[p2p-research] "Many of us will not send mail to gmail.com"

[marc fawzi]

<<
it's "why a definitely non-p2p way to do email
> is much more popular on a pro-p2p list?"
>>

Marco:

What is the purpose of the list?

If the list's purpose was to promote the use of p2p technologies as
well as p2p paradigms (beyond technologies) then you would expect the
list members to care a lot. But as Michel put it in his preceding
reply (in this thread) the purpose of the list is focused on
discussing and promoting p2p paradigms but not technologies (or as
Michel put it: driving the car and not worrying about the motor [and I
add: not worrying whether it's a p2p motor or a centralized motor or a
hybrid])

I think this is a taste issue. People can make all sorts of arguments
(like I do, like we all do) to justify their choices but at the end of
the day it's a taste issue not an objective thing.

I'm fine if this list's taste is to drive the car and not worry about
the motor. That's because at least the car is being driven in the
right direction and the argument is: whatever motor does the best job
NOW, TODAY, because we need to get to our destination.

To people like me and you, it seems that we care about the motor as
much as the car and the destination.  Maybe others care deeply about
the motor, but I hear Michel saying it's all physics to him and his
goal is to get to the destination.

So I have no problem with it. However, being an engineer I can't
ignore physics and mechanics since to me the "design" of the
technology we use is an integral part of the belief system and the
vision, inseparable.

Marc




On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 23:45:33 PM +0200, Kris ROOSE wrote:
>> Ryan and Marc,
>>
>> I don/t understand you:
>
> Any good email client automatically includes an attribution line (the
> one above starting with "On Sat, May 09...") which leaves a very clear
> and very fast to read track (EVEN when it's a quote of a quote of a
> quote!!!) of who said what. That feature, and of course proper
> trimming/quoting, exist to avoid misattributions and
> misunderstandings. The person who "criticized" Gmail sorting it's only
> me (Marco), not Marc Fawzi nor Ryan.
>
>> all my thousands of Gmails are immediately sorted by date... and by
>> much more than that
>
> I am not a Gmail user. I got an account years ago, but only played
> with it a bit. More recently, I played again a little bit, with
> permission, into some friends Gmail accounts. In both cases, I didn't
> find or recognize any of the ways to sort messages (recipient, sender,
> date, size, etc...) which are pre-built in almost all other clients I
> know of, so I got the impression that Gmail is really limited and
> quite below average from this specific point of view. A quick search
> shows I'm not alone in this:
>
> http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=7e8728af01fea293&hl=en
> http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/
> http://www.thisisgoingtobebig.com/2005/06/gmail_sorting_i.html
>
> Since the 1st link is... three days old, I gather that the sorting
> limits denounced in the two other links are still there. For **me**
> they would be enough not to use Gmail, but no problem with others who
> don't care, really. Please note that my main question/curiosity isn't
> "does Gmail suck or not", it's "why a definitely non-p2p way to do email
> is much more popular on a pro-p2p list?"
>
> Marco
>
>
> --
> Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
> software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi