|
Grex > Coop8 > #49: Change the default to allow tels? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Change the default to allow tels?
| 
Apr 7 17:13 UTC 1996 |
Back when we first got the "tel" command on Grex, a lot of people (me
included) thought it would be a Really Bad idea to have them. The only way
people would agree to have tels was if the default was to disallow tels by
default, and only allow them if a user ran a specific command to accept them.
Since then, I've discovered that tels really are no bad thing, and that
the people who wanted them on Grex had an OK idea. For one thing, tels
are less intrusive to the recipient than "writes" -- which require that
the recipient write back. For another, they're less confusing than
"writes" for new users, because with tel it's usually clear that the
recipient is still typing into the same program as before, while with a
write the recipient often incorrectly thinks that text is going to the
other person and not to the program the recipient is currently running.
So, I'd be interested to change the default from letting people receive
"only writes and chats" to "writes, chats, and tels". Anybody could still
set their own individual preference instead of using the system-wide one.
What do other people think?
|
| 86 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 1 of 86:
|
Apr 7 17:45 UTC 1996 |
I prefer tels to writes, both to receive and to give. Sounds like a good idea
to me.
|
brighn
|
|
response 2 of 86:
|
Apr 7 18:16 UTC 1996 |
as long as the default is not "tels only", I have no complaint.
|
scg
|
|
response 3 of 86:
|
Apr 7 18:54 UTC 1996 |
It sounds good to me. I find tels really useful.
|
robh
|
|
response 4 of 86:
|
Apr 7 18:56 UTC 1996 |
I'm still not sold on tels, but other people are, so go for it.
|
srw
|
|
response 5 of 86:
|
Apr 7 19:01 UTC 1996 |
If I need to tel, and someone doesn't have tel permitted, then I just write
them and hit ^D. Quite frankly I have trouble telling write and tel apart.
Obviously, I don't care.
|
nephi
|
|
response 6 of 86:
|
Apr 7 19:15 UTC 1996 |
I Very Much prefer tels. I think it would be good and unobtrusive to people
if we set the default to accept them all, especially since people who don't
like to recieve tels can set their preferences otherwise.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 86:
|
Apr 7 21:46 UTC 1996 |
I think this is a good idea...I know there are people I run into on
party who prefer tels but use write because they dont know how to set it up.
|
carson
|
|
response 8 of 86:
|
Apr 8 11:52 UTC 1996 |
I do what Steve does, and share his apathy on the subject.
No, the other Steve.
|
steve
|
|
response 9 of 86:
|
Apr 8 13:44 UTC 1996 |
Ugh. I'm not in favor of it. Although I use tels, I'm not
enamored with them. I'm getting more and more writes from people
who they they have to hit ^D after typing in one line during a
write session. Thats from the tel style of communications, I
think.
Anyway, I'm not in favor of it. It sounds like I'm on the
fringe edge on this.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 10 of 86:
|
Apr 8 20:20 UTC 1996 |
I prefer tels. The interface is so much cleaner. No ^chars. Cleaner output
on the recipient's screen usually, too.
|
carson
|
|
response 11 of 86:
|
Apr 9 01:05 UTC 1996 |
Tels also have the current bonus of the "huh" option, which write
doesn't seem to have implemented yet.
Anyway, I'm still apathetic about it. It won't even affect me.
|
janc
|
|
response 12 of 86:
|
Apr 9 02:22 UTC 1996 |
I have no idea what "huh" would do with "write". It's only needed with "tel"
because tel messages might easily be lost in a screen clear or redraw. If
you are using "write" in a normal way, you shouldn't be typing until the other
person replies.
I have no opinion on tel default settings. Anyway people like is fine.
|
carson
|
|
response 13 of 86:
|
Apr 9 02:33 UTC 1996 |
Ideally [or at least in my mind], a "huh" for "write" would record the
conversation.
|
nephi
|
|
response 14 of 86:
|
Apr 9 07:38 UTC 1996 |
<nephi doesn't know wht the "huh" option does, although he could probably look
it up on the man pages . . . >
I get frustrated when people send me tels, but have their preferences only set
only to recieve writes or chats, as per the system default. It usually takes
upward of fifteen minutes to show them how to edit the proper line in their
.login file, which is pretty annoying.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 86:
|
Apr 9 10:43 UTC 1996 |
(I think the "huh" command re-displays the last tel you received.)
|
carson
|
|
response 16 of 86:
|
Apr 9 11:41 UTC 1996 |
(uh-huh.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 86:
|
Apr 9 13:39 UTC 1996 |
Implementing "huh" for write-conversations would require saving
the conversation in a file somewhere. If there were a security
breach, the conversation would be readable by other parties.
People might not be comfortable with that risk.
|
brighn
|
|
response 18 of 86:
|
Apr 9 18:00 UTC 1996 |
Especially after what happened with private channels and certain
users who were hacking the logs...
some find their solace in the cnats and tels now...
|
janc
|
|
response 19 of 86:
|
Apr 9 18:05 UTC 1996 |
Even the recording of "tels" somewhat compromises the security. That is why
it is turned off by default. If I were to put in some kind of logging
function for write, I don't think it would be part of the "huh" mechanism.
That's really conceptually distinct. What you would really want would be
both sides of the conversation logged in the same file, and that would be
rather tricky to implement, since the two sides are handled by two separate
non-communicating programs. Frankly, I think that if you want a copy of a
write conversation, you should continue to cut/paste it off your screen.
|
janc
|
|
response 20 of 86:
|
Apr 9 18:07 UTC 1996 |
Brighn slipped in. One of the charms of write/chat, and to a lessor extent
tel, is that they are really *very* private. It would be quite difficult for
even roots to tap into your conversations. I'd be rather reluctant to
compromise that.
|
anne
|
|
response 21 of 86:
|
Apr 10 13:23 UTC 1996 |
I really prefer to get tels, they dont get lost quite as easily as
write requests... My $.02
|
arthurp
|
|
response 22 of 86:
|
Apr 11 12:30 UTC 1996 |
I hadn't thought about the security issue. I do think it would be nearly
impossible to make write work with huh in a reasonable way. If you did I
think what you would have in effect re-written party.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 23 of 86:
|
Apr 11 13:57 UTC 1996 |
Well, it sounds like there's strong support for defaulting to allow tels.
In a few days, I'm going to change the default. Is this an important enough
question that it needs a motd note pointing to this item for further
discussion? My feeling is that it isn't, but I don't want to step on
tel-haters who haven't seen this item, either.
|
brighn
|
|
response 24 of 86:
|
Apr 11 14:02 UTC 1996 |
speaking as a tel-lover, i do think there should be a motd note.
it's important enough of a change
|