Re: I Like ASCII, not MIME and Other Fancy Crap

Zero crypto content....

  tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)  writes:
> We are getting bogged down in banal details and platform
> idiosyncracies. Dozens of platforms, dozens of flavors of Unix and
> other operating systems, half a dozen major display options (as noted
> above), lots of image formats (at least that's relatively
> standardized, to GIF, PICT, JPEG, etc....and yet many people spend
> _days_ trying to convert, download, uncompress, read, display, etc.)
>
> There's got to be a better way.

The better way is the spontantous order that markets generate. We are too
early in the cycle to have figured out that having a standard 2 by 4
is better than cutting boards to custom sizes for each job.

But some of this is self inflicted by the folks on this list, and other
serious netheads. The vast majority of the world's populations would have
no idea what Tim is ranting about. The last figure I saw had the percentage
of home computers in the US with modems at 14%, but only 4% had accounts
at a service provider of any type.  The folks on this list are on the
leading edge, and are exposed to more of the leading edge, failure prone
experiments. MIME's encryption of ASCII so it is unreadible is just an
example of a false start.

Tim's approach to SLIP/PPP is the solution to the rest of his problems --
wait until there is a compelling reason to change. Let the academics
with time on their hands invent possible standards with incremental
improvements at the cost of incompatibility. Eventually the tiller
will be replaced with a steering wheel, and the brakes and accelerator
controls will be two or three pedals.

Contrary to Tim's claim, ASCII is not the ideal way to read information.
Fixed font, 78 character lines are hard to read. There is a reason that
books are printed using proportional type on lines only two and a half
alphabets wide -- it is easier for our eyes to read and our brains to
comprehend. But studying typography is like studying cryptogrophy,
something that takes time and effort and concentration. Interestingly, the
net is a fairly weak place to learn typography, as it is impossible to see
what is meant by "color" of a page of text unless it is properly typeset,
which requires the fonts, kerning, leading, etc... so get a book :-)

Pat

Pat Farrell      Grad Student                 pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu
Department of Computer Science    George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Public key availble via finger          #include <standard.disclaimer>

Pat Farrell wrote:

> Tim's approach to SLIP/PPP is the solution to the rest of his problems --
> wait until there is a compelling reason to change. Let the academics
> with time on their hands invent possible standards with incremental
> improvements at the cost of incompatibility. Eventually the tiller
> will be replaced with a steering wheel, and the brakes and accelerator
> controls will be two or three pedals.

Well said! The "bleeding edge" is consuming vast amounts of resources.
In my opinion, in this particular area, with little to show for it.

> Contrary to Tim's claim, ASCII is not the ideal way to read information.
> Fixed font, 78 character lines are hard to read. There is a reason that

I wasn't arguing that typeset, well-designed books are not easier on
the eyes. I was arguing that the efforts to produce some facsimile of
these typeset books in mail and News messages is a disaster. Line
length overruns, weird formats, etc.

(Since I'm on a roll with my ranting, let me rant about the explosion
of > 80 character width messages we're seeing. People have large text
windows, apparently, probably loaded with Hiroshige or Stone Serif or
whatever proportional font they like. Then they dump this into the 80
character world and, voila!, garbage. Netcom's new "Mosaic Lookalike"
does not even have an easy way to set the column width, unbelievably
enough! Hence the proliferation of NetCruiser ugly posts.)

> books are printed using proportional type on lines only two and a half
> alphabets wide -- it is easier for our eyes to read and our brains to
> comprehend. But studying typography is like studying cryptogrophy,

Oh, I'll go along with this. After all, this is partly why the terminal
standard is about 80 columns (there may be some FORTRAN and CRT
technology of the 1970s reasons as well).

My last, hopefully, word on this subject is that Arthur C. Clarke
wrote a short story about this whole matter. "Superiority." It was
regularly used in a class at MIT as an illustration of the dangers of
constantly being on the bleeding edge (before that term was invented)
and of becoming obsessive about having the absolute latest technology.

Eric's analysis in terms of Coase-type "transaction costs" is another
way to look at this. I shouldn't have to buy a shelf full of O'Reilly
and Associates books to do what I used to be able to do easily.

(Indeed, some people _love_ to buy such O'Reilly books. And some of
these books are indeed wonderful, teaching people how to do things
they couldn't have done before. Perl and remailers, for example.
Different strokes.)

I really do feel we're on the edge of chaos here. Every day that
passes I get more junk mail, more MIME mail, more > 80 column mail,
etc. Yes, the solution is for me to either filter this junk out
or to jump out out to the bleeding edge myself.

But many people won't. We risk losing our lingua franca in a
transition to chaos.

Complexity can be its own punishment. By not making having e-mail
easy enough to use, and by not having direct dial e-mail, most of the
business community adopted the much-inferior fax machine in the 1980s.
Much inferior in ways that are obvious, but also much more
"understandable." (You load your paper in the tray, dial the number of
your party, and it is done. No O'Reilly books need be read.)

John McCarthy wrote a great piece several years back on why and how
e-mail failed and fax machines won. E-mail is now making a serious
comeback, but may again stumble if ordinary users have to read books
on how to create PowerVisualMail clients and configure their SETENV
and CHARSET parameters!

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay