Snowshed. wrote:
> On 2/13/24 2:31 PM, Frank Miller wrote:
>> Snowshed. wrote:
[..snip..]
>>> In your experience the name may be fairly common, but the movie was the
>>> only place I've heard the name until this newsgroup.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Miller_(disambiguation)
>
> More Frank Millers than I ever heard of.
>
> Please don't think I'm stupid, but are you in the list?

Nope. It's not my real name.

On 2024-02-13 06:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-12 21:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-12 11:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>>> Am 11/02/2024 um 02:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-11 00:02, Jorg Knobloch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10 Feb 2024 12:37, Dave Royal wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Will Firefox and Mozilla survive?
>
>>>>>>>> Firefox - no. Hopefully the TB team have a contingency plan. And BB?
>
>>>>>>> As far as I can see, TB don't have a contingency plan. In fact, they
>>>>>>> are driving deeper and deeper into Mozilla technologies.
>
>>>>>>> In the olden days, the frontend was written in XUL and JS, the
>>>>>>> backend in C++. Nowadays, the frontend is written in (X)HTML and JS,
>>>>>>> some of the backend was also rewritten in JS, reducing the C++
>>>>>>> content. These days, TB is moving to Rust, which causes more risk. If
>>>>>>> the contingency were to port the frontend to the Chrome engine Blink,
>>>>>>> then using Rust is not a useful direction.
>
>>>>>>> But hey, the TB folks are splashing donation money on what they
>>>>>>> consider to be a cool new technology.
>
>>>>>>>> Who will be most affected if TB were to disappear?
>
>>>>>>> Many small to medium size businesses, NGOs, universities, public and
>>>>>>> government organisation, advanced private mail users.
>
>>>>>> It would be disastrous for Linux. There is no similarly powerful mail
>>>>>> client.
>
>>>>> Pine/Alpine.
>
>>>> ROTFL!
>
>>>> I am very familiar with Alpine, I use it every day since many years. But
>>>> no, it is not up to the task. It doesn't compose in html.
>
>>> This is its best feature. Nevertheless, if the author insists on an HTML
>>> document, it can be attached.
>
>> Do you really do that on business email?
>
> I utterly refuse to write the body of the email message in HTML. When I
> receive HTML, it's almost never rich text of any kind. It could have
> been plain text.

Fine for you.

>
>>>> It doesn't have wizards for configuration.
>
>>> It has a built-in editor for .pinerc, the configuration file. Every
>>> option has associated help discussion. The editor is superior to a
>>> wizard because it can access any available option directly.
>
>> So, no wizard. You have to be an expert to handle the config.
>
> You have to be able to read the help text. The original pine was very
> well documents from Day One because UWash knew they were working with
> kids for whom this would be their first email program.
>
> Documentation is linked to each line in the .pinerc file. Wizards don't
> typically have that kind of documentation.

I know that very well. But no wizard, means Pine is not a replacement
for Thunderbird.

>
>>>> It doesn't do graphics. It is not for the masses in the XXI.
>
>>> I already corrected you in my other followup. You don't know what the
>>> hell you are talking about. It can call a browser or an image viewer or
>>> a video viewer, although I seriously start to question that the sender
>>> is abusing email given what is being attached.
>
>> So, no graphics inside the emails.
>
> Displaying graphics is not the job of an email client.

Yes it is.

Same as text in a book. You have to modernize.

>
> Why do you find it unacceptable to use a browser to display a page
> marked in HTML together with its in line graphics? Why are you
> personally unable to communicate with words and no graphics?

I want it all in the mail client. One tool, directly receive, reply to,
and compose in html. That's modernity. You are obsolete.

That's Thunderbird. Pine, which I use daily, is not a replacement for it.

Asking to use two tools is ridiculous.

>
>> Look, I am am an Alpine user for over two decades. I know very well what
>> it can do and what not.
>
> You don't appear to understand that it can call an outside process.
>
>> And modern business mail, reading and answering with html emails inline,
>> it doesn't do.
>
> I just don't have that kind of experience with business correspondence.
>
> With spammers? Marketing email? Yes.
>
>> AND, this the Thunderbird group. You must praise Thunderbird, not try to
>> convince us that Alpine will replace TB.
>
> The thread began with a doom and gloom scenario about the impending
> death of Thunderbird.
>
> I'm here only because Andy proposed the group. Also, I have questions
> about why TB behaves in certain ways that no one knows the answers to.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-02-13 07:44, Snowshed. wrote:
> On 2/12/24 10:44 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-12 21:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-12 11:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>>>> Am 11/02/2024 um 02:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-11 00:02, Jorg Knobloch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10 Feb 2024 12:37, Dave Royal wrote:

>>>> I already corrected you in my other followup. You don't know what the
>>>> hell you are talking about. It can call a browser or an image viewer or
>>>> a video viewer, although I seriously start to question that the sender
>>>> is abusing email given what is being attached.
>>
>>> So, no graphics inside the emails.
>>
>
> I read the following sentence and chuckled.
>
> Let's change just 3 words...
>
>
>> Displaying graphics is not the job of an email client.
>
> Air conditioning is not the job of an automobile.
>
> See the similarity? Ssometimes the job changes.

Very true.

Yesterday I was commenting scenes of a video with a friend. I could have
emailed in plain text with photos attached. Referering to attachment
number 1, please see at the corner...

Instead, I used html, and simply pasted the photo by dragging the mouse.
"see in the next photo the dog in the corner..."

********
* *
********

and in the next photo:

********
* *
********

I'm simply not going to refuse because of purity of ascii blood the
comfort that modern tools offer. Same as I tossed the typewriter and
instead use a laser printer with all colours.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-02-13 10:32, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 12/02/2024 um 19:54 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2024-02-12 11:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>> Am 11/02/2024 um 02:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> On 2024-02-11 00:02, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Feb 2024 12:37, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>>>>> Will Firefox and Mozilla survive?
>>>>>> Firefox - no. Hopefully the TB team have a contingency plan. And BB?
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can see, TB don't have a contingency plan. In fact,
>>>>> they are driving deeper and deeper into Mozilla technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the olden days, the frontend was written in XUL and JS, the
>>>>> backend in C++. Nowadays, the frontend is written in (X)HTML and
>>>>> JS, some of the backend was also rewritten in JS, reducing the C++
>>>>> content. These days, TB is moving to Rust, which causes more risk.
>>>>> If the contingency were to port the frontend to the Chrome engine
>>>>> Blink, then using Rust is not a useful direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> But hey, the TB folks are splashing donation money on what they
>>>>> consider to be a cool new technology.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who will be most affected if TB were to disappear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many small to medium size businesses, NGOs, universities, public
>>>>> and government organisation, advanced private mail users.
>>>>
>>>> It would be disastrous for Linux. There is no similarly powerful
>>>> mail client.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pine/Alpine.
>>>
>>
>> ROTFL!
>>
>> I am very familiar with Alpine, I use it every day since many years.
>> But no, it is not up to the task. It doesn't compose in html. It
>> doesn't have wizards for configuration. It doesn't do graphics. It is
>> not for the masses in the XXI.
>>
>
>
> That's why it is good. Because it doesn't allow people like to you to
> pollute the internet with html and graphics.

Tell me have I done such a thing.

The rules here are plain text, so I use plain text. Those are the rules,
period.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2024-02-13 06:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 2024-02-12 21:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>On 2024-02-12 11:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>>>>Am 11/02/2024 um 02:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>>>>>On 2024-02-11 00:02, Jorg Knobloch wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 10 Feb 2024 12:37, Dave Royal wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>Will Firefox and Mozilla survive?

>>>>>>>>>Firefox - no. Hopefully the TB team have a contingency plan. And BB?

>>>>>>>>As far as I can see, TB don't have a contingency plan. In fact, they
>>>>>>>>are driving deeper and deeper into Mozilla technologies.

>>>>>>>>In the olden days, the frontend was written in XUL and JS, the
>>>>>>>>backend in C++. Nowadays, the frontend is written in (X)HTML and JS,
>>>>>>>>some of the backend was also rewritten in JS, reducing the C++
>>>>>>>>content. These days, TB is moving to Rust, which causes more risk. If
>>>>>>>>the contingency were to port the frontend to the Chrome engine Blink,
>>>>>>>>then using Rust is not a useful direction.

>>>>>>>>But hey, the TB folks are splashing donation money on what they
>>>>>>>>consider to be a cool new technology.

>>>>>>>>>Who will be most affected if TB were to disappear?

>>>>>>>>Many small to medium size businesses, NGOs, universities, public and
>>>>>>>>government organisation, advanced private mail users.

>>>>>>>It would be disastrous for Linux. There is no similarly powerful mail
>>>>>>>client.

>>>>>>Pine/Alpine.

>>>>>ROTFL!

>>>>>I am very familiar with Alpine, I use it every day since many years. But
>>>>>no, it is not up to the task. It doesn't compose in html.

>>>>This is its best feature. Nevertheless, if the author insists on an HTML
>>>>document, it can be attached.

>>>Do you really do that on business email?
>>I utterly refuse to write the body of the email message in HTML. When I
>>receive HTML, it's almost never rich text of any kind. It could have
>>been plain text.

>Fine for you.

Don't feign ignorance. We've had this discussion too many times. Plain
text ASCII is universally readable. I write in English. If I wrote in
another language, I'd use a different character set.

That you are unable to communicate in business in plain text without
graphics is failure on your part. Of course I receive email messages in
HTML that rely on graphics, but none of it is business correspodence.
It's marketing.

>>>>>It doesn't have wizards for configuration.

>>>>It has a built-in editor for .pinerc, the configuration file. Every
>>>>option has associated help discussion. The editor is superior to a
>>>>wizard because it can access any available option directly.
>>>So, no wizard. You have to be an expert to handle the config.
>>You have to be able to read the help text. The original pine was very
>>well documents from Day One because UWash knew they were working with
>>kids for whom this would be their first email program.

>>Documentation is linked to each line in the .pinerc file. Wizards don't
>>typically have that kind of documentation.

>I know that very well. But no wizard, means Pine is not a replacement
>for Thunderbird.

Not pine. alpine.

No, alpine is not a replacement. You'd have to like an email client
that's well maintained, doesn't mysteriously change to nonstandard line
boundaries, isn't mysteriously encoding plain text, and generally,
doesn't leave bugs unfixed for years if not decades.

alpine is well documented and DOESN'T require the user to be an expert.
I'm not. But if you require a wizard for the most basic
configuration that provides access to nearly no advanced features, then
alpine isn't the right client for you. Use something else. It's not my
position that there's one true client.

It is my position that your position, that there's no ability to learn,
is condescending nonsense.

>>>>>It doesn't do graphics. It is not for the masses in the XXI.

>>>>I already corrected you in my other followup. You don't know what the
>>>>hell you are talking about. It can call a browser or an image viewer or
>>>>a video viewer, although I seriously start to question that the sender
>>>>is abusing email given what is being attached.

>>>So, no graphics inside the emails.

>>Displaying graphics is not the job of an email client.

>Yes it is.

The browser is the superior tool for displaying in-line graphics. How,
exactly, are you unable to communicate with words? I have no idea what
you are doing with HTML that requires in line graphics in what should be
a relatively short message sent in email.

>Same as text in a book. You have to modernize.

Text in a book works the same as it has for centuries.

>>Why do you find it unacceptable to use a browser to display a page
>>marked in HTML together with its in line graphics? Why are you
>>personally unable to communicate with words and no graphics?

>I want it all in the mail client. One tool, directly receive, reply to,
>and compose in html. That's modernity. You are obsolete.

You are refusing to explain what the limitation of plain text is. You
are using HTML with in line graphics for some purpose you refuse to
disclose. You don't want to tell me what you are doing and why.

If it's not illegal, if it's not a scam, then explain exactly what you
are doing and why that requires HTML with in line graphics in ordinary
business correspondence.

>That's Thunderbird. Pine, which I use daily, is not a replacement for it.

>Asking to use two tools is ridiculous.

You are using two tools.

I use one client for email. I will not put up with a broken client.
>>>. . .

Snip

> You are refusing to explain what the limitation of plain text is. You
> are using HTML with in line graphics for some purpose you refuse to
> disclose. You don't want to tell me what you are doing and why.
>

I send all of my emails in the HTML format. Why It allows me to send
LETTERS to those I correspond with. I do not send pictures or use a lot
of cuties graphics. What it does, is allow me the freedom to send a
LETTER using the same formatting and punctuation that I would use on a
typewriter. The formatting I use is Bullets, outlines, proper
indentations, etc. non of which can be done adequately in the plane
text format.

Email is replacing the old fashion typed LETTER that use to be a common
means of written correspondence. You could type you letter with the
formatting you need to properly show the content of your letter.

You could attach a word processing file, but there is no universality in
word processing formats. You could use doc file, but even versions of
Word documents are not necessarily read the same may in all version of
Word. PDF files come closes to being universal as to content and to
Format.

Using HTML capable email programs comes he closest to having an easily
used, universal format for sending LETTERS electronically.

When people communicate they want to send LETTERS (HTML), not notes as
required by plane text communications.

>>>> . . .

Dear Mr Knuttle,

Re. your correspondance of the 15th Feb

You claim that you can not format plain text as a letter. I do beg to
differ.

Actually, plain text is _almost_ a direct replacement for a manual
typewriter. You format the email in the same way you would with a
typewriter, spacing things out by repeated use of the spacebar.

On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!

Maybe you came to computers late and used one of the electronic
typewriters that attempted to emulate word processors. I have no
experience of those, but did use several manual typewriters in the 60's
and 70's last century.

Yours Sincerely

Jim Jackson

On 02/15/2024 5:20 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
> On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
> formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!
Precisely my point.

Yes! You could not change the font or highlight on a typewriter, but
with 50 years of electrical text creation, when you write a letter,
these are the things you expect when writing a modern document.

I routinely write LETTERS (email) that has highlighted text, bullet
points, and many other formatting techniques in modern day document
creation. You may also want to use other fonts to highlight text. With
HTML, your document will appear in a modern day email program the same
way you sent it. With a long email there may even be some sort of table
of contents.

On 02/15/2024 5:20 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
> Dear Mr Knuttle,
>
> Re. your correspondance of the 15th Feb
>
> You claim that you can not format plain text as a letter. I do beg to
> differ.
>
> Actually, plain text is _almost_ a direct replacement for a manual
> typewriter. You format the email in the same way you would with a
> typewriter, spacing things out by repeated use of the spacebar.
>
> On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
> formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!
>
> Maybe you came to computers late and used one of the electronic
> typewriters that attempted to emulate word processors. I have no
> experience of those, but did use several manual typewriters in the 60's
> and 70's last century.
>
> Yours Sincerely
>
> Jim Jackson
>
PS: I wrote many papers when I was in college on a portable Smith Corona
typewriter. I was usually sitting in my car in the park, between
classes, as after work I had to go to a job.

I was making minimum wage, about 2.00/hour, and saved the money to spend
$130 for that type writer. At $15 per hour minimum wage, a computer
cost about what my typewrite cost

On 2/15/2024 8:19 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 02/15/2024 5:20 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
>> On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
>> formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!
> Precisely my point.
>
> Yes! You could not change the font or highlight on a typewriter, but with 50 years of electrical text creation, when you write a letter, these are the things you expect when writing a modern document.
>
> I routinely write LETTERS (email) that has highlighted text, bullet points, and many other formatting techniques in modern day document creation.  You may also want to use other fonts to highlight text.  With HTML, your document will appear in a modern day email program the same way you sent it.  With a long email there may even be some sort of table of contents.

Of course you can change typeface on a typewriter.

It was called the IBM Selectric. One sweet piece of hardware. Some of
the secretaries at work, used to keep a cardboard tray next to their
machine, with a handful of alternate balls for usage. I don't really think
they changed over all that often. Too much work. The other thing a Selectric
had, was a corrector ribbon ("white" letters) to overtype a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric#/media/File:IBM_Selectric_typeball.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric#/media/File:Selectric-iii-balls.jpg

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>On 2/15/2024 8:19 PM, knuttle wrote:
>>On 02/15/2024 5:20 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:

>>>On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
>>>formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!

>>Precisely my point.

>>Yes! You could not change the font or highlight on a typewriter, but with 50 years of electrical text creation, when you write a letter, these are the things you expect when writing a modern document.

>>I routinely write LETTERS (email) that has highlighted text, bullet points, and many other formatting techniques in modern day document creation.  You may also want to use other fonts to highlight text.  With HTML, your document will appear in a modern day email program the same way you sent it.  With a long email there may even be some sort of table of contents.

>Of course you can change typeface on a typewriter.

>It was called the IBM Selectric. One sweet piece of hardware. Some of
>the secretaries at work, used to keep a cardboard tray next to their
>machine, with a handful of alternate balls for usage. I don't really think
>they changed over all that often. Too much work. The other thing a Selectric
>had, was a corrector ribbon ("white" letters) to overtype a mistake.

How about ribbon cartridges, so you didn't directly handle the ribbon,
and carbon filament ribbon for a superior impression?

The keyboard had a superior feel to it.

The Selectric II was even nicer.

I once owned a used cold typesetter. The purpose was to lay out business
brochures as it mechanically calculated justifying type. It was intended
to save money on hiring out phototypesetting services.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric#/media/File:IBM_Selectric_typeball.jpg
>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric#/media/File:Selectric-iii-balls.jpg
>
> Paul

knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 02/15/2024 5:20 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:

>>On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
>>formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!

>Precisely my point.

>Yes! You could not change the font or highlight on a typewriter, but
>with 50 years of electrical text creation, when you write a letter,
>these are the things you expect when writing a modern document.

>I routinely write LETTERS (email) that has highlighted text, bullet
>points, and many other formatting techniques in modern day document
>creation. You may also want to use other fonts to highlight text. With
>HTML, your document will appear in a modern day email program the same
>way you sent it. With a long email there may even be some sort of table
>of contents.

Where have you been for the last few decades? Rich text is tagged text.
There is a long-standing convention, going back to the early 80s, on
tagging text so it is displayed as bold, italic, or underscore.
Sometimes overstrike. If the display didn't handle it, the minor tagging
didn't make it unpleasant to read like QP encoding.

As far as the need to use HTML, jeeze, if it truly requires such a fancy
document just attach that to a brief plain text email message. Email has
been able to accept attachment. As far as "appearing the same way you
sent it", HTML markup was supposed to display on the end user's terminal
according to the settings he chose. Fonts were never intended to be
chosen in HTML but that ended up happening. The user was supposed to
choose the fonts he liked for serif, san serif, monospace, headings, and
the point size to make it readable for him.

How exactly does plain text not show up exactly as you sent it? What the
hell are you talking about?

Incidentally, IMB 437 and IBM 850 character sets included bullets. These
character sets were widely implemented on displays used with the IBM PC
from 1981.

In typesetting, the bullet goes back centuries.

Am 15/02/2024 um 18:52 schrieb knuttle:
>
> Email is replacing the old fashion typed LETTER that use to be a common
> means of written correspondence.  You could type you letter with the
> formatting you need to properly show the content of your letter.

God, you are a good 40 years behind. Millennials and gen Zs don't even
use email at all. Email was for boomers and gen Xs like me.

You might as well praise the fax machine and colour TV.

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 2/15/24 11:57 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 8:19 PM, knuttle wrote:
>> On 02/15/2024 5:20 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>> On a manual typewriter the font is the same throughout, there are no
>>> formatting aids or italic etc. Just like plain text!
>> Precisely my point.
>>
>> Yes! You could not change the font or highlight on a typewriter, but with 50 years of electrical text creation, when you write a letter, these are the things you expect when writing a modern document.
>>
>> I routinely write LETTERS (email) that has highlighted text, bullet points, and many other formatting techniques in modern day document creation.  You may also want to use other fonts to highlight text.  With HTML, your document will appear in a modern day email program the same way you sent it.  With a long email there may even be some sort of table of contents.
>
> Of course you can change typeface on a typewriter.
>
> It was called the IBM Selectric. One sweet piece of hardware. Some of
> the secretaries at work, used to keep a cardboard tray next to their
> machine, with a handful of alternate balls for usage. I don't really think
> they changed over all that often. Too much work. The other thing a Selectric
> had, was a corrector ribbon ("white" letters) to overtype a mistake.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric#/media/File:IBM_Selectric_typeball.jpg
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric#/media/File:Selectric-iii-balls.jpg
>
> Paul
My military job used modified IBM Selectrics for an input/output device to the computer system. It
was used a lot for sending messages, email or text in those days. It also had a tape the could be
used to record your typing and allow corrections then you could send it when finished. Quite a cool
item for 1969-1971 years.
--
Linux Mint 21.3 Cinnamon 6.0.4
Al

On 2024-02-15 17:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-13 06:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-12 21:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-12 11:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 11/02/2024 um 02:22 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-11 00:02, Jorg Knobloch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10 Feb 2024 12:37, Dave Royal wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will Firefox and Mozilla survive?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Firefox - no. Hopefully the TB team have a contingency plan. And BB?
>
>>>>>>>>> As far as I can see, TB don't have a contingency plan. In fact, they
>>>>>>>>> are driving deeper and deeper into Mozilla technologies.
>
>>>>>>>>> In the olden days, the frontend was written in XUL and JS, the
>>>>>>>>> backend in C++. Nowadays, the frontend is written in (X)HTML and JS,
>>>>>>>>> some of the backend was also rewritten in JS, reducing the C++
>>>>>>>>> content. These days, TB is moving to Rust, which causes more risk. If
>>>>>>>>> the contingency were to port the frontend to the Chrome engine Blink,
>>>>>>>>> then using Rust is not a useful direction.
>
>>>>>>>>> But hey, the TB folks are splashing donation money on what they
>>>>>>>>> consider to be a cool new technology.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Who will be most affected if TB were to disappear?
>
>>>>>>>>> Many small to medium size businesses, NGOs, universities, public and
>>>>>>>>> government organisation, advanced private mail users.
>
>>>>>>>> It would be disastrous for Linux. There is no similarly powerful mail
>>>>>>>> client.
>
>>>>>>> Pine/Alpine.
>
>>>>>> ROTFL!
>
>>>>>> I am very familiar with Alpine, I use it every day since many years. But
>>>>>> no, it is not up to the task. It doesn't compose in html.
>
>>>>> This is its best feature. Nevertheless, if the author insists on an HTML
>>>>> document, it can be attached.
>
>>>> Do you really do that on business email?
>
>>> I utterly refuse to write the body of the email message in HTML. When I
>>> receive HTML, it's almost never rich text of any kind. It could have
>>> been plain text.
>
>> Fine for you.
>
> Don't feign ignorance. We've had this discussion too many times. Plain
> text ASCII is universally readable. I write in English. If I wrote in
> another language, I'd use a different character set.
>
> That you are unable to communicate in business in plain text without
> graphics is failure on your part. Of course I receive email messages in
> HTML that rely on graphics, but none of it is business correspodence.
> It's marketing.
>
>>>>>> It doesn't have wizards for configuration.
>
>>>>> It has a built-in editor for .pinerc, the configuration file. Every
>>>>> option has associated help discussion. The editor is superior to a
>>>>> wizard because it can access any available option directly.
>
>>>> So, no wizard. You have to be an expert to handle the config.
>
>>> You have to be able to read the help text. The original pine was very
>>> well documents from Day One because UWash knew they were working with
>>> kids for whom this would be their first email program.
>
>>> Documentation is linked to each line in the .pinerc file. Wizards don't
>>> typically have that kind of documentation.
>
>> I know that very well. But no wizard, means Pine is not a replacement
>> for Thunderbird.
>
> Not pine. alpine.
>
> No, alpine is not a replacement. You'd have to like an email client
> that's well maintained, doesn't mysteriously change to nonstandard line
> boundaries, isn't mysteriously encoding plain text, and generally,
> doesn't leave bugs unfixed for years if not decades.
>
> alpine is well documented and DOESN'T require the user to be an expert.
> I'm not. But if you require a wizard for the most basic
> configuration that provides access to nearly no advanced features, then
> alpine isn't the right client for you. Use something else. It's not my
> position that there's one true client.
>
> It is my position that your position, that there's no ability to learn,
> is condescending nonsense.
>
>>>>>> It doesn't do graphics. It is not for the masses in the XXI.
>
>>>>> I already corrected you in my other followup. You don't know what the
>>>>> hell you are talking about. It can call a browser or an image viewer or
>>>>> a video viewer, although I seriously start to question that the sender
>>>>> is abusing email given what is being attached.
>
>>>> So, no graphics inside the emails.
>
>>> Displaying graphics is not the job of an email client.
>
>> Yes it is.
>
> The browser is the superior tool for displaying in-line graphics. How,
> exactly, are you unable to communicate with words? I have no idea what
> you are doing with HTML that requires in line graphics in what should be
> a relatively short message sent in email.
>
>> Same as text in a book. You have to modernize.
>
> Text in a book works the same as it has for centuries.
>
>>> Why do you find it unacceptable to use a browser to display a page
>>> marked in HTML together with its in line graphics? Why are you
>>> personally unable to communicate with words and no graphics?
>
>> I want it all in the mail client. One tool, directly receive, reply to,
>> and compose in html. That's modernity. You are obsolete.
>
> You are refusing to explain what the limitation of plain text is. You
> are using HTML with in line graphics for some purpose you refuse to
> disclose. You don't want to tell me what you are doing and why.
>
> If it's not illegal, if it's not a scam, then explain exactly what you
> are doing and why that requires HTML with in line graphics in ordinary
> business correspondence.
>
>> That's Thunderbird. Pine, which I use daily, is not a replacement for it.
>
>> Asking to use two tools is ridiculous.
>
> You are using two tools.
>
> I use one client for email. I will not put up with a broken client.
>
>>>> . . .

This is all ridiculous. Not answering.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> . . .

>This is all ridiculous. Not answering.

Liar.

Obviously, you just posted a followup.

If you want to ignore something I've written, the way it works is you
DON'T post a followup. If you post a followup anyway, then you're being
a drama queen.

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>It was called the IBM Selectric. One sweet piece of hardware. Some of
>the secretaries at work, used to keep a cardboard tray next to their
>machine, with a handful of alternate balls for usage. I don't really think
>they changed over all that often. Too much work. The other thing a Selectric
>had, was a corrector ribbon ("white" letters) to overtype a mistake.

I still long for a keyboard as good as the Selectric keyboard. Even better than
the Northgate Omnikey. Don't recall the Selectric balls being hard to change.
They had a little lever on top that would release the ball. Replacement would
click down and lock.

--
Usenet: The world's first (and best) social network.

On 2/17/2024 8:29 AM, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
> I still long for a keyboard as good as the Selectric keyboard. Even better than
> the Northgate Omnikey. Don't recall the Selectric balls being hard to change.
> They had a little lever on top that would release the ball. Replacement would
> click down and lock.

It's not that the Selectric balls were hard to change. They weren't. But
if you had to make "frequent" changes, they really hurt the fingers.

I ran a word processing service where a part of the work we did involved
the keyboarding of math equations. There could be a dozen or more ball
changes per line because symbols were interspersed with letters and
numbers, and the required characters were on different balls. We charged
a high rate for (and loved) this work, but it was quite painful on the
fingers.

When computers with WordPerfect and equation editors came on the market,
everyone was smiling again!

gym <no_one@example.net> wrote:

>I ran a word processing service where a part of the work we did involved
>the keyboarding of math equations. There could be a dozen or more ball
>changes per line because symbols were interspersed with letters and
>numbers, and the required characters were on different balls. We charged
>a high rate for (and loved) this work, but it was quite painful on the
>fingers.

Wow - changing once per document no problem, but this would definitely be a
pain.

--
Usenet: The world's first (and best) social network.