Odiamos los Foros y la USENET

[patillotes]

Hola humanos hoy voy a compartir con ustedes vosotros una cosa que me he encontrado buceando por la red con intenciones malevolas.

Quicir, os enseño . Tal vez alguno ya lo conozca, tal vez no. Como se puede deducir del titulo, este es un libro cachondo donde se meten con UNIX y recopilan algunas de los mejores libelos contra este SO.

Tal vez alguno se pregunte la razon de montar un hilo con este tema y las respuestas son faciles. Primero, porque soy friqui, segundo vosotros sois friquis. Y tercero, el libro tiene un capitulo glorioso que nos vendria que ni pintado en estos tiempos de mudanzas:

"5 Snoozenet
I Post, Therefore I Am


This Information Highway Needs Information
Except for a few jabs at Unix, we’ve recited history without any real criticisms
of Unix. Why have we been so kind? Because, fundamentally,
Usenet is not about technology, but about sociology. Even if Unix gave
users better technology for conducting international discussions, the result
would be the same: A resounding confirmation of Sturgeon’s Law, which
states that 90% percent of any field is crap.
A necessary but, unfortunately, not sufficient condition for a decent signalto-
noise ratio in a newsgroup is a moderator who screens messages. Without
this simple condition, the anonymity of the net reduces otherwise rational
beings (well, at least, computer literate beings) into six-year olds whose
apogee of discourse is “Am not, Are so, Am not, Are so....”
The demographics of computer literacy and, more importantly, Usenet
access, are responsible for much of the lossage. Most of the posters are
male science and engineering undergraduates who rarely have the knowledge
or maturity to conduct a public conversation. (It turns out that comparatively
few women post to the Usenet;
those who do are instantly
bombarded with thousands of “friendly” notes from sex-starved net surfers
hoping to score a new friend.) They also have far too much time on their
hands.
Newsgroups with large amounts of noise rarely keep those subscribers who
can constructively add to the value of the newsgroup. The result is a
polarization of newsgroups: those with low traffic and high content, and
those with high traffic and low content. The polarization is sometimes a
creeping force, bringing all discussion down to the lowest common
denominator. As the quality newsgroups get noticed, more people joinâ€"
first as readers, then as posters.
Without a moderator or a clearly stated and narrow charter such as many of
the non-alt newsgroups have, the value of the messages inevitably drops.
After a few flame fests, the new group is as bad as the old. Usenet parodies
itself. The original members of the new group either go off to create yet
another group or they create a mailing list. Unless they take special care to
keep the list private (e.g., by not putting it on the list-of-lists), the list will
soon grow and cross the threshold where it makes sense to become a newsgroup,
and the vicious circle repeats itself."

¿Se siente alguien retratado?, muahahhahahahhahha

PD: luego otro texto cachondo.

[patillotes]

Seven Stages of Snoozenet
By Mark Waks
The seven stages of a Usenet poster,
with illustrative examples.

Innocence
HI. I AM NEW HERE. WHY DO THEY CALL
THIS TALK.BIZARRE? I THINK THAT THIS
NEWSFROUP OOPS, NEWGROUP --- HEE, HEE) STUFF IS
REAL NEAT. :-) <
-- MY FIRST SMILEY.
DO YOU HAVE INTERESTING ONES? PLEASE POST SOME;
I
THINK THAT THEIR COOL. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY
BIZARRE DEAD BABY JOKES?

Enthusiasm
Wow! This stuff is great! But one thing I’ve noticed is that every
time someone tries to tell a dead baby joke, everyone says that they
don’t want to hear them. This really sucks;
there are a lot of us who
*like* dead baby jokes. Therefore, I propose that we create the newsgroup
rec.humor.dead.babies specifically for those of us who like
these jokes. Can anyone tell me how to create a newsgroup?

Arrogance
In message (3.14159@BAR), FOO@BAR.BITNET says:
>[dead chicken joke deleted]
This sort of joke DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Can’t you read the
rules? Gene Spafford *clearly states* in the List of Newsgroups:
rec.humor.dead.babies Dead Baby joke swapping
Simple enough for you? It’s not enough that the creature be dead, it
*must* be a babyâ€"capeesh?
This person is clearly scumâ€"they’re even hiding behind a
pseudonym. I mean, what kind of a name is FOO, anyway? I am
writing to the sysadmin at BAR.BITNET requesting that this
person’s net access be revoked immediately. If said sysadmin does
not comply, they are obviously in on itâ€"I will urge that their feeds
cut them off post-haste, so that they cannot spread this kind of #%!T
over the net.

Disgust
In message (102938363617@Wumpus),
James_The_Giant_Killer@Wumpus writes:
>
Q: How do you fit 54 dead babies in a Tupperware bowl?
>
^L
>
A: La Machine! HAHAHA!
Are you people completely devoid of imagination? We’ve heard this
joke *at least* 20 times, in the past three months alone!
When we first started this newsgroup, it was dynamic and innovative.
We would trade dead baby jokes that were truly fresh;
ones that
no one had heard before. Half the jokes were *completely* original
to this group. Now, all we have are hacks who want to hear themselves
speak. You people are dull as dishwater. I give up;
I’m unsubscribing,
as of now. You can have your stupid arguments without me.
Good-bye!

Resignation
In message (12345@wildebeest) wildman@wildebeest complains:
>In message (2@newsite) newby@newsite (Jim Newbs) writes:
>>How do you stuff 500 dead babies in a garbage can?
>>With a Cuisinart!
>
ARRGGHH! We went out and created
>
rec.humor.dead.babes.new specifically to keep this sort of
>
ANCIENT jokes out! Go away and stick with r.h.d.b until you
>
manage to come up with an imagination, okay?
Hey, wildman, chill out. When you’ve been around as long as I have,
you’ll come to understand that twits are a part of life on the net. Look
at it this way: at least they haven’t overwhelmed us yet. Most of the
jokes in rec.humor.dead.babes.new are still fresh and interesting. We
can hope that people like newby above will go lurk until they understand
the subtleties of dead baby joke creation, but we should bear
with them if they don’t. Keep your cool, and don’t let it bug you.

Ossification
In message (6:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>
In message (2374373@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quartermass Public)
writes:
>>
In message (5:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>>
In message (2364821@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quartermass Public)
writes:
>>>>
In message (4:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck(Cluck Kent) crows:
>>>>>
Therefore, I propose the creation of rec.humor.dead.chicken.
>>>>
Before they go asking for this newsgroup, I point out that they
>>>>
should follow the rules. The guidelines clearly state that you
>>>>
should be able to prove sufficient volume for this group. I have
>>>>
heard no such volume in rec.humor.dead.babes, so I must
>>>>
conclude that this proposal is a sham and a fraud on the
>>>>
face of it.
>>>
The last time we tried to post a dead chicken joke to r.h.d.b, we
>>>
were yelled at to keep out! How DARE you accuse us of not
>>>
having the volume, you TURD?
>>
This sort of ad hominem attack is uncalled for. My point is simply
>>
this: if there were interest in telling jokes about dead chickens,
>>
then we surely would have heard some jokes about dead *baby*
>>
chickens in r.h.d.b. We haven’t heard any such jokes, so it is
>>
obvious that there is no interest in chicken jokes.
>
That doesn’t even make sense! Your logic is completely flawed.
It should be clear to people by now that this Cluckhead is full of it.
There is no interest in rec.humor.dead.chicken, so it should not be
created.
People like this really burn me. Doesn’t he realize that it will just
take a few more newsgroups to bring this whole house of cards down
around us? First, we get rec.humor.dead.chicken (and undoubtedly,
rec.humor.dead.chicken.new). Next, they’ll be asking for
rec.humor.ethnic. Then, rec.humor.newfy. By that time, all of the
news admins in the world will have decided to drop us completely. Is
that what you want, Cluck? To bring about the end of Usenet?
Humph!
I urge everyone to vote against this proposal. The current system
works, and we shouldn’t push at it, lest it break.

[al bundy]

Menos mal que ha cambiado el tí­tulo . Unix es sagrado , peazo friqui
un saludo

[patillotes]

Menos mal que ha cambiado el tí­tulo . Unix es sagrado , peazo friqui
un saludo

Muahahhahah, lo del cambio de titulo ha sido recomendado por el miniver, para mejor captar la atencion.

Muahahahhahah

[al bundy]

Disculpas aceptadas . Que no vuelva a ocurrir

[patillotes]

Disculpas aceptadas . Que no vuelva a ocurrir

De todas maneras echadle un ojo al libro. Tiene su aquel. Hay dos textos cojonudos, uno al principio, "Anti-prologo"
del Ritchie, otro al final "Los creadores del Unix y C reconocen que todo fue una putada".

Frase de este ultimo:

“Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal,
called “A.” When we found others were actually trying to create real
programs with A, we quickly added additional cryptic features and
evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We stopped when we got a
clean compile on the following syntax:

for(;P("\n"),R=;P("|"))for(e=C;e=P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("|"+(*u/4)%2);

“To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that
allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually
thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science
progress back 20 or more years."


Muahahhahahahahhahah