In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
it's all about.

Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
way to get the developers to forget the equation:
SUPERNOVA = climax ?
In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
appreciated than what it replaces.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 28-Nov-2023 17:46, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
> it's all about.
>
> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>         SUPERNOVA = climax ?
> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
> appreciated than what it replaces.

Maybe switch to Betterbird?

https://www.betterbird.eu/

On 29 Nov 2023 00:11, EnDeeGee wrote:
> Maybe switch to Betterbird?
>
> https://www.betterbird.eu/

From <b0c7.eae6.dcsmm.834bbird@barghahn-online.de> from the German NG
de.comm.software.mozilla.mailnews:

https://www.barghahn-online.de/Pictures/bb_threadlinien.png

That user styled the lines in his userChrome.css.

You can even change the indentation:

tr[is="thread-row"] .subject-line {
margin-inline-start: calc(10px * var(--thread-level)) !important;
}

/* Indent "alignment column" as well.
tr[is="thread-row"][multiline="true"] td[alignmentcolumn="true"] {
padding-left: calc(6px + 10px * var(--thread-level)) !important;
}

In the original it's 16px instead of 10px.

--
Viele Grüße, Jörg
Sent with Betterbird. Simply better. www.betterbird.eu
Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich: Kaum macht man's richtig, schon
funktioniert's!

On 11/28/23 05:46 PM, this is what Jeff Barnett wrote:
> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy of threads were shown with connecting lines.
> That is no longer true. It is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads seem to be longer than
> before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what it's all about.
>
> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>         SUPERNOVA = climax ?
> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human factors types), and don't release such crap until it
> will be more appreciated than what it replaces.
It's been reported to developers. Not sure what they will do, but someone expressed your exact comments. Without the
line, threads are useless. The onset of card layout seems to have pushed this idea to the side. When you view as cards
and not as table you don't see how things are threaded.

It's a shame. I had my Thunderbird fixed up so nicely in 102.
https://postimg.cc/TyBz6c0c It was so nice, the blue arrows showed items I replied to.
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

Am 28.11.23 um 23:46 schrieb Jeff Barnett:
> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
> it's all about.
>
> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
> SUPERNOVA = climax ?
> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
> appreciated than what it replaces.

Are you trying to troll here? Like a small kid?

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
> Without the
> line, threads are useless.

LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
view in both cases perfectly right.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Jeff Barnett wrote:

> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
> of threads were shown with connecting lines.
> Is there anyway to restore the old style display?

No, but what I do now is ensure the message pane header is
visible/expanded then click on the "in reply to" reference to jump to
the parent article.

Big Al wrote:

> I had my Thunderbird fixed up so nicely in 102. It was so nice, the
> blue arrows showed items I replied to.

With v115 I still get a left/purple arrow showing items I have replied
to, and a right/blue arrow showing items I have forwarded.

On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>> Without the
>> line, threads are useless.
>
> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
> view in both cases perfectly right.

That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
with them?

--

Jeff

On 29.11.23 10:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>>> Without the
>>> line, threads are useless.
>>
>> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
>> view in both cases perfectly right.
>
> That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
> lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
> saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
> with them?

Exactly. The reason why is very simple.

--
Sent with Betterbird by a Penguin.
Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

On 29.11.23 10:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>>> Without the
>>> line, threads are useless.
>>
>> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
>> view in both cases perfectly right.
>
> That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
> lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
> saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
> with them?

Exactly.

--
Sent with Betterbird by a Penguin.
Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

On 29-Nov-2023 07:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> On 29.11.23 10:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>>>> Without the
>>>> line, threads are useless.
>>>
>>> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
>>> view in both cases perfectly right.
>>
>> That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
>> lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
>> saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
>> with them?
>
> Exactly. The reason why is very simple.
>

LOL ...and the reason is?

On 29.11.23 16:21, Serdu wrote:
> On 29-Nov-2023 07:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 29.11.23 10:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>>>>> Without the
>>>>> line, threads are useless.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
>>>> view in both cases perfectly right.
>>>
>>> That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
>>> lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
>>> saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
>>> with them?
>>
>> Exactly. The reason why is very simple.
>>
>
>
> LOL ...and the reason is?

Try to find out on your own. Keyword: Indendation.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 11/28/2023 4:41 PM, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2023 00:11, EnDeeGee wrote:
>> Maybe switch to Betterbird?
>>
>> https://www.betterbird.eu/
>
> From <b0c7.eae6.dcsmm.834bbird@barghahn-online.de> from the German NG
> de.comm.software.mozilla.mailnews:
>
> https://www.barghahn-online.de/Pictures/bb_threadlinien.png
>
> That user styled the lines in his userChrome.css.
>
> You can even change the indentation:
>
> tr[is="thread-row"] .subject-line {
>   margin-inline-start: calc(10px * var(--thread-level)) !important;
> }
>
> /* Indent "alignment column" as well.
> tr[is="thread-row"][multiline="true"] td[alignmentcolumn="true"] {
>   padding-left: calc(6px + 10px * var(--thread-level)) !important;
> }
I don't want to program TB; I want to use it! And you seem to be talking
about "the user" who styled etc. Wrong. That's the way TB worked from
the day I moved over from Netscape.
>
> In the original it's 16px instead of 10px.
>

On 11/28/2023 11:43 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 28.11.23 um 23:46 schrieb Jeff Barnett:
>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
>> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
>> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
>> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
>> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
>> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
>> it's all about.
>>
>> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
>> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>>           SUPERNOVA = climax ?
>> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
>> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
>> appreciated than what it replaces.
>
> Are you trying to troll here? Like a small kid?
Absolutely not.
Rather I'm simply disgusted with the tasteless changes made to TB
without polling users or anyone else for that matter.
This is crap where some "programmers" think that because they well know
implementation details entails that they must be at a genius level in
knowing what a good design is for users (WHO WANT TO REMAIN USERS AND
NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THE INNARDS).
---- Similar story from the past ----
I was at USC ISI in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We had a Xerox XGP
that was a giant copy machine that a computer could supply the image to
put on its drum rather than using its scanner. Ours was feed by a PDP11
that was part of our internal network. In other words, this was an early
implementation of the network enabled laser printers that you can buy
for a few hundred dollars today.
Rube Goldberg made other appearances with the XGP: it could only use 10
different fonts on any give page; there was a serious restriction on
font storage; and the beast arrived with only a few font fragments.
There were a few non-font related issues from Rube also but there not
part of the story so I'll skip them.
Now let's set the XGP limitations aside and list a few of another kind:
There was no uniformity or rhyme nor reason in the font sizes we had; in
other words there was no such thing as a font family. Fonts the were
supposed to be of the same family disagreed on such things as baseline.
So a line containing Roman and Italics could have say an R and t with
different heights and a q and a j with different length descenders. And
the math character placement was a disaster.
Since ISI was the home of some seriously good programmers, many started
making local repairs and extensions to the fonts. Since they did not
know trivial font design rules such as baseline agreements they simply
piled crap on crap. Recall that Knuth took a partial multi-year
sabbatical to learn typesetting and font design when he start the "Art
of Computer Programming" series and developed TeX and Metafont.
I begged the powers that be at ISI to hire a part-time grad student in
the graphic arts to do the design and let the hackers hack from that.
They never did.
---- Moral of story ----
Mozilla hackers remind me of those in the above story:
1) They don't know the field they practice from a user's viewpoint.
2) They are involved in the fantasy that users are as willing as they
are to wander around the innards of their product. Since addons as a
concept have been deprecated, they expect simple users to write or
borrow code from somewhere to cover their (the implementers) omissions.
3) They have a confused idea of product goals and the cost to users of
bad choices. They somehow have formed the idea that programming that
needs clever code is more important than straightforward implementation
that does what needs to be done. This is where the concept of (digital)
climax and masturbation enters in my original messages.

On 11/29/2023 1:29 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Barnett wrote:
>
>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the
>> hierarchy of threads were shown with connecting lines. Is there anyway
>> to restore the old style display?
>
> No, but what I do now is ensure the message pane header is
> visible/expanded then click on the "in reply to" reference to jump to
> the parent article.

Do you think Mozilla should document that procedure so that those of us
too dense to discover it for ourselves can use it?
--
Jeff Barnett

On 2023-11-29 18:20, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 29.11.23 16:21, Serdu wrote:
>> On 29-Nov-2023 07:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 29.11.23 10:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>>>>>> Without the
>>>>>> line, threads are useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
>>>>> view in both cases perfectly right.
>>>>
>>>> That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
>>>> lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
>>>> saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
>>>> with them?
>>>
>>> Exactly. The reason why is very simple.
>>>
>>
>>
>> LOL ...and the reason is?
>
> Try to find out on your own. Keyword: Indendation.

Nah, that's insufficient.

And as a programmer, I use indentation.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:34:19 -0700, Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
wrote:

>On 11/28/2023 11:43 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 28.11.23 um 23:46 schrieb Jeff Barnett:
>>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
>>> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
>>> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
>>> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
>>> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
>>> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
>>> it's all about.
>>>
>>> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
>>> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>>>           SUPERNOVA = climax ?
>>> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
>>> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
>>> appreciated than what it replaces.
>>
>> Are you trying to troll here? Like a small kid?
>
>Absolutely not.
>
>Rather I'm simply disgusted with the tasteless changes made to TB
>without polling users or anyone else for that matter.

Then why are you bashing your head against *what is* with a freeware
app, and instead finding a suitable (to you) replacement?

On 29.11.23 22:34, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 11/28/2023 11:43 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 28.11.23 um 23:46 schrieb Jeff Barnett:
>>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
>>> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
>>> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
>>> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
>>> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
>>> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
>>> it's all about.
>>>
>>> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
>>> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>>>           SUPERNOVA = climax ?
>>> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
>>> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
>>> appreciated than what it replaces.
>>
>> Are you trying to troll here? Like a small kid?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> Rather I'm simply disgusted with the tasteless changes made to TB
> without polling users or anyone else for that matter.

You are extremely late to the party.
And your wording disqualfies you.
EOD for me.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 29.11.23 23:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-11-29 18:20, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 29.11.23 16:21, Serdu wrote:
>>> On 29-Nov-2023 07:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 29.11.23 10:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> On 29/11/2023 06:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> Am 29.11.23 um 05:09 schrieb Big Al:
>>>>>>> Without the
>>>>>>> line, threads are useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL. They are not. Not at all. I use TB and BB and it is in the threaded
>>>>>> view in both cases perfectly right.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a little ambiguous. I understand that BB still shows thread
>>>>> lines, but TB doesn't (and CSS modifications don't work). Are you simply
>>>>> saying that you find both acceptable - TB without threaded lines and BB
>>>>> with them?
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The reason why is very simple.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL ...and the reason is?
>>
>> Try to find out on your own. Keyword: Indendation.
>
> Nah, that's insufficient.

Obviously it isn't for proficient users. *LOL*

> And as a programmer, I use indentation.

So what! That you are claiming to be programmer is irrelevant in this
context. Completely irrelevant.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Nobody wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:34:19 -0700, Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 11/28/2023 11:43 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 28.11.23 um 23:46 schrieb Jeff Barnett:
>>>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
>>>> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
>>>> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
>>>> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
>>>> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
>>>> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
>>>> it's all about.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
>>>> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>>>>           SUPERNOVA = climax ?
>>>> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
>>>> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
>>>> appreciated than what it replaces.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to troll here? Like a small kid?
>>
>>Absolutely not.
>>
>>Rather I'm simply disgusted with the tasteless changes made to TB
>>without polling users or anyone else for that matter.
>
> Then why are you bashing your head against *what is* with a freeware
> app, and instead finding a suitable (to you) replacement?

I think the answer to that may be the same as my reason for going back to
Thunderbird - it's the best of a bad lot. However, the old users find it
annoying that it is nowhere near as good as it used to be. Mailbird has
distinct limitations, eM Client has different ones, Thunderbird used to be
the best but has been wrecked by the developers, and Outlook, which was
always the gold standard, has been similarly spoilt by unnecessary
modifications.

It's not just Thunderbird , the same applies to many programs, not least
Windows itself, ruined by the need for marketing men and developers to
justify their existence by continually changing things without purpose.
They have lost the ability to change only that which needs improving.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Facebook - a place where people spend all day telling you that they have
nothing to say.

Jeff Barnett wrote:

> On 11/29/2023 1:29 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>
>>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the
>>> hierarchy of threads were shown with connecting lines. Is there anyway
>>> to restore the old style display?
>>
>> No, but what I do now is ensure the message pane header is
>> visible/expanded then click on the "in reply to" reference to jump to
>> the parent article.
>
> Do you think Mozilla should document that procedure so that those of us
> too dense to discover it for ourselves can use it?

Documentation? You jest, I assume. :-) The last decent user manual I
remember was for MSDOS.

Searching for help online is a nightmare (not just for Thunderbird ) and
the difficulty is compounded by umpteen inaccurate guesses (or deliberate
obfuscation) from other people. If it were not for the help of some of the
folk in here, I would have abandoned Thunderbird again as soon as I saw the
new versions getting worse with each release.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

You know you're old when you don't mind where your partner goes out to, so
long as they don't ask you along too.

On 11/30/2023 4:16 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>
>>
>> Then why are you bashing your head against *what is* with a freeware
>> app, and instead finding a suitable (to you) replacement?
>
> I think the answer to that may be the same as my reason for going back to
> Thunderbird - it's the best of a bad lot. However, the old users find it
> annoying that it is nowhere near as good as it used to be. Mailbird has
> distinct limitations, eM Client has different ones, Thunderbird used to be
> the best but has been wrecked by the developers, and Outlook, which was
> always the gold standard, has been similarly spoilt by unnecessary
> modifications.
>

Have you tried Betterbird?
I think it's a definite improvement over Thunderbird, as do others on
this newsgroup.

On 11/30/2023 1:02 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 29.11.23 22:34, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 11/28/2023 11:43 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 28.11.23 um 23:46 schrieb Jeff Barnett:
>>>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the hierarchy
>>>> of threads were shown with connecting lines. That is no longer true. It
>>>> is becoming more and more annoying as time passes because 1) threads
>>>> seem to be longer than before and 2) the tendency to chop stuff out of
>>>> the parent message when replying. Without the hierarchical lines it's
>>>> difficult to find the parent (and maybe its parent) so you can tell what
>>>> it's all about.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anyway to restore the old style display? If not, is there any
>>>> way to get the developers to forget the equation:
>>>>           SUPERNOVA = climax ?
>>>> In other words, quit masturbating, talk to users (or better, human
>>>> factors types), and don't release such crap until it will be more
>>>> appreciated than what it replaces.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to troll here? Like a small kid?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> Rather I'm simply disgusted with the tasteless changes made to TB
>> without polling users or anyone else for that matter.
>
> You are extremely late to the party.
> And your wording disqualfies you.
> EOD for me.
Late to what party?
--
Jeff Barnett

On 11/30/2023 3:24 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> Jeff Barnett wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2023 1:29 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>
>>>> In prior TB releases - the ones before the V15 SUPERNOVA - the
>>>> hierarchy of threads were shown with connecting lines. Is there anyway
>>>> to restore the old style display?
>>>
>>> No, but what I do now is ensure the message pane header is
>>> visible/expanded then click on the "in reply to" reference to jump to
>>> the parent article.
>>
>> Do you think Mozilla should document that procedure so that those of us
>> too dense to discover it for ourselves can use it?
>
> Documentation? You jest, I assume. :-) The last decent user manual I
> remember was for MSDOS.
>
> Searching for help online is a nightmare (not just for Thunderbird ) and
> the difficulty is compounded by umpteen inaccurate guesses (or deliberate
> obfuscation) from other people. If it were not for the help of some of the
> folk in here, I would have abandoned Thunderbird again as soon as I saw the
> new versions getting worse with each release.

Yes - a jest?
--
Jeff Barnett