Re: seek within a large file - Help

This is a discussion on Re: seek within a large file - Help ; Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling down through page after page ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: seek within a large file

  1. Re: seek within a large file

    Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
    a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who
    bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling
    down through page after page of old crap, just to see what the bottom-
    feeder^H^H^H^H^H^Hposter has to say.

    Cross-posting is better than multiple posting, because it only puts
    one copy of the body of the post on the USENET, with references,
    thereby using its bandwidth only once. Plus, it lets more readers
    see the question and thread and so on. Ergo, you're more likely to
    get an answer. :-)

    Good Luck!
    Rich

    Paul Lutus wrote:
    > Jimmy Zhang wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What I meant was that whether the OS will start reading the file from the
    >>second GB, i.e. , reading into the kernel buffer from the starting
    >>position of the second GB.

    >
    >
    > No, with any luck at all, and assuming the OS is written properly, it will
    > commence reading within one sector's worth of bytes of the desired target
    > position.
    >
    > Don't top-post, and don't cross-post without an excellent reason (none
    > here).
    >



  2. Re: seek within a large file

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:56:51 GMT, Rich Grise
    wrote:

    >Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
    >a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before.


    Until I'd read the entire post, I had no idea why you were posting
    this. Top posting removes all context from the reply, making the
    entire post less readable for most people. Just because you like
    top-posting, doesn't make it better, and most people don't like it.
    BTW, you should also trim the reply, taking out redundant lines. HTH,
    HAND.

    --
    Joe Zeff
    The Guy With the Sideburns
    So many twits - so little time...
    http://www.lasfs.org http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz

  3. Re: seek within a large file

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:56:51 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

    > Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
    > a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who
    > bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling
    > down through page after page of old crap, just to see what the bottom-
    > feeder^H^H^H^H^H^Hposter has to say.


    Top-posting is better than bottom-posting, but it's not actually
    *good*. Trimmed quotes with interleaved replies is best. (This
    message is itself an example.)

    > Cross-posting is better than multiple posting, because it only puts
    > one copy of the body of the post on the USENET, with references,
    > thereby using its bandwidth only once. Plus, it lets more readers
    > see the question and thread and so on. Ergo, you're more likely to
    > get an answer. :-)


    True, as far as it goes. Don't cross-post more than you really
    need to. (Some groups - I think comp.os.linux.help may be one of
    them - were supposed to be removed years ago. Many news servers
    missed the removal, so they still get a fair number of users, but
    in theory they are less widely propagated than other comparable
    groups - e.g. comp.os.linux.misc - that are formally supposed to
    remain in existence.)


  4. Re: seek within a large file

    Ed Murphy wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:56:51 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
    >
    > > Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
    > > a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who
    > > bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling
    > > down through page after page of old crap, just to see what the bottom-
    > > feeder^H^H^H^H^H^Hposter has to say.

    >
    > Top-posting is better than bottom-posting, but it's not actually
    > *good*. Trimmed quotes with interleaved replies is best. (This
    > message is itself an example.)


    Which is precisely what is recommended in the "Netiquette Guidelines" in
    RFC 1855 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt?number=1855).

    > > Cross-posting is better than multiple posting, because it only puts
    > > one copy of the body of the post on the USENET, with references,
    > > thereby using its bandwidth only once. Plus, it lets more readers
    > > see the question and thread and so on. Ergo, you're more likely to
    > > get an answer. :-)

    >
    > True, as far as it goes. Don't cross-post more than you really
    > need to.


    Also, when cross-posting it is customary to set follow-ups to one
    group. Again, see RFC 1855 from the Internet Engineering Task Force.
    (You'll note that I haven't set follow-ups despite this being
    cross-posted. That's something the OP should have done at the start of
    the thread...I really wouldn't know where to direct follow-ups now.)

+ Reply to Thread