On 9/24/21 5:48 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 24/09/2021 06.16, SevenOverSix wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>   So if you've got a dual+ boot setup, put your crappy Winders
>>   stuff at the bottom and your Linux in the middle. Put your
>>   swap partition right next to your system partition.
>>
>>   SDDs, irrelevant - but they cost WAY too much per TB and
>>   have miserable re-write endurance at present. Great for
>>   "home PCs/laptops" but NOT for hard-working servers.
>>   Some DO set up their systems on a SDD and then go through
>>   all the trouble to shift the data and such off to magnetics.
>>   You can also RAID 1/5/6 SDDs so WHEN they burn out you can swap
>>   in new ones without losing anything (if you don't wait too long).
>>   Of course whatever your box is, NETWORK speed is the bottleneck
>>   in getting said data out to the users. Even 10/g can be
>>   "slow" in some circumstances.
>
> No, SSD are quite durable nowdays (of course, with limits), and they are
> indeed used in servers, when speed is important.

They are "better" - but STILL not up to the mags in
terms of rewrite endurance, not even close.

When I do install SSDs, it's the Samsung Pro series - a
lot better than the other two offerings which trade
space for speed/endurance. There are charts out there.

> For example, crypto coin mining use them a lot.

Sure.

But a lot of them are de-facto criminals, and can
thus afford to swap 'em out all the time.

Actually, if you're keen to pay a lot of money,
consider big RAM-disks. A lot of boards will handle
32-64gb nowadays. Shove 99% of your system stuff
in there. Ten times the speed of any SSD for sure,
and vast endurance.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:23:56 GMT, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>
> I don;t top post, notice '--', SIGNATURE.

Then what is this if not a top post?

> --
> 7-77-777
> \|/
> ---
> /|\

'--' is also no valid signature delimiter. '-- ' (note the appended space
character).

F'up2 poster.
--
Andreas

On 24 Sep 2021 18:27:55 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2021 in message <87wnn57siz.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas
> Kohlbach wrote:
>
>>Outlook (Express) can be configured to put the cursor below the
>>quote. Default is top posting thought. One of the countless annoying
>>"features" of it. Am amazed, that people today still use Outlook.
>
> The cursor is placed at the top so you can scroll down and trim before
> replying.

If users would only make use of trimming...
--
Andreas

On 9/24/21 1:16 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> wrote:
>
>> Remember when disk drives used more mechanical means,
>> sometimes linear actuators or even worm screws and stepper
>> motors, to move the heads ? Few today have seen the old
>> removable-platter units, about the size of a dish washer,
>> where the arms (usually square tube-in-tube) moved straight
>> in and out. Took the better part of a second to move from
>> inner to outer tracks - and then there was some fine-tuning
>> to center perfectly over the desired track.
>
> The first such drives I worked with were Univac's clones of
> the IBM 2311 and 2314. They had hydraulic actuators; there
> was a felt-lined drip pad under the actuator.

Wow - HYDRAULIC ????

And I thought the worm screws were bad !

> One time we left the air conditioning on over a weekend
> when the machine was shut down, and when we came back in
> our breath was condensing in the machine room. The oil
> in the actuators had congealed; we had to let the disks
> spin for half an hour or so before it warmed up enough
> to let the heads load.

I can believe it.

>> Most could
>> move the heads independently, so there was an art to
>> placing your data on the platters so one head could pick
>> up for the other on the next platter and there'd be
>> minimal delay and head movement. Didn't always work out
>> in a multi-user/multi-tasking situation though. STILL
>> a lot faster than mag-tape reels. You'd store your
>> programs and bulk data on those :-)
>
> I never saw a drive with multiple actuators, although I
> wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed. I did hear
> about drives that had fixed heads mounted on a few tracks
> for rapid access.

There were plenty of removable-platter systems with
multiple heads/actuators. How else would you deal with
a stack of 4/6/8/10 platters ? They actuators DID
work independently, it was cool to watch, all those
little "fingers" probing.

MIGHT have been some design with ONE head - and moved
the entire platter set up and down. Don't remember.

In the latter 80s I got a tour of an attack sub. In the
sonar room there was a big box - mini-mainframe - and on
top of that there was one of those removable platter
decks. I already had vastly better Winchester drives
in my home PC. NEVER think the military has the latest
stuff. The contract process is SO slow that the tech
is often 5-10 years behind the curve.

> Some systems allowed split-cylinder a llocation; if you
> did it right you could access two files without moving
> the head assembly. It would take so much care in setting
> up properly, though, that I never saw it actually used.>

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 18:06:48 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>
> On 9/24/21 11:29, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2021-09-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or when you learn to spell "OK" properly... :-)
>>>
>>> ?
>> Both letters should be capitalized. That way you ensure that
>> it's pronounced "oh kay". It's not a word, but a concatenation
>> of letters, like "TCP/IP". If I see someone writing it "Ok",
>> I make sure to pronounce it "awk" just to piss them off.
>> Going back to the obligatory Microsoft-bashing, the first time
>> I saw "Ok" was the prompt from their BASIC interpreter for CP/M,
>> so I assign them the blame. It was carried over into GW-BASIC
>> on MS-DOS, which I still use from time to time; to keep my
>> blood pressure down I patched the .EXE file to display "OK".

Get yourself a computer only supporting upper case then. ;-)

> Or "Okay, okay" from the Dutch I believe in New Amsterdam Oll
> Korrect. So looked it up and now Dutch involved.
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-hilarious-history-of-ok-okay>
> <https://expresswriters.com/the-bizarre-real-origins-of-the-word-okay/>

Having a Merriam Webster Dictionary here [1] it's also mentioned.

> I was wrong but okay was in use when we had no word/text
> processors. Frequently people would mark work sheets simply "OK"
> back in the 1940s.

Modern word processors would automatically replace "OK" with "Ok" if at
the beginning of a sentence. [2]

[1] It's from 1983 and in almost mint condition. Anybody sees any vintage
value in it before I (sadly) put it into the paper recycling?

[2] When I create an article here a spell checker runs before
sending. And it actually complained about the "Ok" above (but I'll ignore
it here), but not "OK".
--
Andreas

On 9/24/21 8:32 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 25/09/2021 01.57, Aragorn wrote:
>> On 24.09.2021 at 23:08, Carlos E. R. scribbled:
>>
>>> On 24/09/2021 19.16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never saw a drive with multiple actuators, although I
>>>> wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed. I did hear
>>>> about drives that had fixed heads mounted on a few tracks
>>>> for rapid access.
>>>
>>> Me, I don't understand why modern disks don't have multiple actuators.
>>> It would reduce the access time and increase i/o.
>>
>> I have recently read about a new hard disk design from one of the usual
>> manufacturers that had dual actuators.
>>
>
> I have a feeling of having heard of that.

Makes sense .. or MADE sense. The cost would be high.

I think SSDs have largely advanced far enough - neglecting
the $$$/gb and endurance issues - to negate the impetus
to speed up magnetics.

Expect one head-arm and SATA6 until they finally fade away.

Still though, PRICE 12tb in magnetic and SSD. If you have
a lot of data .....

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:25:54 GMT, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>
> Questions of topicallity are always ON TOPIC. Is it OK to quote
> in SIGNATURE, or SHOULD I SNIP IT?
> --
> 7-77-777
> \|/
> ---

You already have a correct signature (see the very end of your
articles). Put your "7-77-777" there and don't mention it in the article
itself. No idea what "7-77-777" stands for though, neither does Google.
--
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

On 9/24/21 6:07 PM, Rich wrote:
> SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> wrote:
>> Disks read from the inside out.
>
> CD/DVD disks read from the inside out.
>
> Floppy disks numbered their track zeros at the outermost track and read
> inward.
>
> Hard drives, before internal sector remapping, also read from outside
> in (track zero was outermost).
>
> Modern SATA drives with internal sector remapping could read the
> physical disk surface in any order their designers wished, and the OS
> would be unaware.

Just documenting past tech.

Clearly todays designers can "hide" the track order.
The units are fast enough so few would ever notice
whether you started from the inside or outside.

There ARE a couple of disk areas normally to the
extreme outside of the "real" tracks. One holds
some config data, the other can hold any old data.
Some criminal types hide viruses or other nasties
in that track - and forensic people always check.
'hdparm' CAN get at them.

Actually though ... just thinking about head movement ...
it MIGHT be quicker to work with the innermost tracks.
The further out you go, the more 'fling', inertia', is
involved and finally getting the head exactly on target
might take longer.

But SSDs will 90% replace mechanical magnetics within
the next five years. No more heads, no more "tracks".

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 03:35:28 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:02:38 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
>> point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
>> reading new messages.
>
> You have missed the point - in this context you want the replies to
> be at the top and you want a complete copy of the entire thread. Interleaved
> replies and snipping in that context is completely wrong it destroys
> essential information.

This is IMO okay in business environments. But not in the usenet.

Especially when there are several paragraphs covering different topics in
an article it should be easier for everybody to post replies to each
topic after every paragraph.

But then...

<https://what-is-what.com/what_is/top_posting.html>

| Top posting is the practice of placing the reply text to an email at
| the top of the message being returned, with the original message
| quoted below. Although most mail clients encourage top posting by
| automatically placing the cursor at the beginning of the message
| editor, the practice is often considered rude and against the rules
| of netiquette. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states that the quoted
| message be above the reply text (and trimmed appropriately). While
| not binding, the RFC conventions are considered the de-facto
| standard in netiquette and non-compliance is regarded as arrogant
| and rude in many veteran Internet communities.

So it might just be us veterans complaining about top posting?
--
Andreas

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:35:11 GMT, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-24, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> <...>
>> A: Because it reverses the normal top to bottom temporal order of English
>> language text.
>>
>> Q: Why should one not top post?

Please don't play Jeopardy here. ;-)

> Because you break automatism and MAKE people AWARE of TEXT, because they
> HAVE TO READ ALL in order to FIGURE OUT what you are replying.

What's wrong with that?

If you reply in between the lines people can *easily* figure out what the
previous poster relates to.

When you otherwise have a large quote covering different topics but just
top post a reply on top of it, it's hard to figure out what the reply
refers to exactly.
--
Andreas

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 02:06:45 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 03:35:28 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:02:38 GMT
> > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> >
> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> >
> >> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
> >> point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
> >> reading new messages.
> >
> > You have missed the point - in this context you want the
> > replies to be at the top and you want a complete copy of the entire
> > thread. Interleaved replies and snipping in that context is completely
> > wrong it destroys essential information.
>
> This is IMO okay in business environments. But not in the usenet.

Of course. My point was that Outlook is designed for business
environments not for USENET.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
>> point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
>> reading new messages.
>
> You have missed the point - in this context you want the replies to be
> at the top and you want a complete copy of the entire thread.

Anyone added to the discussion late has to read all the context
backwards. Speaking as someone is quite often added to discussions half
way through, that’s the opposite of what I want.

> Interleaved replies and snipping in that context is completely wrong
> it destroys essential information.

Interleaving and putting the new material at the top aren’t the only
options.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Le 25-09-2021, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On 2021-09-24, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
><...>
>> A: Because it reverses the normal top to bottom temporal order of English
>> language text.
>>
>> Q: Why should one not top post?
>>
>>
> Because you break automatism and MAKE people AWARE of TEXT, because they
> HAVE TO READ ALL in order to FIGURE OUT what you are replying.

That's the purpose of removing everything out of context. Because usenet
is an asynchronous media, when you read the answer a week after, it can
be good to have a little context. It avoid the need to chose between
reading again the all message and reading nothing of it.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 25/09/2021 07.32, SevenOverSix wrote:
> On 9/24/21 5:48 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 24/09/2021 06.16, SevenOverSix wrote:
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>    So if you've got a dual+ boot setup, put your crappy Winders
>>>    stuff at the bottom and your Linux in the middle. Put your
>>>    swap partition right next to your system partition.
>>>
>>>    SDDs, irrelevant - but they cost WAY too much per TB and
>>>    have miserable re-write endurance at present. Great for
>>>    "home PCs/laptops" but NOT for hard-working servers.
>>>    Some DO set up their systems on a SDD and then go through
>>>    all the trouble to shift the data and such off to magnetics.
>>>    You can also RAID 1/5/6 SDDs so WHEN they burn out you can swap
>>>    in new ones without losing anything (if you don't wait too long).
>>>    Of course whatever your box is, NETWORK speed is the bottleneck
>>>    in getting said data out to the users. Even 10/g can be
>>>    "slow" in some circumstances.
>>
>> No, SSD are quite durable nowdays (of course, with limits), and they are
>> indeed used in servers, when speed is important.
>
>   They are "better" - but STILL not up to the mags in
>   terms of rewrite endurance, not even close.

So? As long as they can run the estimated life time of the computer,
there is no problem.

>
>   When I do install SSDs, it's the Samsung Pro series - a
>   lot better than the other two offerings which trade
>   space for speed/endurance. There are charts out there.
>
>
>> For example, crypto coin mining use them a lot.
>
>   Sure.
>
>   But a lot of them are de-facto criminals, and can
>   thus afford to swap 'em out all the time.

Not really.

First, they are not criminals, just entrepreneurs making a legal investment.

Second, they are after making a profit with crypto money mining, so that
operation has to be productive, not a black hole for money funded by
other operations.

That crypto money can be used and is liked by criminals doesn't mean
that the activity is criminal in itself.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-09-25, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> wrote:
> On 25.09.2021 at 03:51, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:
>
>> Corrected.
>
> Not really. Your "signature" contains more than four lines, and your
> message body contains no reference whatsoever as to what you are
> replying to.
>

Ok, I AM BACK TO SANITY.

--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

On 2021-09-25, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> wrote:
> On 25.09.2021 at 03:52, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:
>
>> Why just four lines?
>
> Netiquette. It's supposed to be a signature, not the Encyclopedia
> Britanica.
>
>
understood. Will just quote on what i am replying...

--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

On 2021-09-25, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> If you reply in between the lines people can *easily* figure out what the
> previous poster relates to.
>
> When you otherwise have a large quote covering different topics but just
> top post a reply on top of it, it's hard to figure out what the reply
> refers to exactly.
OK. Learning, havent played with usenet for a while :P

--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

On 2021-09-25, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>>> Q: Why should one not top post?
>>>
>>>
>> Because you break automatism and MAKE people AWARE of TEXT, because they
>> HAVE TO READ ALL in order to FIGURE OUT what you are replying.
>
> That's the purpose of removing everything out of context. Because usenet
> is an asynchronous media, when you read the answer a week after, it can
> be good to have a little context. It avoid the need to chose between
> reading again the all message and reading nothing of it.
>
OK. LEARNED.

--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

On 2021-09-25, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 06:35:19 +0200, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be>
> wrote:
>
>>On 25.09.2021 at 03:52, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:
>>
>>> Why just four lines?
>>
>>Netiquette. It's supposed to be a signature, not the Encyclopedia
>>Britanica.
>
> Geez, just plonk the twit.
Score file or kill file or filter is for weak minded, ones that could
not stand what is written :P
Just don't reply and relax, it's much better exercize :P
--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

On 25/09/2021 12:04, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 25/09/2021 07.32, SevenOverSix wrote:

>>> No, SSD are quite durable nowdays (of course, with limits), and they are
>>> indeed used in servers, when speed is important.
>>
>>   They are "better" - but STILL not up to the mags in
>>   terms of rewrite endurance, not even close.
>
> So? As long as they can run the estimated life time of the computer,
> there is no problem.

In fact they seem to now be *better* on rewrites.

hard drives wear out because of long running hours causing mechanical
wear. On drive spindles and on head seek mechanisms.

SSDs do not suffer any of that. They suffer ONLY from writes.

If on average they can do more writes than a spinning rust can do seeks,
they are better in every way INCLUDING writes because you always have a
seek with a write

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

Le 25-09-2021, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On 2021-09-24, Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
><...>
>>
>> Some languages read left to right, some right to left, but they are all read
>> top to bottom.
>>
> Sure, but to make people *THINK* on WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING is MORE IMPORTANT.

Yes, when I read a message, if if see I need a little bit context, I'll
read the short quotation above. I'll never read the long message bellow
and I'll consider the message as useless.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:50:21 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 02:06:45 -0400
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 03:35:28 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:02:38 GMT
>> > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
>> >> point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
>> >> reading new messages.
>> >
>> > You have missed the point - in this context you want the
>> > replies to be at the top and you want a complete copy of the entire
>> > thread. Interleaved replies and snipping in that context is completely
>> > wrong it destroys essential information.
>>
>> This is IMO okay in business environments. But not in the usenet.
>
> Of course. My point was that Outlook is designed for business
> environments not for USENET.

Microsoft failed to mention this small detail that to its customers. ;-)
--
Andreas

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:38:37 GMT, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-25, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> If you reply in between the lines people can *easily* figure out what the
>> previous poster relates to.
>>
>> When you otherwise have a large quote covering different topics but just
>> top post a reply on top of it, it's hard to figure out what the reply
>> refers to exactly.
> OK. Learning, havent played with usenet for a while :P

Thanks, perfect. Thank you.

Well, leave an empty line between the quote an your text.
--
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:27:01 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:50:21 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >
> > Of course. My point was that Outlook is designed for business
> > environments not for USENET.
>
> Microsoft failed to mention this small detail that to its customers. ;-)

I think they shout it from the rooftops to their big customers, the
ones that buy the big fat support contracts. Microsoft don't really care
about the home users - the PC vendors are their customers there.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 24 Sep 2021 21:05:57 GMT, "Jeff Gaines"
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24/09/2021 in message
><20210924190832.0e313ded01553756081c757e@eircom.net> Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>wrote:
>
>>At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
>>above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do.
>
>That's email, not Usenet posts. When you had to have some technical
>knowledge to use a computer nobody top posted - email or Usenet - in fact
>you would get chucked off mailing lists for top posting. It's only since
>the hoi polloi started using email that top posting has been prevalent.
>
>Some languages read left to right, some right to left, but they are all
>read top to bottom.

We had outlook at my last job, we all bottom posted. My boss, and the
head boss, preferred it that way.