On 13.01.24 12:05, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> On 13.01.24 11:48, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2024 18:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On Macs BB is a nightmare.
>>
>> Could you please stop extrapolating your personal experience to all
>> users of the platform. We have about 1000 users on Mac, and based on
>> non-existent complaints, your problem seems to be special. We've
>
> On several Macs? From a T2 to M2pro? Not very probable.

BTW: On the same profiles but not at the same time.

Case closed.

--
"Manus manum lavat."

On 1/12/2024 2:50 PM, knuttle wrote:

> was becoming difficult to maintain with the current Computer operating technology, ie Windows 11, Links, etc.

No, etc.

This is the tarball.

Name: thunderbird-115.6.0.source.tar [uncompressed archive]
Size: 2,916,956,160 bytes (2781 MiB) 355,180 Files
SHA1: 980A346E873F297F1AEDC3EF67C7C09ED3D20B8A

And this is the mailnews folder. The core of the program for our benefit.
See how small that is ? Some of the files here could be test benches.
Even this is not necessarily "pure source code". I'm not going to pretend
this is the only folder. Just that the parts that Thunderbird uses, it's
a section of the tree, not the whole thing. The Thunderbird team does
not sit around changing every one of those 355,180 files. There
has to be a "core" in the tree, which is what Thunderbird added.

D:\thunderbird-115.6.0\comm
mailnews 21,857,381 bytes 2221 filss

news 322,723 bytes 76 files

*******

In our zeroth order analysis, we compare the scale of two things.

This is the size of a randomly selected Firefox. Most
of the files by weight, in a Thunderbird source tree, came
from Firefox. Do you see how close to the size of the
Thunderbird tarball this is (plus or minus) ? This is the
"Aircraft Carrier" that launches the Thunderbird "drone".

Name: firefox-121.0.1.source.tar [uncompressed archive]
Size: 2,953,164,800 bytes (2816 MiB) 350,885 Files
SHA1: 82917EB4728C468550DB5E44A08E3A5060ED57DB

Remember, SuperNova is the part of a "business plan". The plan is not
formulated for the benefit of the staff. This is not the Salvation Army.
The plan is based on the need to make money, as donations would
not work to keep the staff in Kraft Dinner.

The actual reason for the change, is part of the business plan.
Maintaining it, has never mattered. ("Doctor, it hurts when
I do this. Well then, don't do that.") If there was something
wrong with the maintainability, wouldn't you have stopped years
ago, and rewritten it from the ground up ? Of course you would.
That's not the reason. That's the cover story for The Plan.
It's not a coincidence, that the "maintainability story" as
a smoke screen, arises in the middle of a Business Plan.

Firefox has been going for a long time, now look at the size of it.
Most software managers in corporations, would have a heart failure
if they saw that tarball. But there it is. And it is at
"Version 121". Most softwares have lost all their momentum after
Version 15.

If we had access to the Microsoft source trees, we'd see the same
thing. Awesomely huge source trees. And a Software Factory with
7000 people "doing stuff" without much supervision. How do you
get from Vista to Windows 11 ? A good supply of carrot cake and Muffin
baskets and a Software factory running on autopilot.

Paul

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:21:45 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
> Well, progress has been made. Your "posting in BASE64" seems to have
> stopped. If you have done something on purpose to fix this, you should
> mention for the audience, what you've done, so we can pass it on to
> other BASE64 people.
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <== used to be BASE64
>
> Paul

If your user-agent cannot decode base64, that's on your user agent, not on
the sender's.

--
Ellenor Bjornsdottir <zerda@umbrellix.net> Pan makes it quite difficult to
set a multi-line signature. Some say it should be that way. Most of those
people already have us on their killfile.

The Bjornsdottirs - Ellenor <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:21:45 -0500, Paul wrote:

>>Well, progress has been made. Your "posting in BASE64" seems to have
>>stopped. If you have done something on purpose to fix this, you should
>>mention for the audience, what you've done, so we can pass it on to
>>other BASE64 people.

>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <== used to be BASE64

>If your user-agent cannot decode base64, that's on your user agent, not on
>the sender's.

What is being discussed, seamus, is that any use of base64 encoding or
quoted-printable encoding on plain text Usenet is highly undesireable
and unwanted behavior. Usenet was, is, and always will be 8-bit clean.

Are there any threads you participate in that you've actually read all the
discussion for comprehension?

(Figured out how to post without hijacking a thread)

It used to take one press of the Tab or Shift+Tab key to navigate from the
folder-list to the message-list or the reverse. This allowed using only the
keyboard for much message browsing, deleting, filtering, etc. Now it takes four
such keystrokes (or however many tab-stopping UI elements are visible at the
time) to switch from the one pane to the other.

Obviously hiding any optional toolbars between the two panes does remove some
stops, but the UI elements below seem non-removable. What config can I add to
skip tab-stopping on UI elements which are *rarely* used? Or otherwise get back
the efficient workflow? Is there something that can be added to say
userChrome.css to make the these elements non-tabstops:

in the message-list pane caption <Folder-name> <message-count> [Quick Filter]:
- button [Quick Filter] "Toggle the QuickFilter Bar"
- button [<icon> ] "Message list display options"

in the message-list column headers:
- button [<icon> ] "Sort by attachments"
Hiding the attachments column from the message-list does not help, because the
column-headers row in general is a tabstop. The first column gets focus
regardless of what column it is.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:08:27 -0500, Frankie NinetyEight
<nwssepnaletr@dyadic.org> wrote:

>(Figured out how to post without hijacking a thread)

Wooden tit be easier when posting to *think* that what you're
expressing has no relevance to the existing thread?

Then simply *open* a post with a new subject?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:20:07 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> The Bjornsdottirs - Ellenor <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:21:45 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>If your user-agent cannot decode base64, that's on your user agent, not
>>on the sender's.
>
> What is being discussed, seamus, is that any use of base64 encoding or
> quoted-printable encoding on plain text Usenet is highly undesireable
> and unwanted behavior. Usenet was, is, and always will be 8-bit clean.
>
> Are there any threads you participate in that you've actually read all
> the discussion for comprehension?

new conspiracy theory, grâce de AHK: Bjornsdottirs are seamus

folks, I think it's very clear that AHK can be killfiled without
consequence to your normal posting activities.

lr2use MIME or something. Or don't. I'm not your mom or your Domme. Until
then, take this seamus feller and stick him up your ugly arse.

--
Ellenor Bjornsdottir <zerda@umbrellix.net> Pan makes it quite difficult to
set a multi-line signature. Some say it should be that way. Most of those
people already have us on their killfile.

The Bjornsdottirs - Ellenor <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:20:07 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>The Bjornsdottirs - Ellenor <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:21:45 -0500, Paul wrote:

>>>If your user-agent cannot decode base64, that's on your user agent, not
>>>on the sender's.

>>What is being discussed, seamus, is that any use of base64 encoding or
>>quoted-printable encoding on plain text Usenet is highly undesireable
>>and unwanted behavior. Usenet was, is, and always will be 8-bit clean.

>>Are there any threads you participate in that you've actually read all
>>the discussion for comprehension?

>new conspiracy theory, grace de AHK: Bjornsdottirs are seamus

Two sockpuppets for the price of one!

>folks, I think it's very clear that AHK can be killfiled without
>consequence to your normal posting activities.

You said this already. You said this playing each of your other
sockpuppets. You've never done it.

I've offered to give you the help you need. Just seek help.

>lr2use MIME or something. Or don't. I'm not your mom or your Domme. Until
>then, take this seamus feller and stick him up your ugly arse.

On 1/10/24 11:57 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 10.01.24 16:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 13:19:
>>
>>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>
>>>> knuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now
>>>>> after six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird
>>>>> that I have grown to love.   PLUS there are improvement that I like
>>>>> that were made in TB 115.
>>>>
>>>> But it's still got that vast message header, making it ugly and cumbersome.
>>>> Until they fix that I'm staying with Betterbird.
>>>
>>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>>
>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>>
>> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
>> controls this?
>
> A legacy 102 profile.

I don't believe so. A profile created in 115 compared to 102 should only
differ in 115 defaulting to Card View for the message list.