|
Grex > Agora47 > #208: Does grex need to improve or is it perfect? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 52 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 52:
| 
Dec 5 20:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 52:
|
Dec 5 20:25 UTC 2003 |
I wasn't arguing from a system load standpoint, I just don't believe in
having any more ports open than necessary. ;>
|
jp2
|
|
response 15 of 52:
|
Dec 5 20:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 52:
|
Dec 5 20:56 UTC 2003 |
True. I just looked at the email program on my PDA, and it only seems
to support POP.
|
katie
|
|
response 17 of 52:
|
Dec 5 21:25 UTC 2003 |
It bums me that my email can't function like everybody else's (can't
get attachments, etc)\
|
krj
|
|
response 18 of 52:
|
Dec 5 22:00 UTC 2003 |
Another vote for improving the speed of conferencing via Backtalk.
Cafe Utne runs a similar interface (Motet, derived from Picospan via
the Well) and is nice and crisp, and yes I know they've got thousands
of extra dollars to spend. Grex's Backtalk suffers sadly in comparison.
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 52:
|
Dec 5 22:01 UTC 2003 |
Backtalk is much, much faster on M-Net, which lives hand to mouth. M-
Net's bank account is often reported in the tens of dollars.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 20 of 52:
|
Dec 5 22:16 UTC 2003 |
I like backtalk's interface, but it could be faster. I vouch for mnet's faster
backtalk.
katie - do you mean your email on grex?
|
katie
|
|
response 21 of 52:
|
Dec 5 22:18 UTC 2003 |
Yes, it's the only email I have. Attachments arrive as screenfuls of
garbage characters, with no way to interrupt it.
|
null
|
|
response 22 of 52:
|
Dec 6 01:06 UTC 2003 |
I wish backtalk here ran over a secure connection so passwords wouldn't
be sent in plaintext.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 52:
|
Dec 6 01:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 24 of 52:
|
Dec 6 03:06 UTC 2003 |
Grex's reason d'etre is its conferences. But every time I suggest grex
re-organizing its conferences, eliminating dead or dormant ones, and combining
redundant ones (of which there are more than a few convering the same
material), I get shot down. People seem to want Grex to be a museum, and even
if a conf hasn't had a post in several years, keep it around JUST IN CASE.
I still think Grex needs to re-organize its conferences as I suggested, and
develop a new conferencing menu. There are too many people who come to grex
and just use party and don't even realize there are conferences, or they think
Agora is the only conference.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 25 of 52:
|
Dec 6 03:12 UTC 2003 |
I see no reason to remove conferences. My conference list includes many that
get fewer than a response a year. And it does not include many others that
are probably far more active. I don't (much) care if someone says something
in jellyware every other minute. I do care if someone says something in
rialto.
Ce'st la vie.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 52:
|
Dec 6 03:16 UTC 2003 |
BTW, there are also items I follow in a couple of different conferences.
For example, I read the System Problems items in both agora and helpers.
|
lorance
|
|
response 27 of 52:
|
Dec 6 04:36 UTC 2003 |
I personally like Grex the way it is. Sure it's slow at times, but so is my
connection. I love reading the conferences and am now finally participating.
I would become a member just to support Grex if I could afford it. But since
I can't even afford a Net connection of my own it will have to wait.
It would be nice to see a little less bickering. I support the staff whole
hartedly. They get too much greif for the ammount of work they do at no pay!
|
twenex
|
|
response 28 of 52:
|
Dec 6 10:31 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure that I want GREX to be a museum,
but it's certainly interesting (only for a
relative newcomer, perhaps) to be able to see the
"evolution" of the system. Deleting old confs
also means someone(s) has/have to sit down and
decide which confs to delete, and any arbitrary
date you can think of is bound to raise
objections. ALso, making the case ofor making the
space is a bit incongruous when we're waiting for
a new system with more space. The economics of
the PC market are such that any new upgrade to
give us jmore space, if timely made, is likely to
be more cost effective per unit of bytes than the
last one, whilst people's time generaly gets more
wexpensive over time, not cheaper (fi you work it
out based on the amount of $ you would get if you
were working at GREX "professionally"). Getting
rid of cruft sounds like a good idea, but on top
of all the above, you open yourself up to the
temptation to "modernise" the system even more by
ading this, that and the other, which again is
expensive in administratio time and could very
well turn out to be a boondoggle. The one thing
I'd like to see GREX add - X - is not likely to
be added anyway, given the impracticality of
using it over dialup and telnet aaround Michigan,
never mind on some b ox somewhere over the
Rainbow, er, Atlantic. What might be more useful
is to see what, if any, changes are made to our
work environment on NextGREX, and then figuring
out, perhaps at a board meeting or series
thereof, what other changes that haven't already
happened need to be made in order to turn our
new system into "out beloved old system", or
improve it where it's generally agreed that GREX
sucked.
Remember - people have been using hte wheel and
axle essentially unchanged for thousands of
years!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 29 of 52:
|
Dec 6 12:04 UTC 2003 |
Jeff, when you said "the one item I'd like to see GREX add - X - " Were you
being rhetorical, or did you have something in mind?
I'm torn between cleaning up the conferences and leaving them the way they
are like. Like Richard, I can see new users trying the one of the defunct
conferences and finding no activity, giving up on the system. Like the others,
I like the historical fator of having them around.
Ine onferenc I would like to see maintained is the archives, where all the
best items are linked so it's easy to find them later. It's sadly out of date
and I'm sure there were a lot more items after that that deserve t obe linked
there.
|
russ
|
|
response 30 of 52:
|
Dec 6 16:26 UTC 2003 |
Re #17: Try using Pine instead of Mail; Pine handles
attachments in a reasonably-sane manner, though I think its
pager leaves a huge amount to be desired.
|
twenex
|
|
response 31 of 52:
|
Dec 7 00:26 UTC 2003 |
I meant X as in ther X Window System, which is the graphical part of UNIX.
Russ: did you mean to mention that bit about X in the demographics item here,
instead?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 32 of 52:
|
Dec 7 01:25 UTC 2003 |
Aaah. Ok, thanks
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 33 of 52:
|
Dec 7 01:33 UTC 2003 |
I think the best way to deal with the huge number of conferences would be to
have a command that shows you which conferences have had recent activity.
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 52:
|
Dec 7 01:51 UTC 2003 |
why couldn't all the dead conferenes be put in a seperate section, with a
separate menu, and then only keep live current conferences in the main menu.
A picospan I and picospan II
|
gelinas
|
|
response 35 of 52:
|
Dec 7 02:01 UTC 2003 |
Probably because we can't agree on what is "dead," richard.
Yes, some way of getting a list of
all conferences
and
conferences with "recent" activity
would be useful.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 36 of 52:
|
Dec 7 02:04 UTC 2003 |
There isn't really a "dead" conference, only dormant ones. All conferences
can be revived if given enough time and activity. (Unless you can freeze a
whole conference?)
I like the idea of being able to view the conferences with recent activity.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 52:
|
Dec 7 04:23 UTC 2003 |
Of what significance is it to a user that a conference is "active" or not
if the subject of the conference is of no interest - and if it is, any
user can make that conference active?
|