thunderbird in German?
freebsd at edvax.de
Sat Aug 10 11:35:24 UTC 2019
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 22:50:00 +0200, hw wrote:
> 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.
Are there limits? If yes, where?
You can see exaggeration regarding limits in some web pages:
They want to provide functions the web browser already delivers,
like bookmarking, printing, fonts & sizes, and the "back button"
of course. Is this needed? Probably not. Is it done? Of course.
> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > 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.
But the error message isn't any helpful! What does "(gimp:3022):
GLib-WARNING **: goption.c:2132: ignoring no-arg, optional-arg
or filename flags (8) on option of type 0" want to tell me? What
have I done wrong, what should I do instead? Or about what does
the program want to inform me? I have no idea... in my opinion,
those messages belong into a "debugging enabled" mode.
> > Maybe I should decorate my programs with such warnings, too? ;-)
> As long as they work gracefully even under adverse conditions, nobody
> would mind.
***warning***critical***: program: File foo.txt , index 4.
Yes, this definitely helps. ;-)
> >> 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
If you compare web pages, they strangely "all" look the same,
more or less, and most of them are boring. "Flat design" which
is currently modern requires lots of screen real estate, to
provide what could fit nicely on a 80x25 text screen... ;-)
> > 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.
Not possible, because it's required by regulations that you
use _that_ program for the specific purpose, because only
_that_ program exists and is certified. Oh, and of course
you have to pay for the privilege to use it. It also does
not remember your 4-part access credentials, you need to
type them in for every session.
> >> > 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?
A good question. Common sense, logic, established standards and
generally accepted procedures should be applied, but of course
not with a stupid strictness that stops developers from creating
new and good features.
> 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 ...
Computers are fast and powerful, but programs consume more
resources. The quotient
resources provided by computer
------------------------------ = const.
resources consumed by program
seems to apply. Computers get faster, programs get more bloated,
result of "speed of use" stays the same. Sure, you cannot say
that everywhere, for example, media encoders are much more
pleasant to use than 10 or 15 years ago, but just have a look
at the load times of "modern" web pages. Compare that to "old"
web pages on old computers. Notice something? It didn't get
> > 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.
I'll ask Adobe if their developers open so many black PDFs. :-)
> It's like the retards who are sending HTML and think it's an email, [...]
There are lots of real companies that you can pay for designing
you "HTML e-mails", usually for presenting ads and tracking the
> [...] 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?
They are designers and developers. Some of them even have a few
typography skills. They assume the web as a pixel-perfect medium,
and they design for it as if it was a brochure or billboard ad.
Only a narrow subset of devices will display the web page the
same way as the designer sees and intends it. But as long as
he can present something in the meeting that pleases the PHB,
his job is safe. For now. :-)
The Opera web browser has a handy button I call "Blatt / Männchen"
(paper / man) where you can switch from what the designers coded
in HTML and CSS to _nothing_ (browser defaults). This button makes
a lot of web pages readable!
> >> >> >> 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.
In my opinion, you can try to help those who want to escape the
vicious cycle of stupidity and consumption, but it will work only
in very few cases, I fear...
> > [...]
> >> >> 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
This is something I have in mind for decades: Imagine a ballot
where you can only "unvote". You select the parties or candidates
that you feel won't be good for the job. At a certain "aversion
rate", a party has to be dissolved because it has no backing in
the society - because voters have shown (!) the opposite. Combine
this with personal (!) responsibility where it makes sense, and
you will see that only those who _can_ do a certain job will be
elected into that job.
> >> >> 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.
Do that. It would be a good feature, because the action "double-
click on attachment" currently does nothing, whereas the action
"open with" can be selected from the context menu if needed,
just like "save" or "save all".
> >> [...]
> >> 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.
Not a button, but if you double-click on a file icon, the file
will be opened with the associated program; if no such program
is defined, a dialog will request one, with the option to make
the choice permanent.
> >> 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.
Sylpheed does not render HTML. In a case where the email contains
additional HTML, it's presented as an attachment. If you click
on it, it looks the same like the text version because (as I said)
HTML will not be rendered. If _only_ HTML is present (which
violates the standard), it will be displayed like text. Replying
will _always_ use text, as intended.
> >> > 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".
After installation of the required programs (!), at least on
"Windows" it tends to work that way. On the Linux desktop,
xdg-open, using MIME types, is the preferred way of doing
things, according to the X Desktop Group. So it should apply
to FreeBSD as well, but not all desktops and of course not
all programs seem to support it. This, in my opinion, is
because all the desktops do so many things differently
that a consensus is hard to reach.
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions