From: David Southwell <david@...2000.net>
Date: 2008-08-11T00:07:44+09:00
Subject: Re: An introduction, in about 50 lines of Ruby.

On Saturday 09 August 2008 16:48:03 Trans wrote:
> On Aug 9, 11:20 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zn...@cesmail.net>
>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 23:01 +0900, Trans wrote:
> > > I thought about that. My concern with creating a beginners list is
> > > that beginners will be more likely to gravitate toward the most well
> > > known list, ie. ruby-talk. I could possibly see a ruby-help list, but
> > > that would take a much more concerted effort by the community to rev-
> > > up and maintain, and I'm not sure it conveys the type of sectioning
> > > that's really needed to improve list participation.
> > >
> > > Yes, having an advanced list is sort of elitist, that's the point. But
> > > that doesn't make it defacto bad. A better name might help that
> > > perception however, say ruby-tech.
> >
> > Well ... first of all, anybody is free to go to Google Groups and create
> > and market any kind of list they want to, within certain terms of
> > service, of course. So if, for example, someone feels that there needs
> > to be a "ruby-beginners" or a "ruby-help" or a "ruby-professional", they
> > can just go ahead and start it up and invite participants.
>
> It is not possible to create a special general list. Official backing
> is therefore absolutely necessary for it to work. Otherwise forget it.
>
> > Second, *this* list is essentially mirrored between the "ruby-talk"
> > mailing list, the Usenet comp.lang.ruby newsgroup and a Google Group. If
> > you split one, you more or less have to split all three of them. It
> > doesn't seem to me to be worth the effort when anyone can do what I
> > described above.
>
> There is also the ruby-forum mirror. I manage the ruby-talk Google
> Group, btw. Splitting just means adding another list, it's not a big
> deal.
>
> Also, I heard that Usenet was going down. I suspect that is a relative
> thing. But is it true? Will it effect comp.lang.ruby?
>
> > So ... those of you who feel strongly about establishing new lists, go
> > ahead and establish them, post the URLs here, and see who joins. :) I
> > can pretty much guarantee that I won't join one, since I'm on half a
> > dozen or so specialized Ruby lists, like ruby-core, rubinius-dev,
> > ruby-benchmark-suite and the Seattle and Portland Ruby brigade lists.
> > Chances of me missing an opportunity to learn or teach in this area are
> > rather small, I think. ;)
>
> I'm glad to see you are still on ruby-talk then. With all that
> activity I would fear ruby-talk might fall off your list. That's
> basically my point about this --I think quite a few have. It would be
> nice if their were a lower volume list that could centrally connect
> them.
>
> T.

What would be even nicer is if queries raised on the list got to be answered 
rather than so much energy going on chewing the fat about new lists!!

For example I raised a query on the subject of:
gem native extension installer  failure on winxp pro 64 system
detailing aproblem on updating a gem native extension - there have so far been 
no replies and I cannot update the system. Now I am not suggesting I am 
entitled to a reply but it is pretty galling to see this load of stuff flying 
past my screen when there are basic queries from people that do not get any 
replies.

My 2 pennorth

David