On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:25:04PM -0500, Storm Dragon wrote:

Hi, I created the file /etc/systemd/system/espeakup.service.d and added: ExecStart=/usr/bin/espeakup --default-voice=en-us+m3 After reloading espeakup.service, it still uses the default voice. Do I have the syntax wrong? I am using the plain espeakup.service file, not espeakup@.service. Thanks Storm

If you do nothing else today, please convince yourself that top posting is the root of all evil, the destroyer of biblical cities, and the kicker of pets everywhere. 'systemctl status' and 'systemctl show' will both show you the command line systemd used to start the service. If running that yourself from the commandline yields different results, then there's something weird going on.

Den 15-11-2013 16:00, Storm Dragon skrev:

why is it that bottom posters complain [about top posting] but I have never, ever, seen a top poster complain [about bottom posting]?

... I tried to think of something clever and witty to say, but I really think that that very question pretty much leads to its own answer. -- Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>

It doesn't though. Lol what am I missing here? I prefer stuff top posted but, I believe it is up to the individual to choose their own style. Come up with something witty if you want, but what is the answer?

Let's say someone just joined the mailing list and wants to know what the previous members of the list was discussing, now let's ask the question: what's the most efficient way to read through the previous mails? Bottom to top or top to bottom?

If someone has just joined the list and wants to read all the previous messages on a specific topic, I believe this list has an archive of all previous messages that can be read in whatever order makes sence to him or her. The previous messages can even be sorted by date or by thread, so that the conversation may be followed from beginning to end in order, hopefully without repetition. But what of those of us who have been on the list and are not new to the topic? Why should we be forced to scroll down through the same part of the conversation we just read, repeated over and over in each new message, before we finally find the answer to the question, which by this time is buried beneath tons and tons of minutia from all the messages that came before, including times, dates, e-mail addresses and under all that, the message we just read 4 times already? This is what happens when messages build upon each other anyway, but at least with a top-posted message, the most important part, the answer to the question, is in a prominent and highly visible place, right at the top where it can be seen quickly. If I then need to refer back to something previous because the answer is not clear enough to stand on its own, I am then free to look back at prior messages that will clarify the answer, or if prior messages are underneath, I am free to scroll down for clarification. It is important, however, that the answer clarify itself, so that new readers can easily deduce the question from the answer. This naturally prevents the same message needing to be posted over and over either at the top or at the bottom of the new important part of the conversation. I should note here that many e-mail clients automatically put messages into conversation or threaded format, and some of them even allow the reader to see the entire conversation in order from beginning to end. Many times, e-mail lists are archived in this way as well, similar to the layout of a web forum. It causes lots of trouble in these cases to have to dig through each message, through nested quote after nested quote to try to find the answer, only to give up, never finding the buried answer. Imagine a chat conversation that goes something like: Person1: I'm having a problem changing my password. Person2: Person1 said: "I'm having a problem changing my password." Did you try changing it using the passwd command in a terminal? Person1: Person2 said: "Person1 said: "I'm having a problem changing my password." Did you try changing it using the passwd command in a terminal?" I tried that, but I get an error message about my password being in the dictionary. The idea here is that each message gets larger and larger, and each subsequent message contains the entirety, or at least a sizeable portion of the first message, and every other message leading up to it. If this is hard to read in a chat room, it is even harder to read in e-mail, which rather than one-liners, is composed of multiple larger sentences, and I can't see any good that can come from attempting to dig through all the previous messages. Google already makes me dig for gold to get to the answer to a question based on what I put into the search box, why should simply trying to read an e-mail be even more of a challenge? Finally, I must come back to the ultimate solution. It is extremely important that the subject of a message reflect its content. For example, this message has nothing at all to do with an espeakup service file as the subject implies, but is rather a completely unrelated topic. Therefore, the subject of the message will reflect that it branched off the conversation about espeakup, just in case someone wonders why their e-mail client grouped it in the same place, but it will also indicate that the message is on a different topic entirely, and is in fact off-topic, not being related in any way to the discussion of espeakup, systemd service files, the AUR or even Arch Linux. Also, this specific message is clearly in reference to the religious war that seems to come up on e-mail lists from time to time regarding where to put the content of a new message. It usually starts by making someone feel like an idiot for not posting their message in a way that makes the person starting the flamewar happy. The problem is that each list is different, and each person who starts such a holywar has a different opinion, depending on the list where it starts. I need absolutely no quoting from previous messages to clarify my response, I only need to respond, because the initial post on the topic can be easily deduced by simply reading the response. While I agree that responses such as "+1," "I agree," and "Thanks" need some context, messages like this should generally be kept to a minimum, should quote *only* the small part of the message to which it applies rather than the entire message, and should generally add quite a bit more value to the discussion than simply saying that I agree with you. On the other hand, most answers can be given in a clear and concise way that doesn't have to refer back to the question, and certainly doesn't have to rewrite the entire conversation that led up to it. I don't see any problem with a Q&A style post that responds to multiple points by quoting each Q and following it up with an A, but in the case of a single question and single answer, or in the case of a single answer that addresses only one of the original questions, it looks much better, and saves much time for both the composer of a message and for readers to have separate messages that look like <message> Subject: message quoting Why is excessive quoting a bad idea in an e-mail message? What harm could it do to bottom post my answers? </message> <message> Subject: Re: message quoting excessive quoting in e-mail messages makes them harder to read, because readers are forced to read the same thing over and over before they can find the answer to their question. </message> rather than to have a conversation that looks like <message> Subject: message quoting What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list? </message> <message> Subject: Re: message quoting On Saturday, 16 November 2013 at 23:36, List Poster <iaskquestions@gmail.com> wrote:

What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list?

Bottom post. Put your answer below the original text of the message to which you are replying. </message> <message> Subject Re: message quoting On Saturday, November 16, 2013 at 5:55 PM, First Responder

answerman@plstmstern.net> wrote: On Saturday, 16 November 2013 at 23:36, List Poster <iaskquestions@gmail.com> wrote:

...

What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list?

Bottom post. Put your answer below the original text of the message to which you are replying.

_1. </message> In summary, make your subject line reflect the content of the message. Usually, replying is enough, but if the message strays too far from the topic of conversation, make the subject line reflect this. Refer back to the subject of this message for an example. Keep quoting to an absolute minimum, and if quoting, rather than top or bottom posting, answer the quoted question inline, and only quote the usually very small parts of the message that are relevant to the answers. However, the best possible posting style is to write the post in such a way where no quoting is necessary. Make the answer to the question stand on its own, clearly and concisely providing an answer that new readers will find useful, either paraphrasing the question within the answer, or making every effort to make it possible to very easily deduce the question from the answer. One more thing: if you find that you must quote, edit that very long attribution line. When lots of dates and times from different time zones come together, it only serves to confuse readers. It is probably sufficient to edit the attribution so that it looks like "Person wrote"" "According to Postman Pete," or similar short, catchy if desired, attribution line. Hope this helps. ~Kyle http://kyle.tk/ -- "Kyle? ... She calls her cake, Kyle?" Out of This World, season 2 episode 21 - "The Amazing Evie"

You're so deep. (sic! ref: [0]) cheers! mar77i [0] http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1311/18114.html On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Kyle <kyle@gmx.ca> wrote:

If someone has just joined the list and wants to read all the previous messages on a specific topic, I believe this list has an archive of all previous messages that can be read in whatever order makes sence to him or her. The previous messages can even be sorted by date or by thread, so that the conversation may be followed from beginning to end in order, hopefully without repetition. But what of those of us who have been on the list and are not new to the topic? Why should we be forced to scroll down through the same part of the conversation we just read, repeated over and over in each new message, before we finally find the answer to the question, which by this time is buried beneath tons and tons of minutia from all the messages that came before, including times, dates, e-mail addresses and under all that, the message we just read 4 times already? This is what happens when messages build upon each other anyway, but at least with a top-posted message, the most important part, the answer to the question, is in a prominent and highly visible place, right at the top where it can be seen quickly. If I then need to refer back to something previous because the answer is not clear enough to stand on its own, I am then free to look back at prior messages that will clarify the answer, or if prior messages are underneath, I am free to scroll down for clarification. It is important, however, that the answer clarify itself, so that new readers can easily deduce the question from the answer. This naturally prevents the same message needing to be posted over and over either at the top or at the bottom of the new important part of the conversation. I should note here that many e-mail clients automatically put messages into conversation or threaded format, and some of them even allow the reader to see the entire conversation in order from beginning to end. Many times, e-mail lists are archived in this way as well, similar to the layout of a web forum. It causes lots of trouble in these cases to have to dig through each message, through nested quote after nested quote to try to find the answer, only to give up, never finding the buried answer.

Imagine a chat conversation that goes something like:

Person1: I'm having a problem changing my password. Person2: Person1 said: "I'm having a problem changing my password." Did you try changing it using the passwd command in a terminal? Person1: Person2 said: "Person1 said: "I'm having a problem changing my password." Did you try changing it using the passwd command in a terminal?" I tried that, but I get an error message about my password being in the dictionary.

The idea here is that each message gets larger and larger, and each subsequent message contains the entirety, or at least a sizeable portion of the first message, and every other message leading up to it. If this is hard to read in a chat room, it is even harder to read in e-mail, which rather than one-liners, is composed of multiple larger sentences, and I can't see any good that can come from attempting to dig through all the previous messages. Google already makes me dig for gold to get to the answer to a question based on what I put into the search box, why should simply trying to read an e-mail be even more of a challenge?

Finally, I must come back to the ultimate solution. It is extremely important that the subject of a message reflect its content. For example, this message has nothing at all to do with an espeakup service file as the subject implies, but is rather a completely unrelated topic. Therefore, the subject of the message will reflect that it branched off the conversation about espeakup, just in case someone wonders why their e-mail client grouped it in the same place, but it will also indicate that the message is on a different topic entirely, and is in fact off-topic, not being related in any way to the discussion of espeakup, systemd service files, the AUR or even Arch Linux. Also, this specific message is clearly in reference to the religious war that seems to come up on e-mail lists from time to time regarding where to put the content of a new message. It usually starts by making someone feel like an idiot for not posting their message in a way that makes the person starting the flamewar happy. The problem is that each list is different, and each person who starts such a holywar has a different opinion, depending on the list where it starts. I need absolutely no quoting from previous messages to clarify my response, I only need to respond, because the initial post on the topic can be easily deduced by simply reading the response. While I agree that responses such as "+1," "I agree," and "Thanks" need some context, messages like this should generally be kept to a minimum, should quote *only* the small part of the message to which it applies rather than the entire message, and should generally add quite a bit more value to the discussion than simply saying that I agree with you. On the other hand, most answers can be given in a clear and concise way that doesn't have to refer back to the question, and certainly doesn't have to rewrite the entire conversation that led up to it. I don't see any problem with a Q&A style post that responds to multiple points by quoting each Q and following it up with an A, but in the case of a single question and single answer, or in the case of a single answer that addresses only one of the original questions, it looks much better, and saves much time for both the composer of a message and for readers to have separate messages that look like

<message> Subject: message quoting Why is excessive quoting a bad idea in an e-mail message? What harm could it do to bottom post my answers? </message>

<message> Subject: Re: message quoting excessive quoting in e-mail messages makes them harder to read, because readers are forced to read the same thing over and over before they can find the answer to their question. </message>

rather than to have a conversation that looks like

<message> Subject: message quoting What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list? </message>

<message> Subject: Re: message quoting On Saturday, 16 November 2013 at 23:36, List Poster <iaskquestions@gmail.com> wrote:

...

What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list?

Bottom post. Put your answer below the original text of the message to which you are replying. </message>

<message> Subject Re: message quoting On Saturday, November 16, 2013 at 5:55 PM, First Responder

...

answerman@plstmstern.net> wrote: On Saturday, 16 November 2013 at 23:36, List Poster <iaskquestions@gmail.com> wrote:

...

What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list?

Bottom post. Put your answer below the original text of the message to which you are replying.

_1. </message>

In summary, make your subject line reflect the content of the message. Usually, replying is enough, but if the message strays too far from the topic of conversation, make the subject line reflect this. Refer back to the subject of this message for an example. Keep quoting to an absolute minimum, and if quoting, rather than top or bottom posting, answer the quoted question inline, and only quote the usually very small parts of the message that are relevant to the answers. However, the best possible posting style is to write the post in such a way where no quoting is necessary. Make the answer to the question stand on its own, clearly and concisely providing an answer that new readers will find useful, either paraphrasing the question within the answer, or making every effort to make it possible to very easily deduce the question from the answer. One more thing: if you find that you must quote, edit that very long attribution line. When lots of dates and times from different time zones come together, it only serves to confuse readers. It is probably sufficient to edit the attribution so that it looks like "Person wrote"" "According to Postman Pete," or similar short, catchy if desired, attribution line. Hope this helps. ~Kyle http://kyle.tk/ -- "Kyle? ... She calls her cake, Kyle?" Out of This World, season 2 episode 21 - "The Amazing Evie"