Help Ubuntu 8.10 X server has started crashing 1-2 per day

[Thomas Wolf]

Bart,

On 02/20/2009 10:35 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> Take a book...just about any book...and number the paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4,...
>
> Then read it. Start at paragraph 2, then jump to 1, then to 4, then 3,
> then 6, then 5.
>
> See how long it takes for you to either give up reading it or toss it aside.
>
> Or, try reading chapter 4, then find references in that chapter into
> context by hunting through chapters one through three. Keep jumping back
> and forth until you piece it together.
>
> Messages in email aren't that long, but when you keep having to sift
> through a lot of them over time that's what it amounts to. Unless you're
> part of the brain-fart generation where every mental hiccup is deemed
> worth of broadcasting to "ur frendz w txts" or you are unaccustomed to
> reading things longer than three paragraphs at a time, it's far easier
> to scan information chronologically and in context for reference (and
> CLARITY of what you're referring to!) than tacking an extra two pages of
> "just in case you want to search crap to figure out what the #@$ we're
> talking about"...that's what threading your sent items and/or
> trash/deleted items is for.
>    

I'm not sure what the "brain-fart" generation is.  I am likely part of 
the "old-fart" generation, though :-)

In any case, I understand that reading a book chronologically is easier 
than alternatives.  But an e-mail thread is nothing like reading a book 
- except for the person jumping into the middle of it, trying to catch 
up on what has transpired so far.  So, does the authors of a 
contribution to the thread cater to the person new to the thread who, 
for whatever reason, doesn't have a mail client capable of showing the 
threaded messages in chronological order, or does he cater to the people 
who are familiar with the topic already?  For the latter, placing the 
new content at the beginning is more convenient than having to scroll 
through the "reference" material first.  Ideally, a contributor to a 
thread wouldn't have to quote previous mails at all and rely entirely on 
people's mail clients to keep previous contributions to the thread.  But 
for now, individual mails from a thread often end up in the trash before 
the thread has run its course - so there's still a need to include 
reference material as a quote.

Do you agree that both points of view have merit?  I suspect we won't 
come to an agreement on this subject.  But thanks for the discussion.

Tom