Re: problem with ux400

[davel@whutt.att.com]

Robert Kerns says:
>    Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 10:00 EDT
>    From: davel@whutt.att.com
>
>    >  Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 17:39 EDT
>    >  From: RWK@FUJI.ILA.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM (Robert W. Kerns)
>    >
>    >    Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 08:58 EDT
>    >    From: Len Moskowitz <Len@HEART-OF-GOLD>
>    >    I find it very helpful to see other's problem reports, if only for
>    >    information purposes.  If someone wants to respond, great.  If not the
>    >    only thing lost is net bandwidth.  I'd like to see all problem reports
>    >    copied to SLUG.
>    >
>    >  No!  You'll also lose at least *THIS* reader.  I don't have time to
>    >  wade through that much mail, and it's only fair that Symbolics be
>    >  asked to make an initial try before inflicting the problems on such
>    >  volunteers as Barmar & myself.  I suspect that Barry is probably
>    >  near the limit of the time he's willing to spend answering Slug mail,
>    >  so it's not like you're going to get more answers, either.
>    >
>    You really aren't required to answer SLUG bug reports, you know. 8^)
>    It's nice that you and Barry volunteer your time to help out the rest
>    of us, but you shouldn't feel that you have to respond to every request
>    for help.
>
>Respond, nothing, I'm talking about even *READING*.  I respond to
>only a minute fraction; even Barmar responds to only a minute fraction.
>I haven't asked him, but frankly, I find it hard to imagine that Barmar
>or *ANYBODY* not paid to do exactly that would read all of the bug mail
>that that would be sent to SLUG if they *ALL* went to SLUG.

Then you and Barmar don't have to read every message.  Frankly, I don't 
read every SLUG message *now*.

I thought that's what subject lines are for.  If the subject doesn't
interest you, you delete the message without reading it.

>
>If everybody sent all of their bugs to the SLUG mailing list, I would
>remove myself and respond to *NONE* of them.

Why?  Would scanning through the subject lines really be too much of
a personal hardship?

>  I would also regret losing
>this source of information.  Maybe then some of us could go start a
>NON-BUG-SLUG list somewhere, but I know I couldn't handle the maintenance
>of such a list.
>

I'd have no objection to separating SLUG-BUGS off, provided Symbolics is
willing to carry both lists on dialnet.  I don't use dialnet but a 
large fraction of the SLUG community does rely on it.

These opinions are shareware.  If you like the product,
please send your $0.02 to
               David Loewenstern
   {backbone!}att!whutt!davel which is davel@whutt.att.com