disable top panel application-window menu
M.R.
places the application window menu on the top panel. ("mac-like",
I suppose?). This makes it extremely difficult to work with a
number of active applications at the same time.
I searched in vain for a method to disable this "feature"; is
there any?
tia, M.R.
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Marcos Barbosa
Tell me if work fine for you.
2012/3/12 M.R. <makr...@gmail.com>:
--
Marcos Barbosa <marcoseste...@gmail.com>
M.R.
> http://www.howtogeek.com/106009/disable-the-global-menu-appmenu-in-ubuntu-11.04-and-11.10/
>
> Tell me if work fine for you.
yes, it seems to work fine. I keep wondering why is this not
documented somewhere in Ubuntu? Surely I cant be the only one
that habitually has multiple applications with their windows
open at the same time?
Will there be other applications that have been doctored the
same way as Firefox?
(Why do I have this uneasy feeling I'm missing something here?)
Liam Proven
> I was quite surprised to discover that by default Ubuntu 12.04
> places the application window menu on the top panel. ("mac-like",
> I suppose?). This makes it extremely difficult to work with a
> number of active applications at the same time.
Macs have been like that since 1984. I'm guessing you've not got any
Mac experience? :¬)
You get used to it after a while. It's easier to hit a fixed menu bar
(q.v. Fitt's Law) and it saves a fair amount of screen space on small
monitors, such as netbooks, or even modern low-end cheap laptops, with
wide but shallow screens - like my MSI CR-620 which is a 1366×768
widescreen.
> I searched in vain for a method to disable this "feature"; is
> there any?
There were for previous Unity releases. I don't know if those fixes
will work in Precise, though. I see someone else has given you a
pointer to this.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
M.R.
Thanks for your comments Liam;
> Macs have been like that since 1984. I'm guessing you've not got any
> Mac experience? :¬)
Au contraire; when I abandoned MS Windows ("Vista refugee"; XP was the
last version I used) I used a Mac for a couple of years. There were
many reasons why I finally switched to Linux, but this illogical oddity
of application menus dismembered from their native window was certainly
on the upper half of the list.
> ... and it saves a fair amount of screen space on small
> monitors, such as netbooks, or even modern low-end cheap laptops...
For me, Linux is for desktop computers. (Mine has two very large
monitors ;). I have absolutely no intention of "getting used" to
something that is obviously tailored to an environment so completely
different from the one I use (if that's what is at the hart of this
quandary). Should I? If yes, why?
> There were for previous Unity releases. I don't know if those fixes
> will work in Precise, though. I see someone else has given you a
> pointer to this.
That seems to work with no problems detected so far. If it did not, I
would have abandoned my explorations of 12.04 beta right now and stay
with 10.04 (which serves me very well) until I could devote some time
to exploring other Linux variants.
If there is any doubt that for some reason or another this is not
likely to work in the final 12.04 distribution or that it could result
in some undesired consequences during it's life-cycle I would much
appreciate to be warned (by Ubuntu packagers?) now. I believe this
to be a reasonable expectation on my part.
(my uneasy feelings about 12.04 persist... :)
M.R.
Liam Proven
> On 03/13/2012 03:12 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> Thanks for your comments Liam;
>
>> Macs have been like that since 1984. I'm guessing you've not got any
>> Mac experience? :¬)
>
> Au contraire; when I abandoned MS Windows ("Vista refugee"; XP was the
> last version I used) I used a Mac for a couple of years. There were
> many reasons why I finally switched to Linux, but this illogical oddity
> of application menus dismembered from their native window was certainly
> on the upper half of the list.
Oh, right! Interesting - it's not something I tend to hear /that/ many
Windows "Switchers" griping about. People tend to get used to it.
Personally, after 24 years of Mac usage and 23 years of Windows usage,
I barely notice it at all. The mental switch from considering "Ubuntu
= Windows-like menus" to "Ubuntu = Mac-like menus" was imperceptible
except for apps that do stupid things like having different menu bars
depending on which window you're in.
E.g. Pidgin. From a chat window, I can't go offline or quit or change
my status. I can only do that if the buddy-list window is selected.
/Highly/ irritating.
>
>> ... and it saves a fair amount of screen space on small
>> monitors, such as netbooks, or even modern low-end cheap laptops...
>
> For me, Linux is for desktop computers. (Mine has two very large
> monitors ;).
So does mine. (Well, for CRT values of "very large.")
> I have absolutely no intention of "getting used" to
> something that is obviously tailored to an environment so completely
> different from the one I use (if that's what is at the hart of this
> quandary). Should I? If yes, why?
[Shrug] One wrinkle you might not have noticed that is a help for me
on dual screens is that each screen gets its own menu bar. So, two
apps on two screens, each app's menus are usable without switching. I
find that a time-saver and it's a major design win over /both/ Mac OS
X /and/ GNOME 3 Shell for me.
I also find Unity /much/ more efficient on dual monitors - GNOME 2
didn't handle it at all well. The only working solution I found
without 3rd-party dock add-ons was to move the top panel to the bottom
of the left screen and the bottom panel to the bottom of the right
screen, for something like one big Windows-style taskbar, but with an
awkward, inefficient split in the middle and which wasted precious
vertical space but made no use of cheap horizontal space.
>> There were for previous Unity releases. I don't know if those fixes
>> will work in Precise, though. I see someone else has given you a
>> pointer to this.
> That seems to work with no problems detected so far.
Excellent.
> If it did not, I
> would have abandoned my explorations of 12.04 beta right now and stay
> with 10.04 (which serves me very well) until I could devote some time
> to exploring other Linux variants.
Oh my! That's a serious dislike of the menu bar! I suggest finding
some way to signal this to the Ubuntu team. I wonder if someone could
host a Wiki where disenchanted Ubuntu users could list and vote for
their grievances?
> If there is any doubt that for some reason or another this is not
> likely to work in the final 12.04 distribution or that it could result
> in some undesired consequences during it's life-cycle I would much
> appreciate to be warned (by Ubuntu packagers?) now. I believe this
> to be a reasonable expectation on my part.
I think if it works now it will continue to - but I do not know this
to be the case.
> (my uneasy feelings about 12.04 persist... :)
Welp... There is no escaping from the fact that it is a very big change.
I am expecting possibly quite a lot more users to desert to Xubuntu
when Precise comes out. It's about the closest you can get to a GNOME
2 experience on Ubuntu any more.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
Ric Moore
> I am expecting possibly quite a lot more users to desert to Xubuntu
> when Precise comes out. It's about the closest you can get to a GNOME
> 2 experience on Ubuntu any more.
I wouldn't call it "desertion", as Ubuntu is still underneath it all,
it's merely a change of a desktop for convenience sake. If Ubuntu wishes
to gear itself up for what Deep Thought thinks is going to be the wave
of the future, sobeit. Thanks to the overall scheme of things, we get to
choose. I think that is a far better deal than the Windows crowd gets.
By far!
Myself thinks that they can do any darn thing that they want to do, as
long as I get to do the same. Life is good and I get it all for free.
Nothing better than that. Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
Liam Proven
> On 03/13/2012 02:49 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
>> I am expecting possibly quite a lot more users to desert to Xubuntu
>> when Precise comes out. It's about the closest you can get to a GNOME
>> 2 experience on Ubuntu any more.
>
> I wouldn't call it "desertion", as Ubuntu is still underneath it all, it's
> merely a change of a desktop for convenience sake.
True. It increases the fragmentation of the Ubuntu & indeed Linux
ecosystem, though, and that's bad. It will mean less testing, less
polish, more bugs and gotchas.
> If Ubuntu wishes to gear
> itself up for what Deep Thought thinks is going to be the wave of the
> future, sobeit. Thanks to the overall scheme of things, we get to choose. I
> think that is a far better deal than the Windows crowd gets. By far!
Definitely so!
> Myself thinks that they can do any darn thing that they want to do, as long
> as I get to do the same. Life is good and I get it all for free. Nothing
> better than that.
I'll drink to that.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
M.R.
I wouldn't call it "fragmentation", as long as the same application
binary (from the same repository) will continue to work in the
"Ubuntu group" of Debian-based distributions.
That is why, in the subject at hand, I am most concerned with the
fact that some applications (Firefox) can not be kept from behaving
in this "dismembered menu" oddity manner. As long as this just
happens to be some Ubuntu packager/desktop programmer idea of
"Apple-like cool feature" that I can reset, that's fine. But if a
normal, Linux-wide, cross-distribution application (Gimp, Office,
Terminal, Gedit, my mailclient, etc...) is doctored so that a
configuration remedy described above will not work (or will result
in problems), that would indeed result in fragmentation, most
undesirable for all of the Linux community.
M.R.
Rashkae
>
>
> That is why, in the subject at hand, I am most concerned with the
> fact that some applications (Firefox) can not be kept from behaving
> in this "dismembered menu" oddity manner.
I haven't investigated this yet, so I might be missing something
important. But as far as I can see, the 'doctoring' of Firefox is only
the addition of a Firefox extension. This is therefore just some
sloppiness on the part of packaging. The Firefox extension should be in
it's own package, and that package in turn should depend on app-menu.
That being said, Unity is really not designed to be configurable (on
purpose, if you can wrap your head around that insult.). If you don't
like the way Ubuntu does things, ditching Unity is probably the best way
to go.
M.R.
> That being said, Unity is really not designed to be configurable (on
> purpose, if you can wrap your head around that insult.). If you don't
> like the way Ubuntu does things, ditching Unity is probably the best
> way to go.
The more I look at 12.04, the more I'm coming to that conclusion.
I wish there was a succinct statement of the purpose behind all those
changes to gui, so that based on that I can make the decision. As it
is, I'm forced to decipher their strategy behind it all looking at a
large volume of details, with a significant investment of my time.
As it appears, that investment is likely to be lost...
Ditching Unity (12.04 GUI/desktop?) means ditching Ubuntu, right?
If that turns out to be my conclusion, what would be the logical
migration path for someone with a fairly high-end desktop computer,
who was perfectly happy with 10.04? It would appear I have somewhat
less than one year to decide (10.04 support end-date, April 2013).
M.R.
Rashkae
>
> The more I look at 12.04, the more I'm coming to that conclusion.
>
> I wish there was a succinct statement of the purpose behind all those
> changes to gui, so that based on that I can make the decision. As it
> is, I'm forced to decipher their strategy behind it all looking at a
> large volume of details, with a significant investment of my time.
> As it appears, that investment is likely to be lost...
>
> Ditching Unity (12.04 GUI/desktop?) means ditching Ubuntu, right?
Not at all. Ubuntu has a huge repository that includes just about every
Open Source Desktop that exists. There are even 'spins', which is to
say, install CD's that have a different desktop environment by default.
Some you might have heard of, such as Xubuntu (for a more Gnome 2 like
environment, I suggest this one.). Kubutu, Lubuntu, etc.
Whichever you install, you are a free to install any desktop variation
over top of it. I still have to test it for my purposes, but I'm
holding great hope for the 'Cairo Dock' dekstop. (Gnome 3 with Compiz,
but using Cairo dock for interface instead of Unity. So much potential
goodness there, assuming that Compiz remains viable and the QT bugs with
Cairo have been resolved.)
Also worth considering, the new Gome 3 fork being developed by Mint is
also packaged for Ubuntu. That's another I'm looking forward to
experimenting with.
It's a shame that those of us who were comfortable with Gnome 2 now have
to go desktop shopping all over again, but I can't fault Ubuntu for that
all. It was the Gnome maintainers who forced abandoned it.
Basil Chupin
> On 03/14/2012 01:37 AM, Rashkae wrote:
>
>> That being said, Unity is really not designed to be configurable (on
>> purpose, if you can wrap your head around that insult.). If you don't
>> like the way Ubuntu does things, ditching Unity is probably the best
>> way to go.
>
> The more I look at 12.04, the more I'm coming to that conclusion.
>
> I wish there was a succinct statement of the purpose behind all those
> changes to gui, so that based on that I can make the decision. As it
> is, I'm forced to decipher their strategy behind it all looking at a
> large volume of details, with a significant investment of my time.
> As it appears, that investment is likely to be lost...
>
> Ditching Unity (12.04 GUI/desktop?) means ditching Ubuntu, right?
>
> If that turns out to be my conclusion, what would be the logical
> migration path for someone with a fairly high-end desktop computer,
> who was perfectly happy with 10.04? It would appear I have somewhat
> less than one year to decide (10.04 support end-date, April 2013).
>
> M.R.
I am not a Moderator but I do have to make this firm request:
do *NOT*, repeat *NOT*, keep altering the Subject heading of an existing
thread when you reply to a post!
This is not the first time that you have done this so please cut it out!
If you want to start a new thread then do so but leave an existing
thread alone.
Thanks.
BC
--
The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Ric Moore
> It's a shame that those of us who were comfortable with Gnome 2 now have
> to go desktop shopping all over again, but I can't fault Ubuntu for that
> all. It was the Gnome maintainers who forced abandoned it.
I dunno, I've always installed whatever ubuntu has on the base install,
as I figure the original has a better chance at installing my drivers,
etc. correctly from the get go. THEN I install whatever desktop I wish
to use instead. That has been the only time I've ever used gnome ...just
long enough to insure synaptic is installed and then I load up from
there. For me, the entire discussion is futile. I get a great install
experience, everything works and I just chose the desktop I prefer
...for free. It doesn't get any better than that. it's not as if Deep
Thought has rolled it all into one take-it-or-leave-it ball.
So, pity the Windows users who will get a similar interface and PAY it!
<snidely laughs> Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
--
M.R.
> I am not a Moderator but I do have to make this firm request...
I'm glad you are not (the moderator :). You and I are in no
position here to make requests (firm or otherwise), only the
suggestions.
May I point out that the purpose of the subject line is to
succinctly outline the main point of the post text. And that,
of course, varies from post to post.
Mail client program's role is to keep a tread together using the
information in message headers. If properly used subject lines
bother you, I guess you either have a sub-standard mail client
program, or could productively spend some time learning to use
its features?
cheers, M.R.
Liam Proven
> Slowly drifting OT...? Or maybe not.
>
> I wouldn't call it "fragmentation", as long as the same application
> binary (from the same repository) will continue to work in the
> "Ubuntu group" of Debian-based distributions.
>
> That is why, in the subject at hand, I am most concerned with the
> fact that some applications (Firefox) can not be kept from behaving
> in this "dismembered menu" oddity manner. As long as this just
> happens to be some Ubuntu packager/desktop programmer idea of
> "Apple-like cool feature" that I can reset, that's fine. But if a
> normal, Linux-wide, cross-distribution application (Gimp, Office,
> Terminal, Gedit, my mailclient, etc...) is doctored so that a
> configuration remedy described above will not work (or will result
> in problems), that would indeed result in fragmentation, most
> undesirable for all of the Linux community.
Um. Are you deliberately trying to break the thread into subthreads?
This is a standalone new message without a quotation in it, so I am
not sure what or who you are replying to.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
Liam Proven
What Basil said!
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> Um. Are you deliberately trying to break the thread into subthreads?
> This is a standalone new message without a quotation in it, so I am
> not sure what or who you are replying to.
No, it's not. If your reader displays it so, it's a fault
of this client.
In Thunderbird, it looks well → http://min.us/mVywLCKmU#1o
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
Liam Proven
> On 03/14/2012 04:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>>
>> I am not a Moderator but I do have to make this firm request...
>
> I'm glad you are not (the moderator :). You and I are in no
> position here to make requests (firm or otherwise), only the
> suggestions.
>
> May I point out that the purpose of the subject line is to
> succinctly outline the main point of the post text. And that,
> of course, varies from post to post.
>
> Mail client program's role is to keep a tread together using the
> information in message headers. If properly used subject lines
> bother you, I guess you either have a sub-standard mail client
> program, or could productively spend some time learning to use
> its features?
No, MR, whatever your name is, you are breaking the threads. It is
extremely annoying and I for one am getting very close to kill-filing
you for it.
You do not get to set or change the rules.
Play by the rules as they are, or leave the game.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> No, MR, whatever your name is, you are breaking the threads. It is
> extremely annoying and I for one am getting very close to kill-filing
> you for it.
What's annoying? The thread is totally intact and shows
up just fine.
> You do not get to set or change the rules.
He doesn't. And he's not trying to, as far as I can tell.
> Play by the rules as they are, or leave the game.
He does. What he wrote was correct.
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Liam Proven
<alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 14.03.2012 15:18, schrieb Liam Proven:
>
>> No, MR, whatever your name is, you are breaking the threads. It is
>> extremely annoying and I for one am getting very close to kill-filing
>> you for it.
>
> What's annoying? The thread is totally intact and shows
> up just fine.
>
>> You do not get to set or change the rules.
>
> He doesn't. And he's not trying to, as far as I can tell.
>
>> Play by the rules as they are, or leave the game.
>
> He does. What he wrote was correct.
It might do in your chosen MTA. It does not do so in all MTAs and it
does not do so in my chosen MTA, and I am not about to change MTAs
just to humour some idiot who insists on breaking the rules of how
mailing lists work. Those rules have been in place since the 1960s,
since before the Internet was invented, and it is not OK for someone
to start mucking with them now.
In brief:
* post in text, not HTML or other rich-text formats
* bottom-quote
* do not change the subject line unless you wish to start a new thread
* keep sigs under 4 lines, separated by hyphen-hyphen-space-newline
I am using a cross-platform MTA which works on my main and secondary
desktop PCs, all 3 of my laptops and on my phone. I cannot - and do
not want to - simply move to a different one just to repair the
thread-breakage caused by one person who cannot abide by list
netiquette.
I used, up until 8 years ago, to use Thunderbird, which might be able
to cope with this fine, but Thunderbird does not run on my Android
phone or my iPhone or my Nokia Communicator; nor can I take a 6½GB
messagebase with me on the road or use it seamlessly from 5 different
main machines, not all of which are on the same LAN as my server.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
M.R.
> No, MR, whatever your name is, you are breaking the threads.
That happens only if your mail client is not keeping the thread
together based on the references in the message headers.
If that is the case, what we have here is a sub-standard
or mis-configured mail client program, or a user who has not
bothered to set it properly.
> extremely annoying and I for one am getting very close to kill-filing
> you for it.
Go ahead, but see below. That will solve your problem with my posts,
but not with other participants that use the subject line for what
it is intended to be used for.
However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by the
list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to where
the list owner has a documented directive that the subject lines
must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only list
with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list owner
has the right to do).
M.R.
Liam Proven
<alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 14.03.2012 15:00, schrieb Liam Proven:
>
>> Um. Are you deliberately trying to break the thread into subthreads?
>> This is a standalone new message without a quotation in it, so I am
>> not sure what or who you are replying to.
>
> No, it's not. If your reader displays it so, it's a fault
> of this client.
>
> In Thunderbird, it looks well → http://min.us/mVywLCKmU#1o
I don't care what it looks like in any individual client. That is not
the issue. The issue is that it DOES NOT WORK in ALL clients.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
--
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> On 14 March 2012 14:29, Alexander Skwar (ML)
> <alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:18, schrieb Liam Proven:
>>
>>> No, MR, whatever your name is, you are breaking the threads. It is
>>> extremely annoying and I for one am getting very close to kill-filing
>>> you for it.
>>
>> What's annoying? The thread is totally intact and shows
>> up just fine.
>>
>>> You do not get to set or change the rules.
>>
>> He doesn't. And he's not trying to, as far as I can tell.
>>
>>> Play by the rules as they are, or leave the game.
>>
>> He does. What he wrote was correct.
>
> It might do in your chosen MTA. It does not do so in all MTAs and it
MTA?
What does postfix (or sendmail) have to do with that?
Anyway. That's then a fault of the MUA. If it's not "mailing list
compatible", then that's a pity. FWIW, MUAs are supposed to thread
based on the In-Reply-To and/or References header lines.
> does not do so in my chosen MTA, and I am not about to change MTAs
> just to humour some idiot who insists on breaking the rules of how
> mailing lists work.
Fine. You're not talking about MR then.
> Those rules have been in place since the 1960s,
Yep. It's you and your MUA which breaks the rules.
> since before the Internet was invented, and it is not OK for someone
> to start mucking with them now.
Yep. So, just stop, will you?
> In brief:
>
> * post in text, not HTML or other rich-text formats
> * bottom-quote
Debatable
> * do not change the subject line unless you wish to start a new thread
Wrong
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> On 14 March 2012 14:12, Alexander Skwar (ML)
> <alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:00, schrieb Liam Proven:
>>
>>> Um. Are you deliberately trying to break the thread into subthreads?
>>> This is a standalone new message without a quotation in it, so I am
>>> not sure what or who you are replying to.
>>
>> No, it's not. If your reader displays it so, it's a fault
>> of this client.
>>
>> In Thunderbird, it looks well → http://min.us/mVywLCKmU#1o
>
> I don't care what it looks like in any individual client. That is not
> the issue.
Ah. You don't care. Why should we care, if it doesn't work
on one individual misbehaving client?
> The issue is that it DOES NOT WORK in ALL clients.
Nothing works in all clients. If the client behaves well,
ie. according to RfCs, then all is well.
Based on that, what MR does is perfectly fine. What you do,
is not. Flaming is wrong. Denouncing long standing facts is
wrong.
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Robert P. J. Day
> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
> owner has the right to do).
>
> M.R.
first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
and you are wrong.
second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
a new thread.
that's remarkably easy, and yet you've already wasted countless
man-hours of everyone's time on this list telling people you don't
want to, for absolutely no valid reason.
finally -- and you might want to pay attention to this one -- you
are rapidly blowing whatever good will you might have here. technical
aspects aside, you're very quickly establishing a rep as a
closed-minded jerk, and that is not going to stand you in good stead
when you pop by asking for help.
so you can take the easy solution and make everyone happy, or you
can continue to antagonize people who, some day, might be in a
position to help you and decide it's not worth the effort.
your choice.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>
>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>> owner has the right to do).
>>
>> M.R.
>
> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
> and you are wrong.
Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
are on a wrong track.
>
> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
> a new thread.
But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
it's correct to change the subject contents.
What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Patrick Asselman
astounded by the amount of non-Ubuntu posts.
Usually one person makes a (possibly) wrong remark and then a whole
crowd of pedantics jump right on top of it. Next thing you know, a flame
war is started, which is actually much worse than just the one
(possibly) wrong remark!
I wish everyone could restrain themselves a bit more and leave the
moderating to the moderators?
Just my $0.02
Patrick Asselman
P.S. Yes I know: I can leave the mailing list at any time. In fact, I
am seriously considering to do so.
Janne Jokitalo
> Can I just say... I joined this mailing list a few weeks ago, but I
> am astounded by the amount of non-Ubuntu posts.
> Usually one person makes a (possibly) wrong remark and then a whole
> crowd of pedantics jump right on top of it. Next thing you know, a
> flame war is started, which is actually much worse than just the one
> (possibly) wrong remark!
Welcome to mailing lists in general. That's how it usually goes down.
Also, expect this to become the most active thread in a long while.
--
Jaska
Dave Woyciesjes
>
>> That being said, Unity is really not designed to be configurable (on
>> purpose, if you can wrap your head around that insult.). If you don't
>> like the way Ubuntu does things, ditching Unity is probably the best
>> way to go.
>
> The more I look at 12.04, the more I'm coming to that conclusion.
>
> I wish there was a succinct statement of the purpose behind all those
> changes to gui, so that based on that I can make the decision. As it
> is, I'm forced to decipher their strategy behind it all looking at a
> large volume of details, with a significant investment of my time.
> As it appears, that investment is likely to be lost...
>
> Ditching Unity (12.04 GUI/desktop?) means ditching Ubuntu, right?
>
> If that turns out to be my conclusion, what would be the logical
> migration path for someone with a fairly high-end desktop computer,
> who was perfectly happy with 10.04? It would appear I have somewhat
> less than one year to decide (10.04 support end-date, April 2013).
>
Nah, no need to dump Ubuntu to get away from Unity. Choose one:
sudo apt-get install gnome
sudo apt-get install kde
sudo apt-get install lxde
sudo apt-get install lubuntu
sudo apt-get install xfce
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
Sonny Avery
Sonny Golovine
Dave Woyciesjes
> On 03/14/2012 04:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>> I am not a Moderator but I do have to make this firm request...
>
> I'm glad you are not (the moderator :). You and I are in no
> position here to make requests (firm or otherwise), only the
> suggestions.
>
> May I point out that the purpose of the subject line is to
Correct. That's why it's called a Subject line.
> And that,
> of course, varies from post to post.
If that is what's happening (content of the message not having a
relation to the Subject line), then the person making that goof should
have started with a brand new message to create a new thread.
>
> Mail client program's role is to keep a tread together using the
> information in message headers. If properly used subject lines
> bother you, I guess you either have a sub-standard mail client
> program, or could productively spend some time learning to use
> its features?
A thread is a conversation about _one_ topic, which is what's in the
Subject line.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Dave Woyciesjes
> Am 14.03.2012 15:00, schrieb Liam Proven:
>
>> Um. Are you deliberately trying to break the thread into subthreads?
>> This is a standalone new message without a quotation in it, so I am
>> not sure what or who you are replying to.
>
> No, it's not. If your reader displays it so, it's a fault
> of this client.
>
> In Thunderbird, it looks well → http://min.us/mVywLCKmU#1o
>
>
> Alexander
Nice screenshot. Yes, Thunderbird does show the thread well... shows it
well broken/hijacked.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Dave Woyciesjes
> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>
>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>> owner has the right to do).
>>>
>>> M.R.
>>
>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>> and you are wrong.
>
> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
> are on a wrong track.
Really? Where & how?
>>
>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
>> a new thread.
>
> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
> it's correct to change the subject contents.
No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a message in
a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a new direction
necessitating a Subject line change; then the polite & proper this to do
is open a new message window, copy the body contents of what you are
replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add your reply & send.
> What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
> wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
>
> Alexander
Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow the group's
guidelines; and follow common & long standing list-serve etiquette.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Alexander Skwar
Hello
Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes" <woyci...@sbcglobal.net>:
>
> On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>>> owner has the right to do).
>>>>
>>>> M.R.
>>>
>>>
>>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>>> and you are wrong.
>>
>>
>> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>> are on a wrong track.
>
>
> Really? Where & how?
You know perfectly well where.
>>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
>>> a new thread.
>>
>>
>> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
>> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
>> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
>> it's correct to change the subject contents.
>
>
> No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a message in a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a new direction necessitating a Subject line change; then the polite & proper this to do is open a new message window, copy the body contents of what you are replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add your reply & send.
No, that is not correct.
Correct procedure: Change the subject line, but do not produce a new mail. This way, the threading stays intact. After all, the changed mail used to have to do something with the previous mail.
The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
>> What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
>> wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
>>
>> Alexander
>
>
> Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow the group's guidelines; and follow common & long standing list-serve etiquette.
Hate was the wrong word.
Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common & long standing list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
Quite simple: if the subject of a sub-thread changes, then change the subject line. But do Not start a new thread!
He seems to follow this old rule. So please stop moaning.
Thanks.
Alexander Skwar
Hi
Am 14.03.2012 16:33 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes" <woyci...@sbcglobal.net>:
>
> On 03/14/2012 10:12 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:00, schrieb Liam Proven:
>>
>>> Um. Are you deliberately trying to break the thread into subthreads?
>>> This is a standalone new message without a quotation in it, so I am
>>> not sure what or who you are replying to.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not. If your reader displays it so, it's a fault
>> of this client.
>>
>> In Thunderbird, it looks well → http://min.us/mVywLCKmU#1o
>>
>>
>> Alexander
>
>
> Nice screenshot. Yes, Thunderbird does show the thread well... shows it well broken/hijacked.
Must be a different screenshot, you're looking at.
I see no breakage or hijacking. I see, how the thread evolved.
Alexander
Johnny Rosenberg
What an idiot thread. I'll filter it out immediately, so please don't
change its subject line!
J.R.
Alexander Skwar
Hi
Do so! Yet another reason, why it would be wrong, to always start new threads. If a thread is continued, even with changed subject line, then this can be easily done.
Alexander
Dave Woyciesjes
> Hello
> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes" <woyci...@sbcglobal.net
> >
> > On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
> >>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
> >>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
> >>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
> >>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
> >>>> owner has the right to do).
> >>>>
> >>>> M.R.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
> >>> and you are wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
> >> are on a wrong track.
> >
> >
> > Really? Where & how?
>
> You know perfectly well where.
No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.
> >>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
> >>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
> >>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
> >>> a new thread.
> >>
> >>
> >> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
> >> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
> >> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
> >> it's correct to change the subject contents.
> >
> >
> > No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a
> > message in a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a new
> > direction necessitating a Subject line change; then the polite & proper
> > this to do is open a new message window, copy the body contents of what
> > you are replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add your
> > reply & send.
>
> No, that is not correct.
>
> Correct procedure: Change the subject line, but do not produce a new
> mail. This way, the threading stays intact. After all, the changed mail
> used to have to do something with the previous mail.
The point of threading is to group messages that relate to a specific
subject. Yes, the changed _used_ to have something to do with the
original, but the key word/phrase there is 'used to'.
Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of messages
about Acrobat?
> The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
Sounds like you have an uncommon definition of threading.
> >> What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
> >> wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
> >>
> >> Alexander
> >
> >
> > Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow the
> group's guidelines; and follow common & long standing list-serve etiquette.
>
> Hate was the wrong word.
I didn't think that's the word you really wanted.
> Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common & long standing
> list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
Hmmm, now this _is curious. You & MR say he is following the common
etiquette; yet pretty much everyone else here says our method is
following the common etiquette....
> Quite simple: if the subject of a sub-thread changes, then change the
> subject line. But do Not start a new thread!
So, you're saying that this whole mailing list, and any messages coming
after this; should all be part of one thread?
> He seems to follow this old rule. So please stop moaning.
If you want to bolster your side of this argument, please provide
everyone with references to articles & such (hopefully they will have
dates).
The only way to win an argument like this is to provide irrefutable
proof that you are correct.
Alan Pope
Hash: SHA1
On 14/03/12 14:42, M.R. wrote:
> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
> the list owner/moderator,
Please stop changing the threads seemingly randomly. If you have a new
topic to discuss, start a new mail in a new thread with a new subject.
Cheers,
- --
Alan Pope
Engineering Manager
Canonical - Product Strategy
+44 (0) 7973 620 164
alan...@canonical.com
http://ubuntu.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPYM1dAAoJEMx6UFtfvV4w0wcH/3K/yjD6UxFiB/8ZWjdK7nTf
Kcd87xRf6TFt12br2ajH53XYZeSHoFdfJ55yiSr+CAfwdvknxIEBeRuihsPk0m6m
s/4BSFkbgaOrDF3aolwuPLsfUI944f6uxFsr5bKvS5c2KH1ogS6nnB4nw4k7t822
s1FchoXUDisAdRP9MyJO38JLP0o6JDncC666caug03SvZiZHsEKMSopHH/qpyd9s
RWYn+76FAg/1fkRTEiST0jWdbhU2Ygg60BHPaFFbquSYjmy5YL9N2SWPrXc2oL7T
abYwTLy89tQi0lI3eCRIY+oiqEswHx9x8HgRBvJTLapTjObn5KPEIA4BOvip90I=
=qt0Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Woyciesjes
> > change its subject line!
>
> Do so! Yet another reason, why it would be wrong, to always start new
> threads. If a thread is continued, even with changed subject line, then
> this can be easily done.
>
& subject lines. Take this hypothetical:
Say someone replies to this message with a solid method to improve
Unity, and after 5 replies, we come up with a fabulous plan. (Yeah, I
know, that's a long-shot miracle...). Now, since Johnny is ignoring this
thread, he doesn't find out about the magic sauce to improve his life on
Ubuntu.
But, if our way of using threading was followed, that magic sauce would
show up in a brand new thread that Johnny would get, yet he still is not
getting the rest of this one.
Understand?
Mihamina Rakotomandimby
Please use the Reply-to header to build your threads
Alexander Skwar
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave Woyciesjes <woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes" <woyci...@sbcglobal.net
>> <mailto:woyci...@sbcglobal.net>>:
>>
>> >
>> > On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>> >>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>> >>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>> >>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>> >>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>> >>>> owner has the right to do).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> M.R.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>> >>> and you are wrong.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>> >> are on a wrong track.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really? Where & how?
>>
>> You know perfectly well where.
>
>
> No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.
Sure.
>> >>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>> >>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>> >>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
>> >>> a new thread.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
>> >> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
>> >> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
>> >> it's correct to change the subject contents.
>> >
>> >
>> > No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a
>> > message in a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a new
>> > direction necessitating a Subject line change; then the polite & proper
>> > this to do is open a new message window, copy the body contents of what
>> > you are replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add your
>> > reply & send.
>>
>> No, that is not correct.
>>
>> Correct procedure: Change the subject line, but do not produce a new
>> mail. This way, the threading stays intact. After all, the changed mail
>> used to have to do something with the previous mail.
>
>
> The point of threading is to group messages that relate to a specific
> subject. Yes, the changed _used_ to have something to do with the original,
> but the key word/phrase there is 'used to'.
Yep, "used to" is the key. That's why it's correct to change the
subject and that's why MUAs keep the threading intact, by not
removing the headers used for threading (In-Reply-To and/or
References).
> Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of messages
> about Acrobat?
If it relates, then that's exactly the reason.
>> The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
>
>
> Sounds like you have an uncommon definition of threading.
If *you* say so…
>> >> What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
>> >> wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
>> >>
>> >> Alexander
>> >
>> >
>> > Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow the
>> group's guidelines; and follow common & long standing list-serve
>> etiquette.
>>
>> Hate was the wrong word.
>
>
> I didn't think that's the word you really wanted.
Correct. I really do blame it on the fact, that english
isn't my mother tongue.
>> Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common & long standing
>> list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
>
>
> Hmmm, now this _is curious. You & MR say he is following the common
> etiquette; yet pretty much everyone else here says our method is following
> the common etiquette....
Indeed. This _is_ curious. Please also keep in mind, how
the mail clients actually act. They do *not* remove the
"threading headers". Especially for that reason.
>> Quite simple: if the subject of a sub-thread changes, then change the
>> subject line. But do Not start a new thread!
>
>
> So, you're saying that this whole mailing list, and any messages
> coming after this; should all be part of one thread?
If they relate to this thread - why, yes, of course!
>> He seems to follow this old rule. So please stop moaning.
>
> If you want to bolster your side of this argument, please provide
> everyone with references to articles & such (hopefully they will have
> dates).
> The only way to win an argument like this is to provide irrefutable
> proof that you are correct.
Like you provided arguments… Up to now, you haven't provided
any proof either. I can just refer to how mailing lists always used
to behave, or, rather, what's the common way of dealing with this
"issue" was. It contradicts to what you seem to assume to be the
common way.
Alexander
--
↯ Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/ ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77 ↯
Alexander Skwar
Well, if that sauce stuff is in no way related to the original topic (Unity),
then, yes, of course a new thread is to be started. If it evolved from the
Unity thread, then of course *no* new thread is to be started and instead
simply the subject is to be changed.
Normally, back in the old days, the "rule" would be, to add the old subject
in () with a "was: " before. Clients then used to be able to throw away the
old subject.
Eg.:
1 Subject: Unity
2 Subject: Re: Unity
3 Subject Sauce (was: Unity)
"3" was a reply to "2".
Good clients could then, when they reply to "3" automatically do this:
4 Subject: Re: Sauce
> Understand?
Yep. Do you?
Alexander
--
↯ Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/ ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77 ↯
--
Dave Woyciesjes
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave Woyciesjes<woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyci...@sbcglobal.net
>>> <mailto:woyci...@sbcglobal.net>>:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>> >>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>> >>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>> >>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>> >>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>> >>>> owner has the right to do).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> M.R.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>>> >>> and you are wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>>> >> are on a wrong track.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> You know perfectly well where.
>>
>>
>> No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> >>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>>> >>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>>> >>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
>>> >>> a new thread.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
>>> >> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
>>> >> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
>>> >> it's correct to change the subject contents.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a
>>> > message in a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a new
>>> > this to do is open a new message window, copy the body contents of what
>>> > you are replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add your
>>>
>>> No, that is not correct.
>>>
>>> Correct procedure: Change the subject line, but do not produce a new
>>> mail. This way, the threading stays intact. After all, the changed mail
>>> used to have to do something with the previous mail.
>>
>>
>> The point of threading is to group messages that relate to a specific
>> subject. Yes, the changed _used_ to have something to do with the original,
>> but the key word/phrase there is 'used to'.
>
> Yep, "used to" is the key. That's why it's correct to change the
> subject and that's why MUAs keep the threading intact, by not
> removing the headers used for threading (In-Reply-To and/or
> References).
>
So, then, pray tell, if a new message used to have something to do with
a specific thread, but no longer does; Why would you want them to be
connected?
>> Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of messages
>> about Acrobat?
>
> If it relates, then that's exactly the reason.
If it relates, then the Subject shouldn't (need) to be changed.
>>> The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like you have an uncommon definition of threading.
>
> If *you* say so…
And just about everyone else here.
>>> >> What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
>>> >> wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
>>> >>
>>> >> Alexander
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow the
>>> group's guidelines; and follow common& long standing list-serve
>>> etiquette.
>>>
>>> Hate was the wrong word.
>>
>>
>> I didn't think that's the word you really wanted.
>
> Correct. I really do blame it on the fact, that english
> isn't my mother tongue.
International communication over text-based medium is always 'fun'.
>>> Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common& long standing
>>> list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm, now this _is curious. You& MR say he is following the common
>> etiquette; yet pretty much everyone else here says our method is following
>> the common etiquette....
>
> Indeed. This _is_ curious. Please also keep in mind, how
> the mail clients actually act. They do *not* remove the
> "threading headers". Especially for that reason.
Yes, I've known for a while now that mail clients don't remove
threading info. That's the whole reason behind the idea of starting a
new thread for a different topic.
>>> Quite simple: if the subject of a sub-thread changes, then change the
>>> subject line. But do Not start a new thread!
>>
>>
>> So, you're saying that this whole mailing list, and any messages
>> coming after this; should all be part of one thread?
>
> If they relate to this thread - why, yes, of course!
>
>>> He seems to follow this old rule. So please stop moaning.
>>
>> If you want to bolster your side of this argument, please provide
>> everyone with references to articles& such (hopefully they will have
>> dates).
>> The only way to win an argument like this is to provide irrefutable
>> proof that you are correct.
>
> Like you provided arguments… Up to now, you haven't provided
> any proof either. I can just refer to how mailing lists always used
> to behave, or, rather, what's the common way of dealing with this
> "issue" was. It contradicts to what you seem to assume to be the
> common way.
>
Yes, your are correct, I haven't provided any links about how this
should be done. I will look for some.
In the meantime, you have yet to do the same.
Is this what banging your head on a brick wall feels like?
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Ric Moore
> Am 14.03.2012 15:42, schrieb Liam Proven:
>
>> In brief:
>>
>> * post in text, not HTML or other rich-text formats
>> * bottom-quote
>
> Debatable
Not debatable... not by anyone who has participated within the Linux
community for any length of time. You are a relative newcomer to the
scene. To adjust your conduct to the locale is always a good rule of
thumb to follow. Many of us loathe top-posting and html messages
strongly. Why offend people, unless you feel your very presence denotes
some measure of justification to do as you please? That is the Ugly
American syndrome.
>> * do not change the subject line unless you wish to start a new thread
>
> Wrong
If you hit reply to a group message and then change the subject line, it
remains within the original thread, since the days of Pine.
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
Kenny Martsolf
On 03/14/2012 03:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Hi.
On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyciesjes@sbcglobal.net
<mailto:woyciesjes@sbcglobal.net>>:
Dave Woyciesjes
> Wow.... This is going to go on all day, isn't it?
Nah, Kenny, I'm done. My head hurts...
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Woyciesjes
> <woyci...@sbcglobal.net <mailto:woyci...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
[...clipped...]
Alexander Skwar
Hi
Am 14.03.2012 21:05 schrieb "Ric Moore" <waywa...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 03/14/2012 10:49 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:42, schrieb Liam Proven:
>>
>>> * do not change the subject line unless you wish to start a new thread
>>
>>
>> Wrong
>
>
> If you hit reply to a group message and then change the subject line, it remains within the original thread, since the days of Pine.
Exactly. And still, people here say, that this shouldn't be so.
Alexander
Alexander Skwar
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 20:56, Dave Woyciesjes <woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 03:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave Woyciesjes<woyci...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyci...@sbcglobal.net
>>>> <mailto:woyci...@sbcglobal.net>>:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so
>>>> by
>>>> >>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>>> >>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>>> >>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the
>>>> only
>>>> >>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>>> >>>> owner has the right to do).
Why should I tell you this? I didn't ask for this. So, why would
you want them to be connected?
>>> Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of
>>> messages
>>> about Acrobat?
>>
>>
>> If it relates, then that's exactly the reason.
>
>
> If it relates, then the Subject shouldn't (need) to be changed.
From time to time, it should. The subject of a discussion may change.
>>>> The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you have an uncommon definition of threading.
>>
>>
>> If *you* say so…
>
> And just about everyone else here.
Nope.
>>>> Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common& long standing
>>>>
>>>> list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, now this _is curious. You& MR say he is following the
>>> common
>>>
>>> etiquette; yet pretty much everyone else here says our method is
>>> following
>>> the common etiquette....
>>
>>
>> Indeed. This _is_ curious. Please also keep in mind, how
>> the mail clients actually act. They do *not* remove the
>> "threading headers". Especially for that reason.
>
>
> Yes, I've known for a while now that mail clients don't remove
> threading info. That's the whole reason behind the idea of starting a new
> thread for a different topic.
Yep. For a different topic. No argument here. Sometimes, people
may not want to start a new thread. There are reasons for and
reasons against doing so. It pretty much depends on the context
or intention.
> Is this what banging your head on a brick wall feels like?
Aha. If _you_ say so.
Alexander
--
↯ Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/ ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77 ↯
--
Johnny
Johnny3 65++ I can still remember I forgot.
On 03/14/2012 04:05 PM, Kenny Martsolf wrote:
Wow.... This is going to go on all day, isn't it?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Woyciesjes <woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 03/14/2012 03:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Hi.
On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyci...@sbcglobal.net
<mailto:woyci...@sbcglobal.net>>:
NoOp
> On 14/03/12 14:42, M.R. wrote:
>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so
>> by the list owner/moderator,
>
> Please stop changing the threads seemingly randomly. If you have a
> new topic to discuss, start a new mail in a new thread with a new
> subject.
>
> Cheers,
>
A few points:
1. The threading isn't broken:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2012-March/thread.html
[disable top panel application-window menu M.R.]
2. Regarding users that use an MUA that doesn't follow threading by
headers:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
Vague (hidden part?)but...
<quote>
Threading
Many users read mailing lists by the thread. This means that when
reading, emails are placed in a tree structure according to the
subject. For an example, see this page . To permit this, email clients
identify messages by a special hidden 'header' of the message. To
assist those who read mailing lists in this way:
Try to ensure that you use an email client which retains this
'hidden' part of the message. For example, avoid using Outlook Express.
</quote>
3. Regarding changing the subject:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
<quote>
Changing the subject
When a reply takes the email away from the original subject, change
the subject line in your email. This helps people reading the mailing
list to identify the most relevant emails for them.
When changing the subject, keep the original subject in brackets. For
example, if the original subject was 'Ubuntu rocks', your subject
should be 'Ubuntu could be made better (was Ubuntu rocks)'.
</quote>
M.R./you/I should keep the original subject in brackets . Example:
Subject: alleluia [was: disable top panel application-window menu]
@M.R. While I suppose you are, IMO, 'almost technically' correct here,
I'd suggest keeping the subject changes to a minimum. That helps those
that haven't figured out #2 above, *and* helps to abide by this:
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct
Also note that Alan Pope _is_ a list moderator.
Helpful hint for those that use SeaMonkey & Thunderbird: you can
ignore a subthread (ala this one) by: Shift+K
@Popey: It appears that you are a new enigmail user. Perhaps you could
ask Janne Jokitalo how to post with a PGP signature
(Content-Disposition: inline) that doesn't take up 14 lines for a 1
line reply. :-)
Ric Moore
> Can I just say... I joined this mailing list a few weeks ago, but I am
> astounded by the amount of non-Ubuntu posts.
> Usually one person makes a (possibly) wrong remark and then a whole
> crowd of pedantics jump right on top of it. Next thing you know, a flame
> war is started, which is actually much worse than just the one
> (possibly) wrong remark!
>
> I wish everyone could restrain themselves a bit more and leave the
> moderating to the moderators?
You might consider this point. When a technical question is asked, and a
reply given, it's on the web forever. So, in that regard, top posting is
not preferable. Putting the question last and the answer first is rather
stupid. So, the new people (mostly Windows refugees) get called on this
behavior, as they seemingly have no regard for those that may be
following in their footsteps, regarding a technical problem that will be
archived and later searched on.
Changing the subject line in a reply to an existing thread is not
handled well by a LOT of email clients. So, that is discouraged as well.
Period. Follow a couple of list-rules and everyone finds other better
things to comment or gripe about. There is a difference between "going
along to get along" and merging with the Borg. What is happening is that
a couple of hard heads don't think that they have to get along.
Me, I toss a top poster into my junk filter right off. After a while,
Gmail will catch on and make their life a living hell. :) Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
--
Basil Chupin
> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>
>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>> owner has the right to do).
>>>
>>> M.R.
>>
>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>> and you are wrong.
>
> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
> are on a wrong track.
Read this:
QUOTE
Threading
Many users read mailing lists by the thread. This means that when
reading, emails are placed in a tree structure according to the subject.
For an example, see this page . To permit this, email clients identify
messages by a special hidden 'header' of the message. To assist those
who read mailing lists in this way:
Try to ensure that you use an email client which retains this
'hidden' part of the message. For example, avoid using Outlook Express.
When replying to messages, use your email client's Reply To List
function, rather than 'Reply' or 'Reply To All'. This is Ctrl + L in
Evolution (Ubuntu's default email client), and Shift + L in Kmail
(Kubuntu's default email client) and in mutt (a popular console email
client). If your email client does not have this function, ask for it to
be added! Mozilla's Thunderbird does not have this function, but if you
read the mailing lists as a newsgroup in Thunderbird, you can simply use
the "Reply" function.
When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email from
the mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a previous
thread. To start a new subject, use a clean email.
Replying to digest emails breaks the threading.
Changing the subject
When a reply takes the email away from the original subject, change the
subject line in your email. This helps people reading the mailing list
to identify the most relevant emails for them.
When changing the subject, keep the original subject in brackets. For
example, if the original subject was 'Ubuntu rocks', your subject should
be 'Ubuntu could be made better (was Ubuntu rocks)'.
UNQUOTE
and there is more here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
BC
[pruned]
--
The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Basil Chupin
> On 03/14/2012 03:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave
>> Woyciesjes<woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyci...@sbcglobal.net
>>>> <mailto:woyci...@sbcglobal.net>>:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
Dave, as the adage goes, "Don't argue with an idiot, people may not tell
the difference".
BC
--
The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> On 15/03/12 01:59, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>>> owner has the right to do).
>>>>
>>>> M.R.
>>>
>>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>>> and you are wrong.
>>
>> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>> are on a wrong track.
>
>
> Read this:
I did. Did you?
> QUOTE
>
> Threading
>
> Many users read mailing lists by the thread. This means that when
> reading, emails are placed in a tree structure according to the subject.
That's wrong. Mails are threaded, according to In-Reply-To and/or
References headers, and only if that's not present, according to the
subject.
> For an example, see this page . To permit this, email clients identify
> messages by a special hidden 'header' of the message. To assist those
> who read mailing lists in this way:
>
> Try to ensure that you use an email client which retains this 'hidden'
> part of the message. For example, avoid using Outlook Express.
>
> When replying to messages, use your email client's Reply To List
> function, rather than 'Reply' or 'Reply To All'. This is Ctrl + L in
Well, if it has a Reply-To-List function, then, yes, of course, it
should be used. Otherwise, I'd think that "Reply-To-All" is the
function to use.
> When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email from the
> mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a previous thread.
> To start a new subject, use a clean email.
Depends on what you want.
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
Kenny Martsolf
Alexander Skwar (ML) ✆ alexanders.mail...@gmail.com
Depends on what you want.
Wow! This is still going on. At least you haven't changed the subject line for a while and added more broken threads to my email. Maybe if we are lucky this will end soon, or maybe I will end up with 400 different threads in my inbox discussing it. Here I thought I subscribed to this list to learn more about Ubuntu. Instead I am learning about a petulant guy that is absolutely sure he is right, all the while occupying at least 15 different entries of my inbox on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the mailing list.
Alexander Skwar (ML)
>
> Alexander Skwar (ML) ✆ alexanders.mail...@gmail.com
> <mailto:alexanders.mailinglists%2Bno...@gmail.com>
>
> Depends on what you want.
>
>
> Wow! This is still going on. At least you haven't changed the subject
> line for a while
In this thread, I haven't changed the subject line at all.
> and added more broken threads to my email. Maybe if we
That's then a feature of your mail client. If you don't like this,
maybe you should complain where it makes sense? Ie. complain to
the maker of the software?
> list to learn more about Ubuntu. Instead I am learning about a petulant
> guy that is absolutely sure he is right, all the while occupying at
Yeah, Basil and Dave and the likes are quite annoying. I agree.
> least 15 different entries of my inbox on a subject that has absolutely
> nothing to do with the purpose of the mailing list.
True. And all that, thanks to some pedantic, who wanted to let go of
some steam, without realising he's completely wrong…
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2012-March/258305.html
Kenny Martsolf
Alexander Skwar (ML) ✆ alexanders.mail...@gmail.com
That's then a feature of your mail client. If you don't like this,
maybe you should complain where it makes sense? Ie. complain to
the maker of the software?
I don't have a mail client. I use gmail as webmail only. I really see no need for a mail client. My phone receives email, and when I am using my computer, my browser functions with tabs. I can actually pin gmail as a tab. It has an option to sort by conversation. If you aren't aware, which I think you might not be, gmail is one of the most popular free mail clients available, and it breaks up the threads when you change the subject line. You insist that this is acceptable, but only you and one other person are fighting this issue. Meanwhile, several others have told you it is wrong. Including someone with Canonical, who told you to knock it off. I don't know what your problem is. Maybe you are retarded, and cannot understand the rules put forth for this mailing list. I don't respond here, because I am new to linux, and especially Ubuntu. I am a lurker looking to learn. Your bulls*&t is becoming tiring. I have a good idea for you. You keep doing what you are doing, and when new folks like myself get confused because jackasses like you break up threads, and folks like myself decide that we can't learn Ubuntu in such a confusing environment, and we just go back to windows... You can be the one to blame it. Sound fair, asshole?
Alexander Skwar
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:49, Kenny Martsolf <kennym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Skwar (ML) ✆ alexanders.mail...@gmail.com
>>
>> That's then a feature of your mail client. If you don't like this,
>> maybe you should complain where it makes sense? Ie. complain to
>> the maker of the software?
>
>
> I don't have a mail client. I use gmail as webmail only. I really see no
> need for a mail client.
So do I, most of the time. I'm, of course, aware of the short comings
of my tools and also of the advantages.
> My phone receives email, and when I am using my
> computer, my browser functions with tabs. I can actually pin gmail as a
> tab. It has an option to sort by conversation. If you aren't aware, which
> I think you might not be, gmail is one of the most popular free mail clients
> available, and it breaks up the threads when you change the subject line.
Of course I am aware. But that is still a long known short coming
of this email client. And, just like Liam (I think) said - nobody should
give rats about how an email looks in one particular client.
> You insist that this is acceptable,
I don't. I insist that this is following standards laid out *LONG*
ago. If your mail client doesn't behave, then that's quite a pity.
> but only you and one other person are
> fighting this issue.
Actually, I see it the other way around. Only Liam, Basil
and Dave are fighting. Heck, they even started this off-topic
flame sub-thread!
> Meanwhile, several others have told you it is wrong.
Other way around as well.
> Including someone with Canonical, who told you to knock it off. I don't
Wrong. Canonical didn't tell _me_ anything.
> know what your problem is.
Pedantics. Pedantics, insisting on wrong points of view which
conflict with old time standards.
> Maybe you are retarded, and cannot understand
> the rules put forth for this mailing list.
Yeah, so much for the etiquette... Offending people really WILL
bring accross your point quite well.
> I don't respond here, because I
> am new to linux, and especially Ubuntu. I am a lurker looking to learn.
> Your bulls*&t is becoming tiring. I have a good idea for you. You keep
> doing what you are doing, and when new folks like myself get confused
> because jackasses like you break up threads,
I don't break up threads. Neither did MR. The thread is still intact,
just have a look at the screenshot I posted → http://minus.com/mVywLCKmU#1o
> and folks like myself decide
> that we can't learn Ubuntu in such a confusing environment, and we just go
> back to windows... You can be the one to blame it.
Nope. Not me. Blame it on Liam. Blame it on Google. Or, rather,
blame it on you for not using tools that are up to the task.
> Sound fair, asshole?
Yeah, it does. Sounds fair. That's how it quite often ends, when
pedantics come upon us and try to force down rules, which are
against all the "old-time-rules". On top of that, people to stubborn
to accept the fact that the tools of their choice aren't so well suited.
Boom - there's the flame thread…
Alexander
Avi Greenbury
> Nah, no need to dump Ubuntu to get away from Unity. Choose
> one: sudo apt-get install gnome
> sudo apt-get install kde
> sudo apt-get install lxde
> sudo apt-get install lubuntu
> sudo apt-get install xfce
More ideally, you'd do:
KDE - apt-get install kubuntu-desktop
LXDE - apt-get install lubuntu-desktop
XFCE - apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
Then you get the rest of the environments as well as just the DE or
window manager - the set of apps that properly integrate into KDE,
LXDE or XFCE in place of the Gnome ones.
Unity's got enough Gnome 3 in it that for Gnome-shell you just want to
do apt-get install gnome-shell
--
Avi
Douglas Pollard
> Am 15.03.2012 08:11, schrieb Kenny Martsolf:
>>
>> Alexander Skwar (ML) ✆ alexanders.mail...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexanders.mailinglists%2Bno...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Depends on what you want.
>>
>>
>> Wow! This is still going on. At least you haven't changed the subject
>> line for a while
>
> In this thread, I haven't changed the subject line at all.
>
>> and added more broken threads to my email. Maybe if we
>
> That's then a feature of your mail client. If you don't like this,
> maybe you should complain where it makes sense? Ie. complain to
> the maker of the software?
>
>> list to learn more about Ubuntu. Instead I am learning about a petulant
>> guy that is absolutely sure he is right, all the while occupying at
>
> Yeah, Basil and Dave and the likes are quite annoying. I agree.
>
>> least 15 different entries of my inbox on a subject that has absolutely
>> nothing to do with the purpose of the mailing list.
>
> True. And all that, thanks to some pedantic, who wanted to let go of
> some steam, without realising he's completely wrong…
>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2012-March/258305.html
>
>
> Alexander
the replies of everyone else? Nobody is required to reply. And I have
learned something that I didn't know about. as a result.
Doug
Cybe R. Wizard
Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In brief:
>
> * post in text, not HTML or other rich-text formats
> * bottom-quote
> * do not change the subject line unless you wish to start a new thread
> * keep sigs under 4 lines, separated by hyphen-hyphen-space-newline
Will you now get the messages from moderation that I got when
complaining about top-posting and HTML? (sent to your personal eddress,
not the list, which is, itself, against all known rules)
They are only guidelines, not actual rules except for the ones we like
to think are actually rules, not guidelines.
It is for you to make a guess as to which is which.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Strength through Unity.
Unity through faith.
Adam Sutler
Cybe R. Wizard
"M.R." <makr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 02:18 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
> > No, MR, whatever your name is, you are breaking the threads.
>
> That happens only if your mail client is not keeping the thread
> together based on the references in the message headers.
>
> If that is the case, what we have here is a sub-standard
> or mis-configured mail client program, or a user who has not
> bothered to set it properly.
>
> > extremely annoying and I for one am getting very close to
> > kill-filing you for it.
>
> Go ahead, but see below. That will solve your problem with my posts,
> but not with other participants that use the subject line for what
> it is intended to be used for.
>
> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to where
> the list owner has a documented directive that the subject lines
> must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only list
> with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list owner
> has the right to do).
>
> M.R.
>
Here ya go, from:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
(I've highlighted the relevant part with ***s)
Threading
Many users read mailing lists by the thread. This means that when
reading, emails are placed in a tree structure according to the
subject. For an example, see this page . To permit this, email clients
identify messages by a special hidden 'header' of the message. To
assist those who read mailing lists in this way:
*
Try to ensure that you use an email client which retains this
'hidden' part of the message. For example, avoid using Outlook
Express. *
When replying to messages, use your email client's Reply To List
function, rather than 'Reply' or 'Reply To All'. This is Ctrl + L
in Evolution (Ubuntu's default email client), and Shift + L in
Kmail (Kubuntu's default email client) and in mutt (a popular
console email client). If your email client does not have this
function, ask for it to be added! Mozilla's Thunderbird does not
have this function, but if you read the mailing lists as a
newsgroup in Thunderbird, you can simply use the "Reply"
function. *
*********
When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email
from the mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a
previous thread. To start a new subject, use a clean email.
*********
Alexander Skwar (ML)
Am 15.03.2012 15:12, schrieb Cybe R. Wizard:
> *********
> When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email
> from the mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a
> previous thread. To start a new subject, use a clean email.
> *********
I think the "discussion" is about how "start a new subject" is to be
interpreted.
I think, we're quite clear, that it's bad form to hit reply, throw away
the old bady and change the subject, while the "new" message has nothing
at all to do with the old thread.
In this case, a new mail should be sent, so that a new thread starts.
But that's just _not_ what MR has done. Let's take this message:
Message-ID: <4F5F8273...@gmail.com>
Subject: I would much appreciate to be warned...
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2012-March/258286.html
Of course he changed the subject. But if you read the mail, you can
easily see, that this is done, because the thread "evolved". From
"disable top panel application-window menu" to something else.
If we disregard, that he IMO has chosen a bad subject, he did everything
right. This mail of his is *NOT* a new subject. A new thread should
*NOT* be started in this case.
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Cybe R. Wizard
"Alexander Skwar (ML)" <alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
> >
> >> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
> >> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
> >> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
> >> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
> >> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
> >> owner has the right to do).
> >>
> >> M.R.
> >
> > first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
> > and you are wrong.
>
> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
> are on a wrong track.
Not according to the mailing list 'guidelines' found here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
which explicitly states:
"When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email from the
mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a previous thread.
To start a new subject, use a clean email."
>
> >
> > second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
> > obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
> > change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to
> > start a new thread.
>
> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
> it's correct to change the subject contents.
That's certainly right /about replying to digest posts/:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
"Replying to digest emails breaks the threading.
Changing the subject
When a reply takes the email away from the original subject, change the
subject line in your email. This helps people reading the mailing list
to identify the most relevant emails for them.
When changing the subject, keep the original subject in brackets. For
example, if the original subject was 'Ubuntu rocks', your subject
should be 'Ubuntu could be made better (was Ubuntu rocks)'."
That is all under the one bullet point concerning digest mail replies
and is in opposition to what has gone before concerning regular replies.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Strength through Unity.
Unity through faith.
Adam Sutler
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Alexander Skwar <alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Up to now, you haven't provided
> any proof
I have. Please read them.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Strength through Unity.
Unity through faith.
Adam Sutler
--
Kevin O'Gorman
This thread is OT; take it elsewhere. Further posting here may be
considered a request to be moderated or booted.
See the top-post.
--
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:59:00 +0100
> "Alexander Skwar (ML)"<alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>>> owner has the right to do).
>>>>
>>>> M.R.
>>>
>>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>>> and you are wrong.
>>
>> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>> are on a wrong track.
>
> Not according to the mailing list 'guidelines' found here:
> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
> which explicitly states:
> "When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email from the
> mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a previous thread.
> To start a new subject, use a clean email."
You've said that before.
I'm lazy, and so I'll copy-paste my answer to this:
====================
I think the "discussion" is about how "start a new subject" is to be
interpreted.
I think, we're quite clear, that it's bad form to hit reply, throw away
the old bady and change the subject, while the "new" message has nothing
at all to do with the old thread.
In this case, a new mail should be sent, so that a new thread starts.
But that's just _not_ what MR has done. Let's take this message:
Message-ID: <4F5F8273...@gmail.com>
Subject: I would much appreciate to be warned...
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2012-March/258286.html
Of course he changed the subject. But if you read the mail, you can
easily see, that this is done, because the thread "evolved". From
"disable top panel application-window menu" to something else.
If we disregard, that he IMO has chosen a bad subject, he did everything
right. This mail of his is *NOT* a new subject. A new thread should
*NOT* be started in this case.
====================
>>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to
>>> start a new thread.
>>
>> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
>> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
>> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
>> it's correct to change the subject contents.
>
> That's certainly right /about replying to digest posts/:
Is it. Okay. Thanks.
> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
> "Replying to digest emails breaks the threading.
>
> Changing the subject
>
> When a reply takes the email away from the original subject, change the
> subject line in your email. This helps people reading the mailing list
> to identify the most relevant emails for them.
Okay. So what's there to argue about?
> When changing the subject, keep the original subject in brackets. For
> example, if the original subject was 'Ubuntu rocks', your subject
> should be 'Ubuntu could be made better (was Ubuntu rocks)'."
Actually, it should rather be:
Ubuntu could be made better (was: Ubuntu rocks)
Note the ":" after "was". At least that's how it always used to be done.
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Kevin O'Gorman
This thread is OT; take it elsewhere. Further posting here may be
considered a request to be moderated or booted.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Cybe R. Wizard
<cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:42:25 +0000
> Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In brief:
>>
>> * post in text, not HTML or other rich-text formats
>> * bottom-quote
>> * do not change the subject line unless you wish to start a new thread
>> * keep sigs under 4 lines, separated by hyphen-hyphen-space-newline
>
> Will you now get the messages from moderation that I got when
> complaining about top-posting and HTML? (sent to your personal eddress,
> not the list, which is, itself, against all known rules)
>
> They are only guidelines, not actual rules except for the ones we like
> to think are actually rules, not guidelines.
>
> It is for you to make a guess as to which is which.
See the top-post.
--
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
--
Kevin O'Gorman
This thread is OT; take it elsewhere. Further posting here may be
considered a request to be moderated or booted.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML)
See the top-post.
--
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
--
Alexander Skwar (ML)
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:13:04 +0100
> Alexander Skwar<alexanders.mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Up to now, you haven't provided
>> any proof
>
> I have. Please read them.
I have. There was no proof.
Alexander
--
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com ☞
--
Avi Greenbury
Please, let's stop this thread here.
Irrespective of whether or not it's in some codified rules anywhere, it
is a general expectation that the entirety of a thread is on the same
subject, and as such shares a subject line.
It would be nice if everyone could follow that convention, it would be
even nicer if we could stop having massive off-topic threads about the
minutae of the use of mailing lists.
Here ends this topic in its entirety.
Thanks!
--
Avi
Dave Woyciesjes
> Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>
>> Nah, no need to dump Ubuntu to get away from Unity. Choose
>> one: sudo apt-get install gnome
>> sudo apt-get install kde
>> sudo apt-get install lxde
>> sudo apt-get install lubuntu
>> sudo apt-get install xfce
>
>
> More ideally, you'd do:
>
> KDE - apt-get install kubuntu-desktop
> LXDE - apt-get install lubuntu-desktop
> XFCE - apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
>
> Then you get the rest of the environments as well as just the DE or
> window manager - the set of apps that properly integrate into KDE,
> LXDE or XFCE in place of the Gnome ones.
>
> Unity's got enough Gnome 3 in it that for Gnome-shell you just want to
> do apt-get install gnome-shell
>
gnome meta, I went through and yanked out all that I could of Unity.
Others may want one of those DEs without the Ubuntu customizations
added. That's where my suggestion came from.
Either way, the usual answer is "it depends on what your end-game
is...", right?
Next time, though, I may start with installing fresh from a Lubuntu or
Xubuntu disc, and add Gnome on top of that.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Dave Woyciesjes <woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Next time, though, I may start with installing fresh from a Lubuntu
> or Xubuntu disc, and add Gnome on top of that.
Don't just settle for other peoples' choices of second-best software;
go on home to Debian and get just what you want/need.
Why stick around for more lies/bullying/
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Strength through Unity.
Unity through faith.
Adam Sutler
--
William Scott Lockwood III
Regards,
W. Scott Lockwood
Avi Greenbury
> If you really want the Ubuntu experience on Debian, you can always
> use SID. That's where Ubuntu pulls it's packages from, and is the
> reason why they have 4 times as many security alerts.
Sid is nowhere near as stable as Ubuntu; it breaks on a regular basis
because it doesn't have the same mechanism as Ubuntu does whereby
major changes are only introduced at major releases. Sid's a
constantly-changing distro that can be likened to Debian's Pre-Alpha.
--
Avi
Dave Woyciesjes
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:29:58 -0400
> Dave Woyciesjes<woyci...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Next time, though, I may start with installing fresh from a Lubuntu
>> or Xubuntu disc, and add Gnome on top of that.
>
> Don't just settle for other peoples' choices of second-best software;
> go on home to Debian and get just what you want/need.
>
> Why stick around for more lies/bullying/
>
Eh, I just ignore the words. As long as I can do what I want with
Ubuntu, I'll stick with it. And Like I said before, I like Gnome3/shell.
So I'm happy with this free product.
Plus quite a few of my users here have Ubuntu as well, so it helps with
familiarity & troubleshooting.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Cybe R. Wizard
William Scott Lockwood III <vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >
>
> If you really want the Ubuntu experience on Debian, you can always
> use SID. That's where Ubuntu pulls it's packages from, and is the
> reason why they have 4 times as many security alerts.
>
I /am/ a Sid user. I've had no breakage since returning to Sid late
last year, but I'm sure it is coming just like it used to when I was
a Sid user before.
That said, it is usually easy to fix or one may just wait a day or two
for the fix to come down the upgrade path.
Cybe R. Wizard
Avi Greenbury <li...@avi.co> wrote:
> Sid is nowhere near as stable as Ubuntu; it breaks on a regular basis
> because it doesn't have the same mechanism as Ubuntu does whereby
> major changes are only introduced at major releases. Sid's a
> constantly-changing distro that can be likened to Debian's Pre-Alpha.
Speaking as a current and pre-Ubuntu Debian Sid user I say,
"nonsense." Ubuntu has broken for me with /almost/ every release.
Yes, the breakage wasn't great, but it was breakage the new ex-Winduhs
user won't be able to handle.
Sid, although it has broken, has never yet broken as often as Ubuntu
although a couple of times (again, pre-Ubuntu and 2004) it did break
spectacularly.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136 (discontinued)
Rashkae
>
> True. For me, though, I wanted Unity gone. So after I installed
> the gnome meta, I went through and yanked out all that I could of
> Unity. Others may want one of those DEs without the Ubuntu
> customizations added. That's where my suggestion came from.
>
That's what I thought when I switched my Desktop to Debian. I've
learned that even though I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does,
there is lots of fine tuning and fixing Ubuntu does behind the scenes
that is very valuable. Those Ubuntu 'customizations' shouldn't be
dismissed out of minor irritation with some design choices.
Cybe R. Wizard
Rashkae <ubu...@tigershaunt.com> wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 11:29 AM, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
> >
> > True. For me, though, I wanted Unity gone. So after I installed
> > the gnome meta, I went through and yanked out all that I could of
> > Unity. Others may want one of those DEs without the Ubuntu
> > customizations added. That's where my suggestion came from.
> >
>
> That's what I thought when I switched my Desktop to Debian. I've
> learned that even though I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does,
> there is lots of fine tuning and fixing Ubuntu does behind the scenes
> that is very valuable. Those Ubuntu 'customizations' shouldn't be
> dismissed out of minor irritation with some design choices.
>
That's true enough, but one should not stick with unacceptable policies
because the bread is tastier, either.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Strength through Unity.
Unity through faith.
Adam Sutler
--
Dave Woyciesjes
> On 03/15/2012 11:29 AM, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>
>> True. For me, though, I wanted Unity gone. So after I installed the
>> gnome meta, I went through and yanked out all that I could of Unity.
>> Others may want one of those DEs without the Ubuntu customizations
>> added. That's where my suggestion came from.
>>
>
> That's what I thought when I switched my Desktop to Debian. I've learned
> that even though I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does, there is
> lots of fine tuning and fixing Ubuntu does behind the scenes that is
> very valuable. Those Ubuntu 'customizations' shouldn't be dismissed out
> of minor irritation with some design choices.
>
with Ubuntu, can and will start with a bare-bones install, then add only
what I want.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
--
Johnny
time but Slackware. But I have always come back to Ubuntu usually in
less than a week and sometimes a day. But the only way to known what you
like is try. Just back up first.
Good Luck and God Bless Johnny3 65++
Mike McGinn
virtual machines I am installing Debian 6.0 in a VM as I type this. the VM
is a great tool for trying stuff.
--
Mike McGinn FACOCM
Ex Uno Plurima
No electrons were harmed in sending this message.
** Registered Linux User 377849
Ric Moore
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:29:20 -0400
> Rashkae<ubu...@tigershaunt.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/15/2012 11:29 AM, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>>
>>> True. For me, though, I wanted Unity gone. So after I installed
>>> the gnome meta, I went through and yanked out all that I could of
>>> Unity. Others may want one of those DEs without the Ubuntu
>>> customizations added. That's where my suggestion came from.
>>>
>>
>> That's what I thought when I switched my Desktop to Debian. I've
>> learned that even though I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does,
>> there is lots of fine tuning and fixing Ubuntu does behind the scenes
>> that is very valuable. Those Ubuntu 'customizations' shouldn't be
>> dismissed out of minor irritation with some design choices.
>>
> That's true enough, but one should not stick with unacceptable policies
> because the bread is tastier, either.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard
I guess Confucius can rest easily now... :) Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html