thunderbird in German?

[hw]

Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> writes:

> On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 02:28:19 +0200, hw wrote:
>> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 02:07:00 +0200, hw wrote:
>> >> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 22:10:56 +0200, hw wrote:
>> >> >> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 01:22:42 +0200, hw wrote:
>> >> >> >> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> 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.
>
> A neccessary one, it seems...

It's not necessary; only the functionality needs to be kept within
reasonable limits.


> [...]
>> >
>> > 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?
>
> No, it works as intended, no problems. Just those messages.

Maybe then there isn't a problem --- and/or it means that Gimp handles
broken files gracefully.

> Maybe I should decorate my programs with such warnings, too? ;-)

As long as they work gracefully even under adverse conditions, nobody
would mind.

> [...]
>> > 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 ...
>
> You need to "exceed" the education you receive to _recognize_
> that it is poor. If the education works on you, you will be
> sure you got the best education available. :-)

It's one way of becoming extinct.  Perhaps that's for the better.

>> 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
>> usable.
>
> Yes, because even though programs have common ways for inter-
> action (the known GUI elements), they serve different purposes
> and therefore it's _significant_ to provide an interaction that
> matches the task you want to perform with the program.

That doesn't mean everything has to look the same and needs to be
boring.

> Example (seen a few days ago): An accounting program, data entry:
> You need to click on every input field in order to enter the
> data with the beyboard.

That sucks.

> Some fields have a button where you can open a "calculator-like"
> screen keyboard for numbers. But for letters, there's none. You cannot
> use TAB or cursor keys or ENTER to advance fields. Can you imagine how
> annoying it must be to enter pages and pages of information to that
> stupid program? Oh - and you cannot feed external data...

I would refuse to use such a crap.

>> > 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?
>
> If the cursor changes for a good reason, it's acceptable,

Who is to decide what is a good reason and what isn't?

I have spent so much time waiting on computers that I don't want a
pointer or anything to change to an icon which indicates that the
computer is busy with something.  I want that something done and not a
busy computer.  Even that emacs is single threaded is very annoying at
times ...

> but what about a program changing my normal black mouse cursot to an
> ugly white one? It's a PDF viewer, nothing more! It doesn't switch to
> any other cursor shape (like Gimp: cross cursor for selection, paint
> can cursor, brush cursor and so on).

Perhaps who decided it should change has got lots of black PDFs and
needs this to indicate that the PDF viewer has the focus.

It's like the retards who are sending HTML and think it's an email, or
web pages trying to use their own fonts as if the idiot designing the
page had any idea what it might look like on my screen and what fonts I
like and which ones not.  Who do they think they are?

>> >> >> 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.
>
> People have learned to accept it.

It's only an aquired stupidity --- which they are planning to spend EUR
5 billion on to make more people more stupid.

That you can't protect anyone against their own stupidity doesn't mean
you should support it, unless you're a big meanie.

> [...]
>> >> 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 ...
>
> Elections miss a "none of those", which is problematic especially
> in Germany where shit is offered in different tastes; interestingly,
> if I remember correctly, India (!) has a "none of those" option...

That isn't enough.  The only votes possible should be against someone or
something, and what- or whoever has the least votes against it or them
wins.

> [...]
>> If I only could make Sylpheed remember which program to use to open
>> which kind of attachment with ...
>
> I haven't found a way to do that conveniently. Or at least
> _one_ program to open anything with a doubleclick. I think
> there is some OpenDesktop opener - xdgopen - which can be
> called for any file type and will then perform the required
> action.

if that is the desired action ...

I'll have to see how the users like it.  I'm giving them both options.

>> >> 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.
>
> I have learned to live with it, but I find it annoying, too.

Hm, that's really bad.  Maybe I should make a feature request.

>> [...]
>> 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?
>
> This is the concept of the common file associations in file
> managers. Sylpheed could pick that idea up.

File managers don't have a button like that.

>> Why do I even have to "open" the attachment rather than Sylpheed
>> displaying it inline like it does with images?  Libreoffice is open
>> source ...
>
> Because that's problematic. Inline image viewer - yes, not
> that complicated. PDF renderer? More complicated. HTML renderer,
> with CSS and JS? Very complicated, better embed a browser
> session. Office documents? With macros? Oh, _very_ dangerous.
> MP3 files? A player would have to be mebedded. There are just
> too many possibilities and no one size fits all eierlegende
> Wollmilchsau mit Goldfüßen und Glockenspiel. :-)

Then why is the HTML junk optionally displayed?  That isn't an email and
nothing I would want to see.

As to choosing the desired program, programs simply need to support
some standard for being embedded into other programs, and users could
choose.  But wait ... users nowadays don't have preferences and you can
just pick the program for them.

>> > 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.
>
> Exactly. That's why Thunderbird does a better job in this case.
> It "just works". Have a PDF attachment - doubleclick - system's
> PDF viewer opens it.

Where do you live?  It doesn't work that way, especially not "just".

What happens is that the user calls you and you have to pick a PDF
viewer for them after installing one they can use.  The difference to
Sylpheed is that you need to do that only once in a while rather than
for every PDF they want to print.  Sometimes, you need to use another
PDF viewer for them because the default one is unable to print
something.  Meanwhile, the users blame you for their own incompetence.

>> 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.
>
> So there's sufficient space for improvement. :-)

The feature just hasn't been thought about, let alone thought through.