In
Ken said:
But crap is still an opinion, Bill. *You* may think it's crap, but 10
others may disagree. If you had said your *opinion* of the programs
is they are crap, and provided some reasons for your opinion, you
probably would have been OK. But you made a flat out statement they
are crap, and there's absolutely no way to prove that.
Yes I did in fact make a flat out statement and I see nothing wrong with
that. Although if somebody told me something is crap, I have two
choices. One agree with it or two and ask why.
Before we trip over ourselves and p*ss each other off, let's have a
simple definition of standards. <grin>
No I believe we both are too smart to p*ss each other off. I hope so
anyway. ;-)
Somewhere out in Ether World, there's got to be a
document/specification or two that specifies what a newsreader does,
and how it should accomplish it's job. Such as quoting with
greater/less than symbols, bars, whatever. I'm thinking they are
called "RFC"s, but not sure of that. And, they've probably
changed/evolved over the years as computers have changed, and the
Internet has come about, etc.
The things that are in that document are to me, the standards by which
any program should be judged against. Not what you and/or I want.
Things you want and/or I want would be called features. If a
particular program implements a feature that is not in the
specification, but does not violate anything in that specification,
the program still meets standards, and exceeds standards. If a
particular program does things differently than what is delineated in
the specification, then it does *not* meet standards.
Okay I have lots of mixed opinions about standards (so we are back to
this again). And the shortest possible opinion I can say is some are
good and some are bad. Like lots of things in life, things in life isn't
always in black and white. And this includes most standards. And they
should be judged by a case by case bases.
I've read for ages that OE does not quote correctly, and if true, then
OE does not meet standards. You may like how it works, but it still
doesn't meet standards. And for that reason and any reasons OE does
not follow the specifications, should allow others to classify OE as
crap, IMO.
I have no problems using OE and meeting the standards. Although I use
QuoteFix, so maybe that is why.
CTRL-H does something in OE, I've forgotten what you said that is.
But, if the result of CTRL-H is not in the specification, no other
program is obligated to provide that result because it's not part of
the specification. Even if your "personal" standards says it should.
Those standards apply only to you, not other users. CTRL-H is a
feature, not a standard in this instance.
No, no, no! I don't think CTRL-H should be a standard. The hotkey
doesn't matter. Funny many can remember the hotkey but not what it does.
And even still, what it does also shouldn't be part of any standard per
se.
What is does is just a view. And it views only threads that you had a
part in and ignores all others. But it is just a toggle and you can turn
it on or off. And for the life of me, I don't know why whether you are a
newbie or an old pro that you wouldn't want to use this view from time
to time. Maybe you can help me with that one.
As for where the programmers went, I suspect they drifted away to
better opportunities, and victims of poor computer education provided
by just about everybody from educators to manufacturers.
I have another theory. As I saw in the beginning of GUI OS, GUI
applications just couldn't support the power that non-GUI applications
could. And virtually all of the seasoned non-GUI programmers who really
knew what they were doing saw GUI applications as a waste of time. So
they never bothered learning how to create GUI applications. And I
totally get that. As that is when I quit programming as well, although I
actually hated programming anyway as I was a perfectionists. So it was
easy for me to quit.
Nowadays the power of GUI applications have enough power and the
hardware to now continue on what was being done back in the non-GUI
days. But those programmers are now long gone and moved on to something
else.
But aren't you asking readers here to take your crap comments about
the 3 other newsreaders as gospel?
No! If they don't agree (some will agree because they know this), I
expect them to ask questions.
You should offer solutions as to how to solve his problem, quoting,
not call other people's recommendations/programs crap. How does that
help the OP decide what program meets his/her needs, since no one
program ever meets everyone's desires/needs?
I have offered solutions over and over again. I don't do so in every
single post, but I do mention it enough. As back in the non-GUI days,
one programmer wrote in the readme, doc, or something that went
something like this:
After getting requests to add this and that to the built in editor so it
works like their favorite text editor / word processor. They stated the
purpose reader of a reader wasn't to also create the perfect editor to
fulfill everybody's request. They elected to screw that idea and to
incorporate your favorite choice within the reader. Now the programmer
was off the hook and you could use anything you wanted.
How it worked was somewhere in the configuration, you placed the path of
your favorite so the reader would know what to do. And when you wanted
to reply or create a new thread, you would hit reply or new and the
reader would place the original post and use quotes, save as a temp
file, then load your favorite editor with the path of the temp file. So
instead of the built in editor doing the same, your favorite with all of
the features you love.
Tons of options now opened up. You could use macros, spell check,
navigation, grammar checking, reformatting, or whatever you wanted too.
Who could complain about that? And when you saved and exited your
favorite, the reader picks it up and then posts it.
WordMail is the only GUI that picked this idea up. Although instead of
using any text editor or word processor you wanted, you were stuck with
Word only.
Today there is nothing like this at all. And virtually everybody thinks
you are stuck with the built in editor and judge the rest of the reader
based in part on the editor. And I think it is a very small request to
allow a reader to use whatever editor you wanted too. But they just
don't get it today.
It isn't totally lost though, there is copy and paste which takes a
couple of steps that does basically the same request. But readers today
could make this a bit easier. I do this a lot with OE and WLM. This
doesn't work with Thunderbird as Thunderbird treats everything pasted
back in as your post. Thus you are stuck with Thunderbird's editor, like
it or not.
IMO, they want their recommendations taken as gospel. LOL
Yes we both mentioned this before. Even I qualify as an expert in some
subjects, I don't even trust everything I said as gospel on those same
subjects. And I don't believe others should for me or anybody else
either. ;-)
I have to say Mozilla's new rapid release schedule for TB and Firefox
isn't helping things, IMO. This is a recurring argument in the
Mozilla newsgroups.
Yes I know. But others are changing a lot too. For example I see
Microsoft doing things they never would have done before. I have tried
to reasonably explain all of this. And the only theory I have come up
with so far is all of the old seasoned programmers have retired. This
means people with all of the experience. And now what is left is young
programmers that doesn't like or agree with the old methods and they
have their own ideas how all of this should be done.
And don't for a second think that I think that younger inexperienced
people are useless. No not at all. As I think fresh and new ideas even
from the inexperienced can be very useful and helpful. But the one thing
in common with all of them though is the lack of experience. And all of
the same damn mistakes have to be learned all over again. And I'll be in
my 70's and 80's before they finally get it and then the whole darn
cycle repeats all over again. :-(
True, and not everyone will agree with everything in a standard. But,
if there were no standards, all the power the user has with computers
today simply would not be possible.
Again I am not totally convinced that is true. As I remember a time
where there was no computer standards per se and it was a free for all.
And I thought it was very exciting, although very expensive nonetheless.
I refer back to my gospel statement about experts. LMAO RE: crap
I feel exactly the same way. They have to be convincing and address all
of my concerns before I find them believable.
A side story when I was very young and working with a scientist that had
a resume like you would never believe. He was highly respected and all
and super smart. Well he said something that I knew sounded like pure BS
to me and I call him about it. I didn't really know if I was right or
not, as it just wasn't making any sense to me and I was pressuring him
for answers. And after I backed him into a corner he finally admitted
that super smart people BS their way to the top. That wasn't the answer
I was expecting, but I never forgot it either.
#2 is exactly what you did not do.
I actually do this a lot. I don't do it in every case because I have
done this so many times I know what they would say anyway. Maybe that is
a mistake, maybe not. But if somebody seems intelligent to me, I will do
so. Paul is one of these individuals. And I will call him out if
something doesn't seem right to me and he does a perfect job of going
into detail and explaining. I don't totally agree with everything he
says (well most things I do yes). And if I had to admit if Paul knows
more things than me on average, I would say yes. And I highly respect
Paul.
But we're not going to see it. I sometimes think MS is more worried
about Apple than losing their own customers.
I know Microsoft is sneaky, somewhat devilish, and wants to win at
anything they do. I know that sounds very bad. But in comparison with
others, I consider them as the lesser of two evils. Microsoft is also
very good playing the fine line between how much they can get away with
vs. everybody hating them. At least there is a line they won't cross
which I can't say for many others.
My experience with OE was positive, but that was before I started
learning the "correct" way things should be done when posting and
doing email. But now that I know it doesn't do things correctly
automatically (you need things like Quote Fix which I never used and
apparently is no longer supported), I have no interest is moving back
to it. I don't know if Outlook can do newsgroups on the Mac.
Well I didn't have a problem with the so called standards with OE
because I used my own editor that corrected all of the faults. And yes
QuoteFix also takes care of that problem too and even makes it easier
for me.
Some will, some won't. Some will stick to something no longer being
supported, fixed, and breaks known rules. Just like I want to set up
my old Atari computers, which believe it or not, does have a few
people still writing software for the 16/32 bit machines.
I totally get this completely. As I faced the same challenges. But for
me, I had to finally throw in the towel and say goodbye to the old. As
the old couldn't keep up with my needs and the new could. Otherwise I
would have stuck with what I had known best.
Although what is funny or odd... I am not talking about stuff from the
80's and 90's... but in the recent years things that would have been too
old by those standards are not looking that bad nowadays. I'm talking
about software and hardware from the previous decade (the 2000's).
The thing is, you need to let them come to their own conclusions,
without muddying the waters by being adamant something is crap. As I
said, it only makes you look bad.
Yes you definitely have a point. Although like those early reader
programmers that everybody had a request that they wished the editor
would do... some say I say too little. Others say I say too much. There
is no happy medium anywhere. So I do both and play it by ear and hope
for the best. Maybe this is wrong, I really don't know.
The new stuff isn't crap because it does the job it's designed to do.
The designs just don't necessarily do what *I* want, which may be
indicative of some of your frustrations. The new stuff doesn't do
what you want.
Whoa wait a minute! I think we are talking around different things. I
complain about features that used to be common and now are gone. And it
is like nobody knows anything about them or why it would be a good
thing. Like they just don't know any better.
In the case of Atari computers, I miss the simpler interface,
although I used a replacement desktop called Geneva which had
cooperative multitasking. Simplicity is one advantage I think the
Mac has over Windows, as long as you understand how you do things
differently between Macs and Windows. Even then, there's things I
miss in my Mac. I have OS 10.6.8 Snow Leopard. Believe it or not,
there's no Move command. A disappointment for me. (I can cheat here,
run Windows in virtual machine, and move stuff around in my Mac
drives/partitions! LOL)
There is saying that I love that most people just don't understand.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery - French writer (1900 - 1944)
A bit of history, Atari basically "stole" the original TOS 1 from MS,
and made an error in the programming code. Inadvertently, you could
move files between windows. That wasn't planned, but quickly changed
from a bug to a feature! <grin> OTOH, a typo limited the early TOS
hard drives to 16 MB instead of 32 MB like MS drives.
I didn't know that much about the Atari, but I know a great deal about
Commodore 8-bit machines. And some great ideas were stolen by others
later and some were ignored.
For the sound stuff, nothing designed today, that I know of, does
what I want to be able to do. And, the few people that have heard my
sound system, are definitely jealous! Which I play to the hilt, of
course! LOL
But it's becoming increasingly difficult to merge/connect the old with
the new. I've still not come up with a good way to connect my new
widescreen LCD TV to the old stereo (yes, I said stereo) equipment.
:-(
I got into sound systems back in the mid 70's and quad was making a go.
I learned everything I possibly could and I ended up with a Marantz 4400
receiver and Sansui SPX9000 speakers. I originally bough a Kenwood tuner
and amp, but got rid of it for the above. Sure I got a turntable and
cassette deck and all (all the top or near the top of the line). My
automobile had 8-tracks, but this home system never did.
Funny I still have that system today. The quad part became worthless, as
that never gained a hold. They had quad radio stations, 8-track tapes,
vinyl, reel to reel, and I don't remember what else back then. But the
system also does stereo too if you want, so all is well. Then starting
in the 80's, Marantz got bought out and I don't know what happened to
everybody else for sure since I didn't keep up with it all. But no more
cabinets in real wood, specs that didn't follow the old rules which
means even if they looked better, really it wasn't. And lots of other
things too.
It was like everybody in the late 70's were trying to outdo each other
and quality and price didn't matter. Then in the 80's that changed
totally. It is like everybody was more interested in making things good
enough and as cheap as they could.
30 year later is there systems that could outperform mine? Yes I think
so. Although there is something they still haven't got right. And I
think it is the amazing speakers we had back then. As for example my
four Sansui speakers have 2 super tweeters, 2 tweeters, 1 eight inch
midrange and one 16 inch bass speaker times four. There is nothing like
these today for example in the consumer grade market anyway.
