of the
various fonts, allowed you to click on one, and then a scroll bar to
select the available size (fixed or dynamic). The average 'joe user'
doesn't need to know the 'technical name' of the font he wants to use,
nor really cares.)
|
eeyore
|
|
response 53 of 74:
|
Feb 2 06:00 UTC 2001 |
I just dialed in, and got the message
"unable to find your tty (ttyte) in utmp file"
In fact, I got it twice. Is this a major thing?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 54 of 74:
|
Feb 2 07:24 UTC 2001 |
eeyore ttyte 216.93.104.37 Fri Feb 2 01:06 - 01:06 (00:00)
eeyore ttyte 216.93.104.37 Fri Feb 2 00:58 - 01:06 (00:07)
It is rather odd. Perhaps a file system ran out of space and the utmp
(or wtmp) files are 'insane' and this error message is returning the
wrong string (or defaults due to nonexistant string) for the actual
error?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 55 of 74:
|
Feb 2 08:45 UTC 2001 |
I got that message several times this week too. But it did't seem to affect
my use of pine or bbs so I did't worry about it.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 56 of 74:
|
Feb 2 14:55 UTC 2001 |
(actually, in the version of Word I use the individual fonts are all
listed in their font so you can see what they look like.)
|
ashke
|
|
response 57 of 74:
|
Feb 2 15:53 UTC 2001 |
(I agree with Mooncat, they started doing that on later versions of
Office/Word 97, and it's standard with Word 2000)
|
krj
|
|
response 58 of 74:
|
Feb 4 22:07 UTC 2001 |
There are approximately 25 users on the system, but there's a telnet
queue. That doesn't seem right.
|
carson
|
|
response 59 of 74:
|
Feb 6 02:58 UTC 2001 |
puzzled? !tel xxxxx
tel: Panic - Unable to find your tty (ttyq5) in /etc/utmp
!
(say, is this unusual?)
|
i
|
|
response 60 of 74:
|
Feb 6 12:53 UTC 2001 |
Got hangups on -3000 and -5041 dialing in just now. (-3554 worked.)
The modems played a few second, then *click* - no "CONNECT...", no
"Welcome to Grex...".
|
janc
|
|
response 61 of 74:
|
Feb 8 01:26 UTC 2001 |
Basically, the ttyte thing and the tel thing are signs that the utmp file
is messed up. Some energetic staff member should fix it. I'm not energetic.
|
pfv
|
|
response 62 of 74:
|
Feb 17 18:01 UTC 2001 |
some dumb sunovabitch has managed to totally fill /a - please to clean this
up? My partfile is now trashed.
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 74:
|
Feb 22 04:26 UTC 2001 |
I'm getting "Authorization Failed" messages from Backtalk.
|
ea
|
|
response 64 of 74:
|
Feb 22 04:30 UTC 2001 |
I'm also getting "Authorization Failed" from Backtalk. Glad to know it's not
just me.
|
wh
|
|
response 65 of 74:
|
Feb 25 15:12 UTC 2001 |
Bad participation file. /a problem?
|
gull
|
|
response 66 of 74:
|
Feb 25 20:03 UTC 2001 |
/a filled up yesterday.
|
krj
|
|
response 67 of 74:
|
Mar 7 02:55 UTC 2001 |
There is a login queue, but there are under 40 users logged in.
This seems to have happened to me several times today. ??
|
eeyore
|
|
response 68 of 74:
|
Mar 7 03:25 UTC 2001 |
I got a long queue, but it went from 22 to 21 to 10 to 2 to on. In rather
rapid succession. I thought that was a little odd...
|
katie
|
|
response 69 of 74:
|
Mar 7 04:35 UTC 2001 |
Really bad lag right now.
|
krj
|
|
response 70 of 74:
|
Mar 18 18:17 UTC 2001 |
resp:58, resp:67 :: today it's 35 users on Grex and a queue of 9.
This isn't the way the system is supposed to work: it's like putting up
a unnecessary FULL sign.
|
goose
|
|
response 71 of 74:
|
Mar 18 18:37 UTC 2001 |
I've noticed this problem too.
|
scott
|
|
response 72 of 74:
|
Mar 18 19:44 UTC 2001 |
It's something staff can fix when it occurs, but only Marcus would know the
long-term problem/solution.
|
mdw
|
|
response 73 of 74:
|
Mar 19 05:40 UTC 2001 |
Could be a denial-of-service attack, I suppose. The queue does
serialize actually opening a pty, so if several requests come in "at
once", the extra people could end up in the queue even though there are
apparently empty slots.
|
carson
|
|
response 74 of 74:
|
Mar 20 15:18 UTC 2001 |
(net connections have been choppy and stuttered over the past few hours.
dunno if it's just Grex or if it's actually this end of the net.)
|
