Jargons of Info Tech industry

[axel at white-eagle.invalid.uk]

In comp.lang.perl.misc John Bokma <john at castleamber.com> wrote:
> "T Beck" <Tracy.Beck at Infineon.com> wrote:
 
>> I suppose I was (as many people on the internet have a bad habit of
>> doing) being more caustic than was strictly necessary.  I don't really
>> forsee the death of usenet anytime soon, I just don't think the idea of
>> it evolving is necessarily bad.  I don't really have alot of vested
>> interest one way or the other, to be honest, and I'm perfectly happy
>> with the way it is.
 
> me too.
 
>> I just think it's a naive view to presume it never will change, because
>> change is what the internet as a whole was built on.
 
> I can't think of changes that are coming to Usenet (other then ipv6)

The old saying holds true - if it is not broken, do not fix it.

Of course what the original poster did not consider is why
the standard line length was laid down... the VT100 terminals
(and related ones) had a line length which was 80 characters
(ok, with some options to switch to 132 characters if I
remember correctly)... and that is the first machine through
which I access Usenet. And the version of vi which I used
at the time was not very good with dealing with long lines.
But it worked.

Axel