thunderbird in German?

hw hw at
Wed Aug 7 00:44:45 UTC 2019

Polytropon <freebsd at> writes:

> On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 02:07:00 +0200, hw wrote:
>> Polytropon <freebsd at> writes:
>> > On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 22:10:56 +0200, hw wrote:
>> >> Polytropon <freebsd at> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 01:22:42 +0200, hw wrote:
>> >> >> Polytropon <freebsd at> writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> [...]
>> > While it has been good practice for decades to use -Wall and its
>> > equivalents, it doesn't seem to be important anymore.  Compile time
>> > errors and warnings are irrelevant just as runtime warnings and
>> > errors.
>> My impression is that software is now generally much more stable than it
>> used to be.  I don't know why, perhaps better tools became available.
> Yes, program stability has improved, especially for web browsers.
> But it's more than fair to acknowledge that the complexity of a
> web browser is comparable to the complexity of a whole operating
> system.

Web browsers are evil.

>> > You can easily verify this by launching any "modern" Gtk or Qt program
>> > from a terminal, say, Firefox, Gimp, and so on.
>> You mean the messages they're printing and nobody knows what they are
>> about?  I have written a small program in perl that uses Gtk and it
>> prints a message when I quit it.  There is no reason for it to do that,
>> so what should I do:
>>         (in cleanup)  (in cleanup)  at
>> /usr/local/lib/perl/ line 163 during global destruction.
>> Line 163 disconnects from the database, using the disconnect method of
>> DBI.  There is no such message in programs without Gtk, doing the same
>> thing, using the same source.  It seems such messages show up for no
>> reason.
> I'm refering to things that seem to signal an error or a condition
> that should never appear.

Who says that the message I'm getting doesn't?

> Here are a few:
> 	(gimp:3022): GLib-WARNING **:
> 	goption.c:2132: ignoring no-arg,
> 	optional-arg or filename flags (8) on option of type 0
> 	(gimp:3022): Gimp-Display-CRITICAL **:
> 	render_image_tile_fault: assertion `tile[4] != NULL' failed
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	(gimp:3022): Gtk-CRITICAL **:
> 	IA__gtk_icon_info_load_icon: assertion `icon_info != NULL' failed
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	(gimp:3022): Gimp-Display-CRITICAL **:
> 	render_image_tile_fault: assertion `tile[4] != NULL' failed
> 	(gimp:3022): Gtk-CRITICAL **:
> 	IA__gtk_icon_info_load_icon: assertion `icon_info != NULL' failed
> 	(gimp:3022): Gimp-Base-WARNING **:
> 	tile ref count balance: 20
> 	(process:3532): Gtk-WARNING **:
> 	Locale not supported by C library.
>         Using the fallback 'C' locale.
> 	(gimp:4511): Gtk-CRITICAL **:
> 	IA__gtk_icon_info_load_icon: assertion `icon_info != NULL' failed
> 	libpng warning: zero length keyword
> 	libpng warning: Empty language field in iTXt chunk
> 	end from FAM server connection
> 	end from FAM server connection
> A few can be explained (the last one probably refers to a damaged
> or nonstandard PNG file), but the others are warnings and "CRITICAL",
> where I think this should have been addressed during testing. Do
> they still do testing today? :-)

I don't know.  Did Gimp crash or something?

>> > Churning out new versions and new features often seems to be
>> > more important that fixing bugs or working against bad decisions.
>> > Doing it right for everyone is impossible, I know, but a certain
>> > amount of "good old common sense" should be applied more. :-)
>> These kids don't have that.  How could they?
> Need more download brain apps from smartphone. :-)

That won't help ...

In some way, it's hard to blame them because they never learned how much
can be done with 64kB of RAM and how "fast" computers can be.  I was
gona say you can't really blame them for the total failure of the
educational system, but when they can protest against climate change, I
have to say they should long ago have protested much more against the
poor education they're getting.  I suppose they have been told one thing
and not the other, so they try to go the easier way ...

>> >> > Because it's left to the users to find out how to do "nonstandard"
>> >> > things like intending to change the interface language. Because
>> >> > all the world only the English always! ;-)
>> >> 
>> >> and right handed, of course
>> >
>> > Remember that traditional X (and X applications using the XMotif
>> > and Xaw / Xaw3d toolkits, if I remember correctly) provides a
>> > "/ shaped" mouse pointer (instead of the traditional \ one), and
>> > it can be enabled with "xsetroot -cursor_name right_ptr". However,
>> > some programs use their own mouse pointer, and it will change
>> > as soon as you point into such a window...
>> That's the same stupid idea as is behind programs insisting on doing
>> the job of the window manager by drawing their own decorations.
> Exactly. I don't get that idea anyway. Traditionally on X, you have
> programs using different toolkits, and that's okay, because there is
> no "one size fits all" kind of eierlegende Wollmilchsau GUI toolkit.
> Inconsistent?

What is more inconsistent than programs doing with their windows
whatever they want rather than what I have configured the WM for to do
with /all/ windows alike?

It already takes a ridiculous amount of force to prevent seamonkey and
firefox from placing their windows off screen where they remain
unreachable and making them larger than the screen and such. Thunderbird
is probably not any different, but I haven't noticed for I'm forcing all
windows since the last time this kind of misbehaving caused trouble.

> Sure, but nobody cares. Those who claim that visual consistency is
> "needed" are scared today after discovering that it doesn't exist, not
> even on Mac (and "Windows" lost GUI consistency decades ago).

I don't want all the windows to look the same, that's ugly and boring,
and some need to be handled differently than others for things to be

> A program's job is _not_ to do what the window manager does. A program
> can request to be handled in a different way, for exaple, without
> a window decoration (like XMMS MP3 player where it doesn't make sense,
> or little utilities in the "system corner" like xconsole, xbiff,
> xclock, xload, xcpufreq, etc.). But programs sometimes used their
> own ugly white _mouse cursor_ for no reason! Using a specific
> mouse cursor is normal for tools like Gimp, xfig, even LibreOffice.
> But generic programs? Why?

Like emacs using a particular pointer to indicate that it is busy when
configured to do so can make sense.  If it couldn't do that, it would
need to somehow tell the WM that it's busy and the WM would have to
change the pointer on some or all windows --- and if it would be done
like that rather than emacs changing the pointer, people would say the
WM and emacs are bloated.  Or are they, or is X11 bloated for allowing
to change pointers?

>> >> But when you use the trackball with your left hand, [...]
>> >
>> > That's entirely wrong. You don't use a trackball because it
>> > does not exist. Everyone uses a mouse (old people) or taps on
>> > the screen (young people). ;-)
>> Dunno, I've already been way ahead of those tiny tap-screens 35 years
>> ago when I used an old black-and-white TV as a display for my computer.
>> I could see everything on it, and I could even program the computer
>> which made it rather useful, and, imagine that, without being spied upon
>> and without being controlled by anyone else.  So I don't understand how
>> anyone can put up with the useless crap you have to tap on while you
>> can't see anything and achieve nothing.
> That's totally intended. :-)

That doesn't mean people have to put with it.

>> >> [...] you suddenly notice
>> >> how wrong all the GUIs are designed.  The old X programs can have the
>> >> scroll bar on the left no problem, but all the new stuff is so great
>> >> because it's immature and you have to click the like buttons nonetheless
>> >> (even if you can't reach them because they're at odd locations).
>> >
>> > This is called "to explore". ;-)
>> Hallowed are the like buttons!  Who presses the greatest number of them
>> will be rewarded with the most friends of them all!
> I prefer the dislike buttons, I'd be tempted to click on _those_
> rather than the Facebook spy machine's ones. :-)

The problem is always that there are no such buttons.  Think of
elections, too ...

>> >> >> >> Is this a general problem
>> >> >> >> with the language pack or something specific to FreeBSD?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not FreeBSD-specific. It's one of the typical problems of
>> >> >> > "constant change" when dealing with Mozilla software... :-/
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Is there a usable alternative to Thunderbird for an IMAP client?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, Sylpheed is a lightweight and still very convenient and
>> >> > usable MUA. It supports IMAP (as well as SMTP and POP3, which
>> >> > is so obvious that I don't need to mention it).
>> >> 
>> >> Hm.  I'll try that out, thanks.  If that is in German, the users can
>> >> decide what causes them more confusion: the same program they're used to
>> >> in English but German or a new program they've never used, but in German.
>> >
>> > Sylpheed is in any language you want (English and German verified),
>> > depending on what $LC_* says.
>> I tried it yesterday, and it has come a long way.  I think the last time
>> I tried it, it was called slightly different with claws, and it crashed
>> all the time.
> Yes, I had the same problem on FreeBSD/AMD64. I'm not using the
> Claws version ("Claws mail" today? I don't know due to the many
> name chances...) and I'm more than happy with it. It does what
> I want, and even better (!): It does _not_ do what I _don't_ want
> it to do, like rendering HTML, automatically open attachments,
> or other nonsense. It also integrates well with my mailing setup,
> a nonstandard configuration that "modern" MUAs probably cannot
> even be configured to attach to, because there's "only one way"
> to access mail.


If I only could make Sylpheed remember which program to use to open
which kind of attachment with ...

>> It starts like 10 times faster than Thunderbird and even
>> lets me use emacs.
> Yes, you can use an external editor. The file selection dialogs
> are also better than the modern "tablet mode oriented" ones.
> And it doesn't have a calender. And no add-ins, add-ons,
> extensions, and the like. Still you can configure a lot, like
> generating mail as text, using the preferred encoding...

Text is default as it should be ... :)

>> Writing any email that is more than two sentences
>> with Thunderbird or seamonkey is always a pain because their built-in
>> editor sucks so badly and they force you to use it.
> You can still get it a little better, but you need to go into
> the configuration dialogs and change a lot - change it _back_
> to sane defaults.

Emacs keybindings were the default for the mail client built into
seamonkey and later Thunderbird?  That must have been over 20 years ago

>> But I haven't figured out how to make it so that libreoffice instead of
>> gedit is the default program to open spreadsheets attached to
>> emails.
> Right-click on attachment, select "Open with", enter the command
> needed for this file type, and it will be saved.

It saves only the command and not when to use it.  That is way too
complicated for the users because they need not only to remember to pick
it but also which one.

And it's _very_ annoying.  There are a lot of spreadsheets being sent as
emails as part of some workflows.  It sucks that I have to use yet
another menu, pick from there what I want to do, pick from another menu
in yet another window that appears somewhere else on the screen
(MinOverlapPlacement) what program to use to open the attachment after
remembering what I wanted when I started, to finally be able to work
with the spreadsheed eventually.  Why can't there be a button at the
attachment I can click on to open the attachment with the program I
once, and only once, picked for it?

Why do I even have to "open" the attachment rather than Sylpheed
displaying it inline like it does with images?  Libreoffice is open
source ...

> For example, I have two different commands for PDF attachments -
> simply because I sometimes need program A, sometimes program B,
> depending on the PDF file.

Users don't have that.  Even I don't have different programs to open
spreadsheets.  I don't have them for PDFs, either, but that's only
because Thunderbird and Firefox aren't able to remember that I have
them, and I can't be bothered to browse the file system to pick one or
the other every other time --- especially not because I only have two
because the so-called "document viewer" (that is evince, IIRC) takes
ages (like a minute) before displaying a PDF while mupdf displays it
right away.  But mupdf isn't ideal for printing ...

Even if everyone had lots of programs to open PDFs and spreadsheets,
Sylpheed should nonetheless be able to remember them all and have a
button to straightforwardly use the one picked for the purpose to open
an attachment.  It is rather unlikely that I would want to use all or
even several of them to open that attachment and more likely that I do
want to use the program I want to use for it, so what the heck.

I guess that's the kind of thinking that has been lost for some reason
and leads to stupid things like every program wanting to be its own
window manager.  Isn't that something "desktop environments" are for,
making it easier to open attachments?  Why are they doing the opposite
of what they are for?  Or does Evolution do that?

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list