Thread: USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
The WWW folks just put up a survey asking: "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" The Poll can be found at http://www.postgresql.org ... we're curious as to what sort of interest there is by the 'General Users' ... As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader vs a mail reader ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 05:00:19PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there is an
> official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is available
> at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader vs a mail
> reader ...
>
.... but reading news from a 'special' news server is not so much of a
gain as having it as a 'proper' newsgroup.
--
Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk)
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Green wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 05:00:19PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there is an >> official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is available >> at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader vs a mail >> reader ... >> > .... but reading news from a 'special' news server is not so much of a > gain as having it as a 'proper' newsgroup. Agreed ... but it is an option ... the pgsql.* is now being carried by both Supernews and Stanford (two of the larger distribution points), and have been entered into ISC's list of official newsgroups ... hopefully, Google will be carrying it soon too ... The point isn't to replace one with the other (I prefer the lists myself, since anti-spam filters are easier to deal with), only to provide options ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > The WWW folks just put up a survey asking: > > "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch to > using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" Switch no, use in addition yes. I subscribe to several of the mailing lists that I find most interesting, but I also dip into other lists such as committers and hackers occasionally to keep up with what's going on without being subject to all the email noise from those lists. I find newsgroups very useful for quickly downloading the headers and picking the subjects of interest rather then wading through emails and clearing out the ones I dont want to read. I think it is important to maintain *both* forms of communication, but also give wider promotion of the existence and usage of the newsgroups. It seems from what I read so far the the main users of the mailing lists will not move over to newgroups. Good for them. Hopefully, the up and coming release of 8.0 will generate wider interest, particularly from the Windows users, many of which will look to usenet first for "information". Just my 2(replace with local currency) worth, Gary.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Bill Harris wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > >> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch >> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > >> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there >> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is >> available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader >> vs a mail reader ... > > FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a > comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET > guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL > in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* > hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm > tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the > immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at > the time. Just as an FYI, the pgsql.* hierarchy was done within the guidelines, or, at least, was done with the aid of the newsadmins of two of the larger news sites on the 'Net (Stanford and Supernews, both of which carry, and distribute, it), *and* has been picked up by ISC as an official hierarchy, including in the active file that it distributes on their FTP server ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch > to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there > is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is > available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader > vs a mail reader ... FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at the time. My $0.02. Bill -- Bill Harris Facilitated Systems http://facilitatedsystems.com/
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Bill Harris > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:50 PM > To: Marc G. Fournier > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ... > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > > > "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch > > to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > > > As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there > > is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is > > available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader > > vs a mail reader ... > > FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a > comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET > guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL > in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* > hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm > tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the > immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at > the time. > > My $0.02. > me too. Funny how the YES vote got interpreted for us.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
From
Marc@pyrenet.fr, G.Fournier@pyrenet.fr,
From@pyrenet.fr:
Date:
bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com (Bill Harris) writes:
>"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
>> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch
>> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?"
>> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there
>> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is
>> available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader
>> vs a mail reader ...
>FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a
>comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET
>guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL
>in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.*
>hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm
>tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the
>immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at
>the time.
Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* comp.databases.postgresql
group to be created, that is not-gated ... this means that those using it
would not have the benefit(s) that those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do,
namely access to the wealth of knowledge/experience of those on the
mailing lists ...
I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous to
the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by ppl like
PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php
As long as the web page maintainers are going to the trouble of taking a
survey, might I (at the risk of being tarred and feathered :-p) suggest
a more thorough survey?
Suggested questions:
(1) If there were a USENET newsfeed, under comp.databases.postgresql.*,
of one or more of the current postgresql mailing lists, I would
(a) use USENET primarily,
(b) use both USENET and the mailing lists,
(c) use the mailing lists primarily,
(d) unsubsribe from the mailing lists and use neither, or
(e) not sure at this time.
(2) If there were a separate USENET comp.databases.postgresql newsgroup
created, I would
(a) use the separate USENET newsgroup primarily,
(b) use both the separate USENET newsgroup and the mailing lists,
(c) use the mailing lists primarily,
(d) unsubsribe from the mailing lists and use neither, or
(e) not sure at this time.
(3) Concerning USENET, I would prefer
(a) that the mailing lists be gated to USENET,
(b) that the mailing lists and USENET be kept seperate,
(c) that USENET go take a leap <;-/, or
(d) not sure at this time.
(4) If the mailing lists are gated to USENET, I would prefer
(a) that the current SPAM moderation policy apply to both,
(b) that no moderation occur on either USENET or the lists,
(c) that kooks who post to USENET be tarred and feathered 8-*, or
(d) not sure at this time.
Please not that this is not an attempt at a survey, see 3c and 4c. It is
only a suggestion.
--
Joel Rees <rees@ddcom.co.jp>
digitcom, inc. 株式会社デジコム
Kobe, Japan +81-78-672-8800
** <http://www.ddcom.co.jp> **
rees@ddcom.co.jp (Joel) wrote in news:20041201102418.F4DC.REES@ddcom.co.jp: (crosspost added to news.groups) > As long as the web page maintainers are going to the trouble of taking a > survey, might I (at the risk of being tarred and feathered :-p) suggest > a more thorough survey? > > Suggested questions: > > (1) If there were a USENET newsfeed, under comp.databases.postgresql.*, > of one or more of the current postgresql mailing lists, I would > > (a) use USENET primarily, > (b) use both USENET and the mailing lists, > (c) use the mailing lists primarily, > (d) unsubsribe from the mailing lists and use neither, or > (e) not sure at this time. That is not likely to happen. The proponent has already submitted a new proposal for a single standalone comp.* group (comp.databases.postgresql), with no gating to any of the lists. > (2) If there were a separate USENET comp.databases.postgresql newsgroup > created, I would > > (a) use the separate USENET newsgroup primarily, > (b) use both the separate USENET newsgroup and the mailing lists, > (c) use the mailing lists primarily, > (d) unsubsribe from the mailing lists and use neither, or > (e) not sure at this time. > > (3) Concerning USENET, I would prefer > > (a) that the mailing lists be gated to USENET, > (b) that the mailing lists and USENET be kept seperate, > (c) that USENET go take a leap <;-/, or > (d) not sure at this time. > > (4) If the mailing lists are gated to USENET, I would prefer > > (a) that the current SPAM moderation policy apply to both, > (b) that no moderation occur on either USENET or the lists, > (c) that kooks who post to USENET be tarred and feathered 8-*, or > (d) not sure at this time. I like "C". ;-) > Please not that this is not an attempt at a survey, see 3c and 4c. It is > only a suggestion.
Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in news:coj22u$2h1j$2@news.hub.org: > barbara@bookpro.com writes: > >>On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> >>wrote: > >>>Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in >>>news:coi503$28u4$1@news.hub.org: >>> >>>> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* >>>> comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... >>>> this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that >>>> those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of >>>> knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... >>>> >>>> I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous >>>> to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by >>>> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >>>> >>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php >>> >>>Trying to sway the vote? > >>There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try >>to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. > >>Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not >>that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. > > Actually, I didn't find Bill's comment 'combative' ... :) Nor was it intended to be that way. :-) -- Bill
Re: [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
From
Marc@pyrenet.fr, G.Fournier@pyrenet.fr,
From@pyrenet.fr:
Date:
barbara@bookpro.com writes: >On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> >wrote: >>Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in >>news:coi503$28u4$1@news.hub.org: >> >>> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* >>> comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... >>> this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that >>> those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of >>> knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... >>> >>> I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous >>> to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by >>> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >>> >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php >> >>Trying to sway the vote? >There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try >to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. >Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not >that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. Actually, I didn't find Bill's comment 'combative' ... :) as to 'swaying the vote' ... by no means, since few on the lists would know how/where to vote in the first place ...
barbara@bookpro.com wrote in news:10qq1himlsia918@corp.supernews.com: >>Trying to sway the vote? > > There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try > to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. I didn't say that he was not entitled. > Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? Please follow your own advice, Barbara. -- Bill
Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in news:coi503$28u4$1@news.hub.org: > bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com (Bill Harris) writes: > >>"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > >>> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch >>> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > >>> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there >>> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that >>> is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news >>> reader vs a mail reader ... > >>FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a >>comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET >>guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL >>in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* >>hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the >>norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the >>immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at >>the time. > > Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* > comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... > this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that > those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of > knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... > > I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous > to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by > ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php Trying to sway the vote? -- Bill
On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote: >Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in >news:coi503$28u4$1@news.hub.org: > >> bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com (Bill Harris) writes: >> >>>"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: >> >>>> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch >>>> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" >> >>>> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there >>>> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that >>>> is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news >>>> reader vs a mail reader ... >> >>>FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a >>>comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET >>>guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL >>>in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* >>>hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the >>>norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the >>>immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at >>>the time. >> >> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* >> comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... >> this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that >> those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of >> knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... >> >> I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous >> to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by >> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php > >Trying to sway the vote? There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. BW
Woodchuck Bill wrote: >> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php > > Trying to sway the vote? > > Well, you have to admit that for _developers_, email is probably better. But remember developers are probably less than 1% of all PostgreSQL users. PostgreSQL is very popular, and is most likely among the most widely used BSD licensed projects. Ultimately, the RFD is about providing a place for _Usenet_ PostgreSQL users who have been neglected for quite some time. With the ease of posting to the big 8 group, and the very large propegation, I can see why the comp.databases.postgresql group will be very popular. I originally tried to include the developers so they could follow the comp PostgreSQL group through their mailing list, but that proved too technically difficult. If they want to follow what will be a huge PostgreSQL usenet community in the big 8, they will have to subscribe to comp.databases.postgresql. :-)
On 11/30/2004 5:55 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: > Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in > news:coi503$28u4$1@news.hub.org: > >> bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com (Bill Harris) writes: >> >>>"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: >> >>>> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch >>>> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" >> >>>> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there >>>> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that >>>> is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news >>>> reader vs a mail reader ... >> >>>FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a >>>comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET >>>guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL >>>in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* >>>hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the >>>norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the >>>immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at >>>the time. >> >> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* >> comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... >> this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that >> those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of >> knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... Which is all the contributing developers, all the key people in the project. So that newsgroup whould be for whom? >> >> I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous >> to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by >> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php > > Trying to sway the vote? Perhaps. The long term solution for this incompatibility seems clear to me. Set it up as a moderated newsgroups under pgsql.* and have the moderator bot respond with a fixed "if you want your message to be read by all PostgreSQL community members, you must post to the underlying mailing list ..." with a reference how to do the nomail subscribe etc. and the gateway setting Follow-Up-To: and so on so that news-lurkers usually mail it to the list server anyway. Everything else will lead to constant work on Marc's side, delayed or double posts, all the crap people have been complaining about. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
barbara@bookpro.com writes:
> On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Trying to sway the vote?
> There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try
> to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes.
Both of you are under the illusion that this was a Usenet discussion.
Marc was asking the members of *a mailing list* whether they'd consider
moving over to a Usenet group as a substitute. By my count the vote so
far was 99% "no way", so you should stop supposing that the core list
membership cares about Usenet. We could care less, and the more we hear
from the likes of gburnore the more we are inclined to install a solid
firewall between us and you.
There are however a fair number of people who prefer to use newsreader
interfaces to read the PG discussions, and for their sakes I'd like to
find an amicable solution. As someone who retired from newsadmin'ing
a dozen years ago, I'm not about to defend the rogue
comp.databases.postgresql groups --- that was poorly done from the
start. But can't we fix it and move on?
> Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not
> that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion.
Indeed.
regards, tom lane
On 11/30/2004 5:27 PM, Mike Cox wrote: > Ultimately, the RFD is about providing a place for _Usenet_ PostgreSQL users > who have been neglected for quite some time. With the ease of posting to > the big 8 group, and the very large propegation, I can see why the > comp.databases.postgresql group will be very popular. I originally tried > to include the developers so they could follow the comp PostgreSQL group > through their mailing list, but that proved too technically difficult. > > If they want to follow what will be a huge PostgreSQL usenet community in > the big 8, they will have to subscribe to comp.databases.postgresql. :-) Mike, I do recognize your honesty and good intentions. You originally tried to scratch an itch of many people. That is, that the PostgreSQL newsgroups were not carried by their NSP. In doing so, you have opened a can of worms (happens). As usual, a once opened can of worms can only be re-canned by using a bigger can. If you think that telling 99% of the "knowledge" on these mailing lists that they are only 1% of the users and that a huge PostgreSQL usenet community will discuss a lot of interesting stuff aside of them will change much, you're wrong ;-) I have been contributing to things via USENET and whatnot for over 15 years and all I know is that people either make the mistake to abandon a good open source product (and pay bucks to some greedy company instead) or they find the way to the forum, where the real "knowledge" is answering, and stop reading the unproductive mailing lists or newsgroups at all. Many of the PostgreSQL contributors are like me - long standing open source developers, contributors, people who left USENET behind years ago and who know that for "them" nothing will change as long as they don't unsubscribe from the mailing lists, no matter what happens on a newsgroup. The committed users will follow where we go and the professional users are there already, waiting for us. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Am 2004-12-01 10:45:51, schrieb Joel: > Suggested questions: > > (1) If there were a USENET newsfeed, under comp.databases.postgresql.*, > of one or more of the current postgresql mailing lists, I would > (c) use the mailing lists primarily, > (2) If there were a separate USENET comp.databases.postgresql newsgroup > created, I would > (c) use the mailing lists primarily, > (3) Concerning USENET, I would prefer > (b) that the mailing lists and USENET be kept seperate, > (4) If the mailing lists are gated to USENET, I would prefer > (a) that the current SPAM moderation policy apply to both, > (c) that kooks who post to USENET be tarred and feathered 8-*, or > Please not that this is not an attempt at a survey, see 3c and 4c. It is > only a suggestion. For me a recomand :-) Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)