Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Posted Oct 5, 2016 16:18 UTC (Wed) by louie (guest, #3285)In reply to: Why kernel development still uses email by tbird20d
Parent article: Why kernel development still uses email
It is 2016, and in Asia, North America, and Europe, where most kernel developers live, networks are usually available on trains, planes, and (unfortunately) even in automobiles.
As far back as 2007, an LKML admin told me that over 1/2 of LKML subscriptions were to gmail, so network connectivity is even a mostly bogus argument for LKML (since gmail offline is mostly non-functional). If someone were making a big push to cultivate LKML contributors in Africa, this conversation might be worth having, but they aren't, so "offline" is, as MarcH says, mostly just an excuse to stand still while the rest of the world passes you by.
Posted Oct 5, 2016 18:53 UTC (Wed)
by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 15, 2016 22:54 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (5 responses)
This is in the UK, in the capital London. And even with what is pretty much the best available connection over copper, I regularly have problems actually getting a WORKING internet.
So if you think everyone has reliable connectivity, I think you're fooling yourself. Why should I be unable to code most evenings, just because my internet has been swamped and fallen over?
Cheers,
Posted Oct 16, 2016 8:35 UTC (Sun)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (4 responses)
Just a nit - that's nowhere near the best available over copper. Using BT's copper wires (but paying AAISP for service, as they're extremely clued), I get 80M down, 20M up reliably. Helps that the copper stretch to the DSLAM in the cabinet is very short, but still, it's VDSL2 over copper (which BT sell as BT Infinity "Fibre Broadband", even though it's over copper), not fibre to the home.
And I don't have problems keeping the connection working - although relatives in the area using BT Broadband do. Changing which ISP the circuit is backhauled to does seem to help in the UK.
Posted Oct 16, 2016 14:03 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
I don't have a cabinet to house a DSLAM and fibre link ... As I said, I have the best available connection over copper :-)
Mind you, if we move in the not too distant future (highly likely it looks like now) I shall almost certainly change ISP away from BT. My in-laws (on the same exchange, possibly also with no cabinet, like me) also get terrible connectivity with a different ISP.
Cheers,
Posted Oct 16, 2016 14:06 UTC (Sun)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (2 responses)
You're also on mixed copper/fibre, though - the DSLAM you're connected to (which isn't giving you the top speed of ADSL2+ - I've had higher sync speeds on ADSL2+ in the UK) is connected to the rest of the network by fibre, just like mine.
Posted Oct 19, 2016 16:10 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Okay, with no cabinet it's obvious why I can't get FTTC, but why can't I get the same speeds to the DSLAM in the exchange?
Cheers,
Posted Oct 19, 2016 16:18 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
Because the DSLAM in the exchange is configured to use a bandwidth of up to 2.2 MHz depending on line length; higher bandwidths are unacceptable, due to the RFI issues they cause in the exchange for other lines in the same bundle.
The DSLAM in a cabinet is configured to use a bandwidth of up to 17 MHz depending on line length; unlike exchange based DSL services, this presents no significant RFI issues, as the affected lines are all connected to the same DSLAM anyway (and thus would get the RFI at any permitted bandwidth.
In both cases, you have fibre to a DSLAM, copper from DSLAM to your home, signalling rate of 4 kilobaud. It's just that the permitted bandwidth is higher if the DSLAM is in the cabinet, and thus the numbers of bits per symbol is much higher.
Posted Oct 5, 2016 19:26 UTC (Wed)
by oever (guest, #987)
[Link]
Offline is not about connectivity, it is about control.
I want my data locally under my control. I do not want to be bound to a closed cloud service. It should be possible to have data local in an open file format. Communication should be possible via an open protocol.
Posted Oct 6, 2016 10:22 UTC (Thu)
by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
[Link] (9 responses)
???
Gmail is an IMAP server, as mentioned in the article. Of course, it's offline functionality is fine, almost all IMAP clients download the emails.
Posted Oct 13, 2016 9:52 UTC (Thu)
by davidgerard (guest, #100304)
[Link] (8 responses)
offlineimap is the least-worst way to suck down everything from GMail, because they've had extensive dev discussion about the latest flaky thing GMail's done with IMAP. It appears GMail "IMAP" is to some defree best regarded as a separate protocol descended from IMAP.
Posted Oct 13, 2016 9:52 UTC (Thu)
by davidgerard (guest, #100304)
[Link]
Posted Oct 13, 2016 14:56 UTC (Thu)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (6 responses)
Additionally, there is the "All Mails" folder or somesuch, so even if you delete a message from all folders it will still be there, iirc. If you delete a message from this folder, it will miraculously resurrect itself when it still has any flags attached. THings like this make it difficult to work with Gmail as a proper IMAP server.
Posted Oct 14, 2016 17:49 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 15, 2016 15:03 UTC (Sat)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 15, 2016 18:38 UTC (Sat)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Oct 19, 2016 16:13 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
I have all my email locally in Thunderbird, and use gmail solely as an IMAP server. Why would I want to do anything else?
(Also, gmail is useful for sending mail when I'm away from home, though I've discovered it seems to tamper with the "reply to" which is a damn nuisance!!! If I use the gmail server to send mail, I do NOT want it setting replies to go to my gmail account unless I ASK FOR IT!!!)
Cheers,
Posted Oct 19, 2016 17:48 UTC (Wed)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (1 responses)
> I have all my email locally in Thunderbird, and use gmail solely as an IMAP server. Why would I want to do anything else?
Err, because I maintained OfflineImap and - believe it or not - most users of the gmail backend were actually using Google and were not happy to just use it as an imap backend?
*I* don't use gmail at all but most users actually do, at least the support issues we received suggested that.
Posted Oct 19, 2016 19:12 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Oct 4, 2019 20:00 UTC (Fri)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link] (1 responses)
that’s true, but I would expect that many uses GMail as a second-rate (or third-rate) IMAP server.
Posted Oct 4, 2019 20:56 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Wol
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Wol
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Wol
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
GMail's implementation of IMAP is ... idiosyncratic. It mostly works, except when it doesn't.
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Wol
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email
Why kernel development still uses email