Baslinux mailing list

[Lee Forrest <lforrestster AT gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:29:45AM -0500, Anthony Albert wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2007 at 14:27, Lee Forrest wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:00:44AM -0500, Anthony Albert wrote:
> >> On 10 Jan 2007 at 15:52, Lee Forrest wrote:
> >>
> [SNIP]
> 
> >> >It would be easy to write simple servers and clients using
> >> >bash and netcat if you limited the files they sent/received to
> >> >plain language text, binary, or basic HTML.
> >>
> >> HTML is text, it just gets interpreted by your web browser
> >> before you see it.
> >
> >It's more than that, usually. HTML often contains (hyper)links
> >to image files and other HTML documents, often on other servers.
> >Hyper Text Transer Protocol. It's not plain language text in any
> >case.
> 
> I think you may be confusing HTML and HTTP.  The first is a mark-up 
> language, for annotating plain text documents, making text notes on how 
> to display the document.  The latter (HTTP) is a way to transfer files 
> between computers, often including HTML files, but also other text and 
> binary files.   While it's true that HTML is not English, it is, for 
> most computer purposes, "plain text".

HTML Hyper Text Markup Language

HTTP Hyper Text Transfer Protocol 

I'm not confusing them. They were, literally, made for each other.

[delete]
> >> >In The Beginning :-), back when scientists and academics ran
> >> >the internet; before the merchants took over, it provided the
> >> >virtual equivalents of these basic services, using nothing but
> >> >basic HTML and plain language text and binary files, on very
> >> >slow connections:
> >>
> >> I believe that the "slow connection" was more of a limiting
> >> factor than anything "the merchants" have done since.
> >
> >> By supplying faster and faster connections, the amount of use
> >> by the same number of people increases to fill the availble
> >> pipe - I've seen this again and again in my workplace. Order
> >> more bandwidth, and usage again goes up to about the 80% usage
> >> level within a few months.
> >
> >Those last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. I can't
> >figure out what you are trying to say.
> >
> >But "slow" connections are only limitations if you are trying to
> >turn the network into a virtual shopping mall and a substitute
> >for the boob tube and sound system. A playground for people
> >seeking mindless entertainment and a place for merchantile
> >websites stoked to the gills with eye and ear candy trying
> >to make themselves appear different and superior to their
> >competitors, which they are not.
> >
> >All of the functions I listed can work just fine with "slow"
> >connections:
[delete]

> I'll rephrase...
> 
> Back in the day, when networking started, slow connections were the 
> rule.  Protocols were developed (as you list above) which didn't stress 
> speed, but rather reliable delivery.
> 
> As greater numbers of people "discovered" the Internet, they thought of 
> new things to do with it.  Text-only changed to include a few pictures, 
> then audio and video files, and now telephony and other services.

I'd say: When the merchants and their mindless consumers discovered
the internet, and were helped along by M$.

They alread had tape players and CD players and record players
and radios and TVs and VCRs and telephones and movie theatres.
And still have most of those. There's no need to use the
internet/computers for them.

Except that it is much easier to watch porno and steal music and films
without being caught or embaressed, with a computer. And to hide your
tracks in other ways and for other services and reasons.

> This increased the usage of the slow speed transports, until they were 
> so slow that they were replaced with faster ones.  Some applications 
> also place a premium on speed of delivery, demanding immediate delivery 
> of packets. [ New technologies are also a factor here - i.e. 2400baud 
> modems replaced 300 baud modems, and were replaced in turn. ]  
> Expectations also increased - I have spoken with people wondering 'why 
> isn't my email delivered NOW, instead of five minutes from now'.

Okay.

> As speed has increased, so too has usage, to match the speed increase.

The demand increased the speed, not the other way around.

> I now read email; browse WWW sites for research, work, and pleasure; 
> read news, and sometimes listen to streaming audio.  All of this 
> demands more than a "slow" connection.  Only email was around from the 
> earliest days of networking

NNTP (news) and WWW sites were around long before high-speed connections.

> - all the others are much more recent innovations.

In their present forms: Endless eye and ear candy on websites,
"binaries" on the usenet (NNTP/news) and streaming audio are more
recent _abuses_ of the technology.

People already have radio and CD and tape players and TVs and
VCRs and and "ipods" and movie theatres. Why use the internet
and computers _too_?

These are _all_ environmentally destructive and energy intensive technologies.
Over-indulging in them is folly.

[delete]
> >I'm looking for a net directory, something my client can connect
> >to to find the address of the org or individual I'm looking for.
> >Not the information, but where to find it. DNS/Seach Engine
> >combined. A hierarchical structure is perfect.
> >
> >Something along the lines of the Dewey Decimal System would
> >work. If I want to find information on pruning roses, then I'd
> >enter a search string in my client which would would access te
> >directoryserver and return the addresses and _brief_ descriptions
> >of the sites:
> >
> >/science/botany/agriculture//ornamental/flowering/shrubs/roses/cultivation/
> >/pruning/
> >
> >None of the search engine nonsense where you get a return on some
> >stray sentence tucked in a porno page to make it appear in an
> >unrelated search. Or a page with a poem that includes the phrase
> >"grows like a rose" shows up in a search for information about
> >cultivating roses.
> >
> >A website/page, for example, would register with a description
> >that would give it a listing in one or more categories. If it
> >wasn't about pruning domestic roses it would not appear as a
> >listing in that category.
> >
> >The 'white pages' would just be listings of the addresses of people
> >and orgs, by name, probably alphabetically.
> 
> Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia.  A 'wiki' is a software package 
> that helps people encapsulate and organize knowledge, including 
> categorizing and indexing.
> 
> There are now many more wikis other than Wikipedia, with many being 
> used for purposes other that the encyclopedic storage of knowledge.  A 
> wiki can be hierarchical, and also at the same time categorical.  For 
> example, one can have catagories in wikis. When a document is submitted 
> for indexing, one can select what catagories it falls into, and one can 
> then later go to the catgory page and see that the document can be 
> found via that category.  Wikis are great knowledge organizers for 
> organizations because of this, and the network you suggest would, to 
> me, be an "organization".

I see. That might be better than LDAP all right. I'll look into it.

> The Dewey Decimal System and Library of Congress systems work 
> similarly.  Someone who is doing the inventory work picks a category a 
> work falls into, then assigns a number to the work.  One can then 
> browse by category, or use the reference indexes to search by title, 
> author, etc.
> 
> The problem with that process is that some human has to make the 
> decision on what category a work falls into.  And what if works are 
> relevant to multiple categories?

They often are. Then they get listed (symlinked) in all of those categories.

>  What if new categories are added?  

Then they are added.

> And what if works are being added at the rate of dozens per second?

They wouldn't be. There would be a registration process. 

The Alternet would never be that popular, because it would not cater to
mindless consumers and merchants. They could _use_ it, but not run it.

> And who picks the categories in the first place?

Pick a system like DD or LOC and work from there.

> Search engines are the best attempt so far to handle the billions of 
> web pages out there.   They're not perfect, no, but careful writing of 
> your search request can often limit the number of results, and the best 
> engines do attempt to bring the most relevant pages to the top of the 
> results list.

Search engines facilitate con artists and spammers. Just like the SMTP
protocol does.

> Searching Google for 'roses' yields 72,900,000 results.  
> Using 'rose cultivation' yields 1,110,000.  (requires both words)
> Using ' "rose cultivation" '  (note double quotes around the phrase) 
> yields 10,300
> Using ' "rose cultivation" Turkey ' ( phrase and additional word ) 
> yields just 363, an easily managable number.
> Using the "Advanced Search" features can narrow it even further.

I am _very_ good with search engines. And I think they stink.

Try going to a big university library and finding what you want with
a search engine.

While you are doing that, I'll go to the online card catalog and be
there long before you are.

> One reason that Wikipedia is so popular is that it is encyclopedic and 
> categorical.  One can search Wikipedia on a topic, find just a handful 
> of relevant pages, then follow the included links at the bottom for 
> further reference.  And because Wikipedia is human-edited, it is much 
> more relevant than a search engine can be.

Yeh. Worth looking into.

> Yahoo and Google both have "Directory" services, too, in which people 
> can categorize their knowledge.  For example: "Organic Food" is under 
> Society > Issues > Environment > Food and Drink > Organic Food
> 
> http://www.google.com/dirhp
> http://dir.yahoo.com/

A great place to spend your time wading through ads. Good concept and
bad implementation that caters to the merchants.

> http://www.whitepages.com  provides a fairly focused search on people 
> and addresses.   http://www.yellowpages.com for businesses.  Searching 
> for my first and last name, without a location except "United States" 
> gives only 44 listings, for example.
> 
> Hope this helps clarify,

It helps clarify _your_ position. I find the wiki concept
interesting, but already know about the www and how to use
it. And I most vehemently disagree with you about redundant
destructive technologies catering to greedy merchants and spoiled
consumers being desirable.

Where does the notion that computers are supposed to do everything
come from? 

Lee

-- 
BasicLinux: Small is Beautiful
http://www.basiclinux.com.ru