FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.

» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-30-2012, 03:31 PM
Karol Blazewicz
Default offtopic ml (WAS eons ago: change in mount behaviour?)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Wilkens <stefanwilkens@gmail.com> wrote:
> The major off-topics that see discussion here all have their own
> mailing lists, why not discuss it there?
> gnome lists: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/
> pulse audio's discussion list:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss

In the case of PA, +1, as it doesn't seem to be an Arch-focused topic.
Old 01-30-2012, 03:34 PM
Default offtopic ml (WAS eons ago: change in mount behaviour?)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tim Stella <denstark@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/30/12 at 04:43pm, SanskritFritz wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Karol Blazewicz
>> <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM, SanskritFritz <sanskritfritz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Karol Blazewicz
>> >> <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> It's easy enough for me to mute the threads I don't want to listen to
>> >>> - no matter what ML.
>> >>
>> >> How do you do that?
>> >
>> > I'm using gmail and it's under the 'more' button / list (first one on
>> > the right when you select or read / reply to a message).
>> Ah, so you are using Filter messages. I hoped there was a really easy
>> way, like a 'mute' button that is thread aware
>> Anyway, thanks for the advice.
> No, it's as you say -- under the More button, there is a 'Mute' button that will
> simply mute the thread. This is built into gmail.

Found the problem. The Mute button works only in the Inbox. I have a
rule that applies a label for the mailing list, and moves them out of
the inbox, hence there is no mute button
Thanks guys for the help.
Old 01-30-2012, 05:14 PM
C Anthony Risinger
Default offtopic ml (WAS eons ago: change in mount behaviour?)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> This wouldn't change much. The original topic was Arch related. The
> discussion about PA etc. evolved from this. So such a discussion
> wouldn't be switched to another mailing list. Same for any other
> similar discussions. See my try to change the subject from mount to PA.
> The discussion about PA has mostly been continued under the original
> subject.

in the forums threads can be locked and what not -- there simply needs
to be more aggressive enforcement/definition of the expected lines of
conversation. if the description is too vague, clarify it. it people
misstep, inform them. if they continue, warn them. if they refuse,
temp ban them. if they chronically disregard everyone's time and
patience, perma-boot them. no different than IRC or any other medium.

> And there's another disadvantage. This arch-offtopic list would most
> likely not read by so many people and probably not by the "right"
> people whatever that might mean.

yeah? arch-general already has plenty of the "right" people missing.
this gets said all the time "you need to raise bugreport, no one
here". i've seen plenty of "well, i'm done with this list" by such
people. this point is a noop imo, because if you want action you have
to channel it appropriately, not sound off again and again hoping for
*someone else* to pick up the slack.

a really famous guy once said "be the change you wish to see [...]".
make a conscious effort to understand why things are not working as
you believe they should. respect the goals of the developers you are
conflicted with. communicate clearly/respectably/persistently to make
yourself known. recognize that you may be misinformed or flat out
wrong in your understandings. find the solution. find a workaround.
find an alternative. move forward.

... anything else causes no real work, only the constant energy
expenditure of competing forces [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29 ]

> A new mailing-list arch-offtopic would only be used for discussions
> which are originally be totally offtopic. And probably not even then,
> if someone isn't aware that his topic is offtopic.

nah, just like in IRC ...

"#arch-offtopic please."

> So if such a discussion would indeed be moved to an arch-offtopic list
> this would mean people can directly shut their mouth. So almost no
> chance for changes.

sure that's a possibility, but far less probable because it's the
equivalent of a brick wall. some refuse to use more general medium
like forums etc, and while i can respect that, this isn't a newsgroup
system with thousands of channels. this is a specific mailing list
that people join for a highly related reasons. /methinks if you rant
on a newsgroup they too will quickly tell you to beat it.

an alternative list *creates* an *appropriate* channel to *refer* them
too vs. slamming the door in the face and wondering why they keep
chattering on the porch.

> People who are not interested in a thread can either ignore this
> thread, just filter it out or move its e-mails to /dev/null with their
> e-mail clients.

not always, and i use a mobile 70%+ of the time. i don't want to
create a new filter for every long-winded thread to nowhere. maybe i
can create a label -> trash, and flag multiple conversations ... maybe
i can't. why should i?

... you know what's way cooler? believing others are capable of
respecting each other's time, and the reason others join a list in the
first place (ie. the expected boundaries).

another alternative is to move away from mailman oldness, and use
something like lamson/librelist, which can spawn lists on the fly in a
democratic way. then people can talk about whatever they want 'till
blue in the face. with a small amount of work we could enable the
community to moderate it too, with a command system similar to
majordomo (i use this setup now, straightforward to add). but, as it
stands, i'm not going to go out of my way to quash the
inconsiderations of others, because it's even simpler to unsubscribe.


C Anthony
Old 01-30-2012, 07:14 PM
C Anthony Risinger
Default offtopic ml (WAS eons ago: change in mount behaviour?)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> Am Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:14:01 -0600
> schrieb C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me>:
>> not always, and i use a mobile 70%+ of the time. *i don't want to
>> create a new filter for every long-winded thread to nowhere. *maybe i
>> can create a label -> trash, and flag multiple conversations ... maybe
>> i can't. *why should i?
> Because you don't want to see those e-mails.
> What do you think to how many mailing lists I am subscribed and in how
> many threads I'm not interested even on arch-general, aur-general etc.
> You know what I do with those threads? What anyone else would do. I
> just ignore them and delete those e-mails, because they may be
> important and interesting to other people, maybe to the devs, but not
> to me.

you're not understanding what i've written, or simply being
argumentative. i never said -- or even implied -- that only messages
interesting to me should be disallowed. i said we are all expected to
maintain a high-level of relevancy -- and quality -- to Arch linux
problems, directions, and decisions.

the 3-ish threads that spawned are irrelevant, and blatantly
contradict this expectation. there are no problems we can fix. there
are no issues we can address. there is only "the world is against me
and my crew"-esque rambling. now, do i believe pro-audio, or pro-*,
or hobbyist-*, can ask questions and offer input? of course i do! i
even find quite a bit interesting. however one agenda is not weighted
differently than the rest, and all forms of constructive conversation
*must* have *some* kind of attainable or at least
*****discernible***** goal/path, of which the recent PA threads are
100% devoid.

... apply the same logic used in a forum. why am i explaining this?
you don't ask Ubuntu questions in the Newbie forum.

> Do I tell the people to shut up and not discuss their Nvidia problems
> because I have an ATI card and am not affected by Nvidia issues?

we both know this is misrepresentative of what i've stated.

> For me discussions about Nvidia are not necessary, for Nvidia users
> they likely are. For you discussions about PA may be unnecessary, for
> pro-audio users they are important. Or what do you mean, why there came
> so much feedback from so many people incl. pro-audio users and why
> this thread got that long?

i've seen several people attribute that PA works fine with the
proaudio related tools. i read others validate the use case of PA and
acknowledge it's peaceful coexistence. i've watched a handful
continuously muddy the water, despite glaring gaps in their linux
knowledge or potential solutions. many of the "dependency hell"
garbage has nothing to do with PA, or any software, but rather the
inability for any known binary package manager to properly express
near limitless configurations.

tl;dr ... i have no !@#$%^& idea.

> If your mobile is not capable to handle such e-mail filters, just don't
> use your mobile for reading such mailing lists or buy a more capable
> one.

my phone runs android 4, it probably could handle it. alas, this is
about cleaning up the neighborhood, not avoiding certain parks and

>> ... you know what's way cooler? believing others are capable of
>> respecting each other's time, and the reason others join a list in the
>> first place (ie. the expected boundaries).
> Oh, you mean because I should respect your time I should shut up and
> suspend my judgement? You really mean I should let myself censored
> because of your time? What about respecting other people's opinion?

well, yes, in fact i do. i didn't join to endure prolonged outbursts
stemming from a lack of self-control. think about why you are here.
think about why hundreds of others are here. try to play nice, or
vent frustrations on a medium under your control. i dont think i'm
the minority here ;-) but maybe.

> If such a discussion is unimportant to you and you're not interested in
> it, just ignore it.

and in most cases i do, with relatively high tolerance. but guys,
seriously ... PA ... !@#$%^& seriously. find a solution, find a
workaround, accept it, use a new DE, write a new package manager, use
a new distro, compile from scratch or ABS ... ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE.
ANYTHING. oooor just STFU about it, until you think of a new action

please. i beg of you. find an outlet that produces meaningful advances
in your agenda.

> I think such a discussions like this one about PA is important, even if
> it's on an Arch related mailing list. But the problem with PA e.g.
> resp. this ongoing dependency hell is a general one and Arch is part of
> the "general" Linux community. And probably such a discussion
> is read by other more "important" people and then brought to the "right"
> place, etc.

the "right" people are simply those who "do" constructive things. and
that is the crux of why this and similar topics piss people off -- the
loudest voices are not in that group.

> And again, this discussion about PA has evolved from an Arch related
> topic. So should this discussion just be stopped, because it gets
> off-topic somehow and you are not interested in it?

... say what?

mount -> init -> systemd -> Lennart Poettering -> pulseaudio ->

ehm ... sure ... if you lump natural mating, selective breeding, and
gene-splicingly-genetic-engineering together under one umbrella term,
and call it "evolution".

> I guess you should think about that.

you're absolutely right! ok-let-me-think-about-that-no.

sorry bud. this is exhausting, and just pollutes further ... it's all
you from here. i'm not an enemy, just a friend who wants to help you
make real progress.


C Anthony

Thread Tools

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org