nick wrote:
> I would prefer a forum like PHPBB.

<g> Yeah... great joke.

Dawid Ciężarkiewicz wrote:
> nick wrote:
>> I would prefer a forum like PHPBB.
> 
> <g> Yeah... great joke.

No no, I really do like the web forum things.
What's wrong with those?

Dawid Ciężarkiewicz wrote:
> nick wrote:
> 
>>I would prefer a forum like PHPBB.
> 
> 
> <g> Yeah... great joke.

I don't get what's so funny about this. I also think a forum would be nice, but somehow I got used to this newsgroup alread, so I don't mind anymore. But in general, I'd prefer a forum OR a nice web interface for newsgroups (The one digitalmars uses isn't really the best, IMO).

Regards, Alex

<braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:dt6nao$1l2d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The question:  Who would use the mailing list if it existed.

Something even harder to follow and read than a newsgroup?  Count me out.

Hey, I have an idea.  Let's just do away with the internet and use physical mail to communicate.  Or telegraphs.  Ooh, maybe smoke signals!  Modern technology is so overrated.  :P

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> <braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:dt6nao$1l2d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> The question:  Who would use the mailing list if it existed.
> 
> Something even harder to follow and read than a newsgroup?  Count me out.
> 
> Hey, I have an idea.  Let's just do away with the internet and use physical mail to communicate.  Or telegraphs.  Ooh, maybe smoke signals!  Modern technology is so overrated.  :P 
> 
> 

This is what I think too. The news group is fine.

In article <dt7qh3$2kk1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
>
><braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:dt6nao$1l2d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> The question:  Who would use the mailing list if it existed.
>
>Something even harder to follow and read than a newsgroup?  Count me out.
>
>Hey, I have an idea.  Let's just do away with the internet and use physical mail to communicate.  Or telegraphs.  Ooh, maybe smoke signals!  Modern technology is so overrated.  :P
>

*sigh* Time to drag out this old chestnut:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt

Enjoy!

- Eric Anderton at yahoo

"pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dt7r30$2l2i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> *sigh* Time to drag out this old chestnut:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt
>
> Enjoy!

Hahaha :)

pragma wrote:

> In article <dt7qh3$2kk1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
>>
>><braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:dt6nao$1l2d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> The question:  Who would use the mailing list if it existed.
>>
>>Something even harder to follow and read than a newsgroup?  Count me out.
>>
>>Hey, I have an idea.  Let's just do away with the internet and use
>>physical
>>mail to communicate.  Or telegraphs.  Ooh, maybe smoke signals!  Modern
>>technology is so overrated.  :P
>>
> 
> *sigh* Time to drag out this old chestnut:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> - Eric Anderton at yahoo

Heh, funny, but a little bit more seriously:

I sat next to an old radio engineer at lunch at work, and he said that while short wave radios (radio amateur stuff) was more widely used, they had started testing a packet network using these radio masts along the Norwegian coast. They had some problems though, and was somewhat slow at a few bauds. What he thought was good about it though, compared to todays Wi-Fi and Wimax, was that it was directed and didn't litter all the space with radiowaves. He felt that that was a better engineering achievement.

"Alexander Panek" <alexander.panek@brainsware.org> wrote in message news:dt7ok3$2ivn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> But in general, I'd prefer a forum OR a nice web interface for newsgroups (The one digitalmars uses isn't really the best, IMO).

It's not great, but it's been working reliably for several years, which in itself is a great feature <g>.

The Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:10:24 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>> But in general, I'd prefer a forum OR a nice web interface for newsgroups (The one digitalmars uses isn't really the best, IMO).
> 
> It's not great, but it's been working reliably for several years, which in itself is a great feature <g>.

Stop working on D and use well known C/C++. Why improve?