Jargons of Info Tech industry

[Lah Xee]

Xah Lee wrote:

You stupid UNIX donkey!  Why you wrap your email?  You wasted time 
formatting email that you could have used to read Python documentation 
and critique it!  How you expect to change world if you spend time 
formatting email???  And I no want hear you let Google groups format 
it!  If you use stupid UNIX-using, text monkey service like Google to 
format your email, then you no longer worthy to be our prince!!

I, Lah Xee, master of wit and expert grammarian must rise to occasion 
and become pre-eminent troll for common good of all mankind!  Down with 
UNIX!!  Down with Mac!!  Down with Perl!!  Down with Xah Lee!!  You will 
all bow before my astonishing wisdom and knowledge!!

Now, why do this so-called "print" statement in Python f*ck up my text 
by splattering it with end of line characters?

Lah Xee
Master Grammarian
Pre-Eminent Troll

>Unix, RFC, and Line Truncation
>
>[Note: unix tradition requires that a return be inserted at every 70
>characters in email messages or so so that each line are less than 80
>characters. Unixers made this as a requirement into an RFC document.]
>
>Xah Lee, 20020511
>
>This truncation of lines business is a hatred of mine, from email
>formatting to formatting of program codes. I have been fighting with
>the unix slew of morons about the line cut for years. The unix morons
>are the number one excuse expert, that whenever in an argument they'll
>mention some RFC “specifications”. (RFC = Really Fucking Common,
>invented by mostly unix folks in the 70s.)
>
>the unix morons, think that the world should truncate lines just like
>their incompetent operating system silently truncate lines (and it
>still DOES, folks! e.g. ps, tar, tcsh.) Around 1998 when i was using
>Outlook Express or Eudora before that, i remember i can set lines to
>not hard-wrap, and i did. Boy that always pissed the unix blockheads.
>In their diddly eyes and lousy email software, i'm breaking standards,
>making things hard to read, and being a stupid ass. Their brain fail to
>see what unix ways are not capable of. These guys are the same slew of
>morons who cry in pain about how the web should not commercialize
>(circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
>and lynx is the best browser (circa 1995), and GUI is for sissys and
>mouse is for pussies and Apple computer is for kids (circa 1987).
>
>There is no reason for a paragraph encoding to be splattered with end
>of line characters, nor the human labor expended. There is reason for
>paragraphs to be displayed not too wide, and that is readability. What
>the unixer could not get clear of is a distinction of concepts. Because
>their fantastically hacked-up operating system operate by the principle
>that lines should not be some 80 chars or else it will be truncated and
>*silently* too, thus it became _necessarily_ their _habit_ and thought
>that line truncation business is natural and a human duty. Unknown of
>these setups, the unix geeks go by their presumption that all text
>should be hard wrapped, as if parameters should be hard-coded.
>
>I recall, two particular unix hotshots who bugged me about the line
>truncations business is the Perl priest Tom Christiansen, who used to
>reside over comp.lang.perl.*, and another unix jockey Chris Nandor, who
>was a MacPerl proponent now the main maintainer. It is not a
>coincidence that the people who go out of their way to complain about
>any “format=flowed” or softwrapped or logically-formatted lines in
>emails are always the unixers. The unix twits will start a flame war
>over a petty formatting issue, because it's unix's training to bent
>over pettiness, not to mention they are the ones who are retarded on
>the issue of line truncation.
>
>As i have alluded to above, there are serious problems with the
>line-truncation ways of thinking. The gist is that it is a form of
>physical formatting as opposed to logical. (think softwrap vs hardwrap,
>parameter vs hard-code) Those who are familiar with the history or
>reason for SGML and HTML should understand the problem. Many of you
>familiar with drive of evolution of HTML from 1995 days to today's CSS
>& XML should also understand the issue. We wish to encode information,
>and be flexible about representation, not botching info into one
>particular representation.
>
>The harm done by the unixers to society is of a long lasting and
>pervasive nature. First is the RFC, which serves as the mob's standard,
>which requires that every emailer should be broken like unix, so that
>unix can process them without problems. Fuck unix and fuck unix geeks.
>Secondly, it drains human labor. Right this second there are hundreds
>of people pressing returns or fixing jagged lines unnecessarily.
>Thinking and computer could have done that for us, if not for fucking
>stupid unix and its people. Thirdly, a generation of programs and
>programer's times are wasted over tools that mutilate paragraphs into
>pieces. (in emacs, there's fill-paragraph etc, and in BBEdit it's just
>called “Hard Wrap”) Fourthly, physical formatting ultimately
>multiply the process required on the data, as we can see in emails,
>especially in combination with the stupid quote convention: “>”
>(that's another unix invention.). But most importantly is that the
>hard-liners instilled a bad notion, a confusion, that generated a
>entire generation of utterly stupid programing languages and monkey
>coders, starting with unix's C language.
>
>As of 200506, the following two sites shows that
>as late as 2001, unix tool tar (BSD) still truncate long file names.
>• http://www.sourcekeg.co.uk/www.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mac-os-x.html
>(local copy)
>http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan/macosx_essentials.htm
>(local copy)
>
>--------------------
>This post is archived at:
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/truncate_line.html
>
> Xah
> xah at xahlee.org
>∑ http://xahlee.org/
>
>  
>