>
> >* >Because what we have works very well and doesn't rely on an external
> >entity.
> *>*
> *>* We all know that there is "no bug free software", so if mailman is very
> good,
> *>* google-groups are -per my usage- very good too
> *
> Excellent. Your usage evidently differs from that of a great number of
>
> open source hackers, in that case.
>
>
That's why I asked after that "I'm always wondering why", I can't understand
it and can't find a logic answer, this describe my email-subject.
>* >Mailing lists are the lifeblood of most open source projects.
> *>*
> *>* Always wondering why!! why not move on to a *group*
> *>*
> *A better question would be why _should we_ move on to a "group." I see
> no clear answer to this question.
>
>
If you don't want a feauture, you can disable it (like not putting external
plugins in this mailing list and keep it that simple), google-groups offers
to disable whatever you don't want to, but as for my suggestion to move, I
already mentioned many of them: starting from bugs (I come here with 3 of
them till now), and by lowering costs ... I already tried to explain many
things yet not all of them, why u don't tell me the idea maybe I could see
your point of view.
>* >they perform their designated task far more effectively.
> *>*
> *>* More effectively based on what?
> *
> More effective given the criteria of being able to send email to a group
> of subscribers in a reliable and consistent fashion with little
> administrative overhead. Most subscribers have no desire to use the
>
> "features" that you mentioned above ("files storage, docs") for the same
> reason that they despise the HTML MIME attachments that accompany your
> email. I work from a console and prefer to keep it that way whenever
>
> possible. Breaking into a browser for me is a distraction at best and
> effectively impossible at worst (i.e. offline). The idea of a mailing
> list is quite simple: allow individuals to communicate ideas within a
> group quickly and simply. Any "features" beyond this are little more
>
> than a distraction.
>
>
As I said, you can disable whatever you don't like as feature, google-groups
by default is HTML-disabled and could be fixed-width font-type (which I
prefer because it looks like the code) ... but just tell me the
administration overhead for managing a google-group is harder than the case
for this mailing list server??? simple task here: preventing spam, which is
completely out of my *head* at google-groups.
If you like your console, you still can receive the emails through rss, I
don't know how you read emails now to argue but I guess (maybe I'm wrong
here) that xml-reader will be much easier, or organized, or as I said I
won't argue here but definitely there is a way out here. At least ask
Mozilla hackers what they do.
>* in our list here, open the archive, then choose January-2010, then
> *>* choose sort by date, then open a random thread, then press "Next"
> *
> As I mentioned before, I think the Google Groups archive interface is a
> perfect example of why it shouldn't be used for technical discussion. It
> is a user-interface nightmare.
>
>
Don't know why, maybe you can say that on Yahoo-groups or any service that
focus on design and styles but google, uuh .. ?
-- Amahdy AbdElAziz
IT & Development Manager
3D Diagnostix Inc. www.3ddx.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/amahdyabdelaziz
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
