Re: ancient perl versions
We did? I agree RC has its problems, but if half the tested clients, plus gmail show it normally, the problem then lies on both sides, since as my tests how, its not a problem for any clinet I have locally, nor with the people I regularly converse with anyway, and THAT is all that matters to me. I often see people send in some extra large and extra small font sizes, it doesnt bother me, if my eyes cant read it, I ignore it, its the simplest method :) I think this thread has been done to death anyway On 08/12/2014 23:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Nick, > > BOTH Noel and I have agreed that it is NOT the client. You can think it comes > down to what client someone uses all you want. That isn't going to make it > true. > > You obviously haven't read the explanation very carefully. > > Ted
Re: ancient perl versions
Nick,
BOTH Noel and I have agreed that it is NOT the client. You can think it
comes down to what client someone uses all you want. That isn't going
to make it true.
You obviously haven't read the explanation very carefully.
Ted
On 12/8/2014 2:26 AM, Nick Edwards wrote:
I cant see what the fuss is about, using gmail, your text is all about
the same size, except when Noel says he changed to 12pt, then it looks
larger than everyone else's, including jdow's.
I think it comes down to what client you're using, and its fine by my
reckoning, and it also word wraps fine here, if I was him I wouldnt
bother changing a thing.
On 12/8/14, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Eh? I'm not young, unfortunately, although I'll take it as a compliment.
I don't really care if Noel uses Roundcube or not, but it was irritating
when he was asserting a few days ago that it "wasn't his MUA's problem"
when it clearly WAS his MUA's problem.
After several others chimed in telling him that yes, they were seeing
the same thing, I see he has finally accepted it.
Please note that I didn't start this one either, I was NOT the first one
to point out the legibility issues. Others did, were told it was their
problem. I don't like innocents being blamed, and I'm quite sure if
most people were in a car accident where the other driver was 100% at
fault, they would not stand for accepting blame either.
If that's impolite, I'm not sure what the definition of polite is - is
it paying for the car accident you didn't cause? Just asking.
Ted
On 12/5/2014 12:24 PM, jdow wrote:
Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
{+_+}
On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
good web
mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text.
Including the
one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to
give the
SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if
the sender
has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it.
ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for
email, and
you can do stuff like this with it:
-- --- \
| Network router |---| NID |---
-- --- /
Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio
drawing
that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm
using.
And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages.
As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed
width fonts
and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more
understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional
spaced font
that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a
damn good
reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific
places. So if
I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in
shooting myself
in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the
sender
knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by
wrapping
their stuff.
If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an
ugly stick
with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with
no thought
to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned,
that's not
a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change
my config
to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it,
no more
than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie
and
shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something.
It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind
leading the
blind and relate that to the fact that "nobody else has ever yadda
yadda yadda"
but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority
of people
thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast
majority of
people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have
never
brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping.
After all,
it is an esoteric subject.
Ted
On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards"mailto:nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's also not wrapping the text at all.
it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line
of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you using?
roundcube - wraps
Evolution - wraps
the font size btw is identical to yours on both.
only two I use for this a/c
forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked
it
in android tablet and phone, both wrap.
Re: ancient perl versions
I cant see what the fuss is about, using gmail, your text is all about
the same size, except when Noel says he changed to 12pt, then it looks
larger than everyone else's, including jdow's.
I think it comes down to what client you're using, and its fine by my
reckoning, and it also word wraps fine here, if I was him I wouldnt
bother changing a thing.
On 12/8/14, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> Eh? I'm not young, unfortunately, although I'll take it as a compliment.
>
> I don't really care if Noel uses Roundcube or not, but it was irritating
> when he was asserting a few days ago that it "wasn't his MUA's problem"
> when it clearly WAS his MUA's problem.
>
> After several others chimed in telling him that yes, they were seeing
> the same thing, I see he has finally accepted it.
>
> Please note that I didn't start this one either, I was NOT the first one
> to point out the legibility issues. Others did, were told it was their
> problem. I don't like innocents being blamed, and I'm quite sure if
> most people were in a car accident where the other driver was 100% at
> fault, they would not stand for accepting blame either.
>
> If that's impolite, I'm not sure what the definition of polite is - is
> it paying for the car accident you didn't cause? Just asking.
>
> Ted
>
> On 12/5/2014 12:24 PM, jdow wrote:
>> Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
>>
>> {+_+}
>>
>> On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
>>> as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
>>> MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
>>> good web
>>> mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
>>> people defend it.
>>>
>>> Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text.
>>> Including the
>>> one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to
>>> give the
>>> SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if
>>> the sender
>>> has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it.
>>>
>>> ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for
>>> email, and
>>> you can do stuff like this with it:
>>>
>>> -- --- \
>>> | Network router |---| NID |---
>>> -- --- /
>>>
>>> Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio
>>> drawing
>>> that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm
>>> using.
>>> And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages.
>>>
>>> As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed
>>> width fonts
>>> and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more
>>> understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional
>>> spaced font
>>> that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a
>>> damn good
>>> reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific
>>> places. So if
>>> I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in
>>> shooting myself
>>> in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the
>>> sender
>>> knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by
>>> wrapping
>>> their stuff.
>>>
>>> If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an
>>> ugly stick
>>> with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with
>>> no thought
>>> to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned,
>>> that's not
>>> a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change
>>> my config
>>> to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it,
>>> no more
>>> than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie
>>> and
>>> shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something.
>>>
>>> It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind
>>> leading the
>>> blind and relate that to the fact that "nobody else has ever yadda
>>> yadda yadda"
>>> but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority
>>> of people
>>> thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast
>>> majority of
>>> people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have
>>> never
>>> brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping.
>>> After all,
>>> it is an esoteric subject.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
> On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards" > wrote:
>>> It's also not wrapping the text at all.
>> it wraps fine here
> Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line
> of
> quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you using?
roundcube - wraps
Evolution - wraps
the font size btw is identical to your
Re: ancient perl versions
Eh? I'm not young, unfortunately, although I'll take it as a compliment.
I don't really care if Noel uses Roundcube or not, but it was irritating
when he was asserting a few days ago that it "wasn't his MUA's problem"
when it clearly WAS his MUA's problem.
After several others chimed in telling him that yes, they were seeing
the same thing, I see he has finally accepted it.
Please note that I didn't start this one either, I was NOT the first one
to point out the legibility issues. Others did, were told it was their
problem. I don't like innocents being blamed, and I'm quite sure if
most people were in a car accident where the other driver was 100% at
fault, they would not stand for accepting blame either.
If that's impolite, I'm not sure what the definition of polite is - is
it paying for the car accident you didn't cause? Just asking.
Ted
On 12/5/2014 12:24 PM, jdow wrote:
Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
{+_+}
On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
good web
mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text.
Including the
one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to
give the
SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if
the sender
has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it.
ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for
email, and
you can do stuff like this with it:
-- --- \
| Network router |---| NID |---
-- --- /
Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio
drawing
that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm
using.
And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages.
As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed
width fonts
and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more
understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional
spaced font
that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a
damn good
reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific
places. So if
I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in
shooting myself
in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the
sender
knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by
wrapping
their stuff.
If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an
ugly stick
with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with
no thought
to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned,
that's not
a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change
my config
to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it,
no more
than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie
and
shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something.
It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind
leading the
blind and relate that to the fact that "nobody else has ever yadda
yadda yadda"
but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority
of people
thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast
majority of
people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have
never
brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping.
After all,
it is an esoteric subject.
Ted
On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards"mailto:nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's also not wrapping the text at all.
it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you using?
roundcube - wraps
Evolution - wraps
the font size btw is identical to yours on both.
only two I use for this a/c
forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked it
in android tablet and phone, both wrap.
since no one has ever brought this up with me before, I'm placing this
as not my problem to resolve.
Re: ancient perl versions
That didn't pan out, the svn version has serious bugs, so stuck with old 1.0.3 , shouldnt be so bad since I rarely post in here anyway :) On 06/12/2014 14:07, Noel Butler wrote: > No problems Jo, I might give its svn version a go, but as its the weekend I'm > about to jet off for a couple days, will try it monday, and 12pt as large? > LOL, maybe thats why RC defaults to 10pt as average :) > > Cheers > > On 06/12/2014 13:21, jdow wrote: > >> Hm, it renders much more readable. I normally default reading to about 12 to >> 14 point fonts. The 10 point was getting down to a size that some letters >> were becoming ambiguous, which seriously slows down reading. >> >> Thanks for trying. >> >> As a side note I see that the plain text of mine you quoted is rendered as >> about 14. That's a not unusual mutation for MUAs it seems. There is no font >> size declaration so it may be a result of some of the things I did to T'bird >> trying to see if I could tame stuff. The humor this look revealed is that >> yuor messages is "font-size: x-large;". And about 12pt is what T'bird >> classifies as x-large it appears. Most humorous. >> >> I hope you have a good one.
Re: ancient perl versions
Yeah, this is a few nibblies with this current version, how it made it
past beta I'll never know
On 06/12/2014 13:28, jdow wrote:
> I'll break it down - it may be a little smaller in appearance. It's on the
> edge. The prior settings worked nicer.
>
> This one declares a body style='font-size: 10pt'. Then for each paragraph it
> declares span style=3D"font-size: small;".
>
> It sounds like Roundfile or whatever it was (can't remember - don't want to -
> web mail is an abomination - I am THAT old) and T'bird combined have some
> really peculiar rendering notions.
>
> {o.o}
>
> On 2014-12-05 19:07, Noel Butler wrote:
> Since this appears recent, I wonder if its a rc 1.0.3 issue.. again, manually
> setting to this 12pt, yet looks same as what people see as 10pt On 06/12/2014
> 02:03, John Hardin wrote: On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote: pffft I see
> no problem,
> pffft
Re: ancient perl versions
No problems Jo, I might give its svn version a go, but as its the weekend I'm about to jet off for a couple days, will try it monday, and 12pt as large? LOL, maybe thats why RC defaults to 10pt as average :) Cheers On 06/12/2014 13:21, jdow wrote: > Hm, it renders much more readable. I normally default reading to about 12 to > 14 point fonts. The 10 point was getting down to a size that some letters > were becoming ambiguous, which seriously slows down reading. > > Thanks for trying. > > As a side note I see that the plain text of mine you quoted is rendered as > about 14. That's a not unusual mutation for MUAs it seems. There is no font > size declaration so it may be a result of some of the things I did to T'bird > trying to see if I could tame stuff. The humor this look revealed is that > yuor messages is "font-size: x-large;". And about 12pt is what T'bird > classifies as x-large it appears. Most humorous. > > I hope you have a good one.
Re: ancient perl versions
I'll break it down - it may be a little smaller in appearance. It's on the edge.
The prior settings worked nicer.
This one declares a body style='font-size: 10pt'. Then for each paragraph it
declares span style=3D"font-size: small;".
It sounds like Roundfile or whatever it was (can't remember - don't want to -
web mail is an abomination - I am THAT old) and T'bird combined have some really
peculiar rendering notions.
{o.o}
On 2014-12-05 19:07, Noel Butler wrote:
Since this appears recent, I wonder if its a rc 1.0.3 issue..
again, manually setting to this 12pt, yet looks same as what people see
as 10pt
On 06/12/2014 02:03, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft I see no problem,
pffft
Re: ancient perl versions
Hm, it renders much more readable. I normally default reading to about 12 to 14
point fonts. The 10 point was getting down to a size that some letters were
becoming ambiguous, which seriously slows down reading.
Thanks for trying.
As a side note I see that the plain text of mine you quoted is rendered as about
14. That's a not unusual mutation for MUAs it seems. There is no font size
declaration so it may be a result of some of the things I did to T'bird trying
to see if I could tame stuff. The humor this look revealed is that yuor messages
is "font-size: x-large;". And about 12pt is what T'bird classifies as x-large it
appears. Most humorous.
I hope you have a good one.
{^_^}
On 2014-12-05 19:04, Noel Butler wrote:
Ted is always impolite, but he's right that the current roundcube editor
is shocking, in many ways (but not teh way mentioned here) and a few
people have brought this up, I understand my gripes are fixed, I'll soon
know in a week or two. It is rare that I post in here anyway, I've
posted more in past couple days than most of the last 10 years combined
:)
BTW RC now tells me this is 12pt, yet looks no bigger than before.
On 06/12/2014 06:29, jdow wrote:
Ted was remarkably impolite the way he phrased it. BUT, I will say as a
practical matter microprint emails do get rather short shrift from me when
scanning through message threads. I seldom dig in here of late. But I do scan
through the messages which look interesting and sometimes offer such advice as
I can. (Usually on topics a simple Google search doesn't help with.) I'm sure
my advice would be equivalent to much other advice you might get from people
whose eyes are better than mine. And mine are far better than most of my
contemporaries and some of my former co-workers at the time. But, on the very
small chance that advice from me or someone with worse vision than even me
might help, it might be a good idea to send emails that are more readable.
I am sure I am not the only person here who would appreciate it.
Thanks
{^_^}
On 2014-12-05 07:38, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font or
whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care factor
about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move along ... On
05/12/2014 19:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The problem is Roundcube. It does not
insert soft line breaks as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a
lot of MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
good web mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently people defend
it.
Re: ancient perl versions
Since this appears recent, I wonder if its a rc 1.0.3 issue.. again, manually setting to this 12pt, yet looks same as what people see as 10pt On 06/12/2014 02:03, John Hardin wrote: > On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote: > >> pffft I see no problem, > > > > pffft
Re: ancient perl versions
Ted is always impolite, but he's right that the current roundcube editor
is shocking, in many ways (but not teh way mentioned here) and a few
people have brought this up, I understand my gripes are fixed, I'll soon
know in a week or two. It is rare that I post in here anyway, I've
posted more in past couple days than most of the last 10 years combined
:)
BTW RC now tells me this is 12pt, yet looks no bigger than before.
On 06/12/2014 06:29, jdow wrote:
> Ted was remarkably impolite the way he phrased it. BUT, I will say as a
> practical matter microprint emails do get rather short shrift from me when
> scanning through message threads. I seldom dig in here of late. But I do scan
> through the messages which look interesting and sometimes offer such advice
> as I can. (Usually on topics a simple Google search doesn't help with.) I'm
> sure my advice would be equivalent to much other advice you might get from
> people whose eyes are better than mine. And mine are far better than most of
> my contemporaries and some of my former co-workers at the time. But, on the
> very small chance that advice from me or someone with worse vision than even
> me might help, it might be a good idea to send emails that are more readable.
>
> I am sure I am not the only person here who would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks
>
> {^_^}
>
> On 2014-12-05 07:38, Noel Butler wrote:
> pffft I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it,
> then its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
> or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care factor
> about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move along ... On
> 05/12/2014 19:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The problem is Roundcube. It does
> not insert soft line breaks as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding.
> There's a lot of MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just
> not a very good web mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
> people defend it.
Re: ancient perl versions
On 06/12/2014 01:56, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau: > On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote: pffft I see no problem, as like > most developers if you cant reproduce it, then its nothing to bother about, > after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font or whatever, your pissing up the > wrong tree if you think I have a care factor about changing things when i > cant reproduce it. time to move along ... You're reproducing it for me ... > e-mails from you have a hard-to-read small font here also. Not from anyone > else - just you be careful or you end attacked and blacklisted as we still are because i did not accept the personal attack and "you have no right to ask anybody" while playing manner cop http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435100#435100 [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435104 [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435162#435162 [3] nope, only highly abusive blackmailers like you end up listed on RBL's as someone else recently posted, it doesnt take long on google to show what your true colours are and see the harsh words I spoke that you exampled in those linked threads, are truly just deserved, and if by any chance you have any mates who think I went too far, so be it, it doesnt bother me, told you that before, obviously I need to tell you again. what happens next harry is your own doing, you brought this up, remember that, so now all consequences are your own, and for the record as I said, I dont regret one single word I said to you in that post, it doesnt phase me in the least that you have retransmitted it, because those that know you, or have come across you, know you deserved it. Links: -- [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435100#435100 [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435104 [3] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435162#435162
Re: ancient perl versions
John Hardin skrev den 2014-12-05 17:03: On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote: pffft turn html off is hard, admit its time for santa so possible write some with red colors, kids garden :)
Re: ancient perl versions
On 2014-12-05 12:32, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-05 07:56, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau:
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care
factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move
along ...
You're reproducing it for me ... e-mails from you have a hard-to-read
small font here also. Not from anyone else - just you
be careful or you end attacked and blacklisted as we still are because i did not
accept the personal attack and "you have no right to ask anybody" while playing
manner cop
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435100#435100
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435104
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435162#435162
Personally I'd blacklist the charming Mr. Ted Mittlestaedt, first. Until
provoked Noel has been quite polite. I do respect that.
s/Mittlestaedt/Mittelstaedt/The spello was unintentional. {o.o}
{o.o}
Re: ancient perl versions
On 2014-12-05 07:56, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau:
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care
factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move
along ...
You're reproducing it for me ... e-mails from you have a hard-to-read
small font here also. Not from anyone else - just you
be careful or you end attacked and blacklisted as we still are because i did not
accept the personal attack and "you have no right to ask anybody" while playing
manner cop
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435100#435100
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435104
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435162#435162
Personally I'd blacklist the charming Mr. Ted Mittlestaedt, first. Until
provoked Noel has been quite polite. I do respect that.
{o.o}
Re: ancient perl versions
Ted was remarkably impolite the way he phrased it. BUT, I will say as a
practical matter microprint emails do get rather short shrift from me when
scanning through message threads. I seldom dig in here of late. But I do scan
through the messages which look interesting and sometimes offer such advice as I
can. (Usually on topics a simple Google search doesn't help with.) I'm sure my
advice would be equivalent to much other advice you might get from people whose
eyes are better than mine. And mine are far better than most of my
contemporaries and some of my former co-workers at the time. But, on the very
small chance that advice from me or someone with worse vision than even me might
help, it might be a good idea to send emails that are more readable.
I am sure I am not the only person here who would appreciate it.
Thanks
{^_^}
On 2014-12-05 07:38, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then its
nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font or whatever,
your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care factor about changing
things when i cant reproduce it. time to move along ...
On 05/12/2014 19:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very good web
mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Re: ancient perl versions
Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
{+_+}
On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very good web
mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text. Including the
one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to give the
SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if the sender
has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it.
ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for email, and
you can do stuff like this with it:
-- --- \
| Network router |---| NID |---
-- --- /
Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio drawing
that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm using.
And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages.
As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed width fonts
and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more
understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional spaced font
that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a damn good
reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific places. So if
I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in shooting myself
in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the sender
knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by wrapping
their stuff.
If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an ugly stick
with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with no thought
to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned, that's not
a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change my config
to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it, no more
than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie and
shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something.
It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind leading the
blind and relate that to the fact that "nobody else has ever yadda yadda yadda"
but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority of people
thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast majority of
people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have never
brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping. After all,
it is an esoteric subject.
Ted
On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards"mailto:nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's also not wrapping the text at all.
it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you using?
roundcube - wraps
Evolution - wraps
the font size btw is identical to yours on both.
only two I use for this a/c
forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked it
in android tablet and phone, both wrap.
since no one has ever brought this up with me before, I'm placing this
as not my problem to resolve.
Re: text/html rendering (was Re: ancient perl versions)
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 at 12:30 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: =>On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:15:10 -0500 (EST) =>Derek Diget wrote: => =>> Been a long time since I dug into MIME details and MUA display =>> formating, but don't forget about "format=flowed" when it comes to =>> Content-Type: Text/Plain and line wrapping. And/or, =>> Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable with Content-Type: =>> Text/Plain, too. => =>That's no problem. The original text/plain part is completely =>preserved. Correct. I was bring those up because it comes into play with how the text/plain part is displayed with regards to line wrapping. -- *** Derek DigetOffice of Information Technology Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo Michigan USA - www.wmich.edu/ ***
Re: text/html rendering (was Re: ancient perl versions)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:15:10 -0500 (EST) Derek Diget wrote: > Been a long time since I dug into MIME details and MUA display > formating, but don't forget about "format=flowed" when it comes to > Content-Type: Text/Plain and line wrapping. And/or, > Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable with Content-Type: > Text/Plain, too. That's no problem. The original text/plain part is completely preserved. Regards, David.
Re: text/html rendering (was Re: ancient perl versions)
On Dec 5, 2014 at 11:34 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: =>Since most mail clients that send HTML mail also send a text/plain part with =>similar content, my filter looks for messages with the structure: => => multipart/alternative => text/plain => text/html => =>and converts that little subtree to just: => =>text/plain => =>There is occasionally some loss of information, but it works just =>fine 99.9% of the time. Certainly, it has worked for every =>posting on this list. Been a long time since I dug into MIME details and MUA display formating, but don't forget about "format=flowed" when it comes to Content-Type: Text/Plain and line wrapping. And/or, Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable with Content-Type: Text/Plain, too. -- *** Derek DigetOffice of Information Technology Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo Michigan USA - www.wmich.edu/ ***
text/html rendering (was Re: ancient perl versions)
Since most mail clients that send HTML mail also send a text/plain part with similar content, my filter looks for messages with the structure: multipart/alternative text/plain text/html and converts that little subtree to just: text/plain There is occasionally some loss of information, but it works just fine 99.9% of the time. Certainly, it has worked for every posting on this list. Regards, David.
Re: ancient perl versions
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 09:47 -0600, Mike Grau wrote: > On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote: > > pffft > > > > I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then > > its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font > > or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care > > factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move > > along ... > > You're reproducing it for me ... e-mails from you have a hard-to-read > small font here also. Not from anyone else - just you. > I've noticed in the past that supposedly identical fonts are scaled differently by some programs. It seems that in this case Evolution doesn't show this behaviour, at least with example text that has been sent to this list and using fonts included in Fedora 20 (but who knows what it might do under Fedora 21 if the fonts change?), so it would be interesting to know if there are any other combinations of OS+MUA+font that always show it. Similar comments apply to line wrapping. There are some newsreaders and MUAs that give the receiving user control over line wrapping. The Pan newsreader has a 'Wrap lines' toggle while Evolution sometimes leaves paragraphs that it thinks are preformatted as single long lines, fixed by highlighting them and clicking 'Formatted' followed by 'Unformatted' on the Format dropdown menu. So, obviously, there *are* newsreaders and MUAs that insist on sending paragraphs as single very long lines or (1) newsreaders and MUAs would not have linewrapping controls and (2) I would not know how to deal with these single line paragraphs. Its also possible that the owners and operators of the offending programs don't know that this happens because they never see the paragraph as a single long line because the program always wraps when it shows you, even when its displaying or printing the message in raw format. It would be interesting to know what they see if they look at messages with less, which doesn't wrap lines by default, without giving their MUA a chance to reformat the message on its way to being looked at by less. Martin
Re: ancient perl versions
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote: pffft I see no problem, pffft -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Individual liberties are always "loopholes" to absolute authority. --- 10 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: ancient perl versions
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau: On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote: pffft I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move along ... You're reproducing it for me ... e-mails from you have a hard-to-read small font here also. Not from anyone else - just you be careful or you end attacked and blacklisted as we still are because i did not accept the personal attack and "you have no right to ask anybody" while playing manner cop http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435100#435100 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435104 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/435162#435162 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ancient perl versions
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote: > pffft > > I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then > its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font > or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care > factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move > along ... You're reproducing it for me ... e-mails from you have a hard-to-read small font here also. Not from anyone else - just you.
Re: ancient perl versions
pffft I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move along ... On 05/12/2014 19:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks > as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of > MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very good web > mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently > people defend it.
Re: ancient perl versions
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very good web mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently people defend it. Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text. Including the one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to give the SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if the sender has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it. ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for email, and you can do stuff like this with it: -- --- \ | Network router |---| NID |--- -- --- / Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio drawing that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm using. And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages. As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed width fonts and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional spaced font that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a damn good reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific places. So if I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in shooting myself in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the sender knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by wrapping their stuff. If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an ugly stick with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with no thought to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned, that's not a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change my config to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it, no more than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie and shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something. It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind leading the blind and relate that to the fact that "nobody else has ever yadda yadda yadda" but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority of people thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast majority of people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have never brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping. After all, it is an esoteric subject. Ted On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote: On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote: On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards"mailto:nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com>> wrote: It's also not wrapping the text at all. it wraps fine here Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap. What client are you using? roundcube - wraps Evolution - wraps the font size btw is identical to yours on both. only two I use for this a/c forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked it in android tablet and phone, both wrap. since no one has ever brought this up with me before, I'm placing this as not my problem to resolve.
Re: ancient perl versions
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote: > On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards" wrote: > It's also not wrapping the text at all. it wraps fine here Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap. What client are you using? roundcube - wraps Evolution - wraps the font size btw is identical to yours on both. only two I use for this a/c forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked it in android tablet and phone, both wrap. since no one has ever brought this up with me before, I'm placing this as not my problem to resolve.
Re: ancient perl versions
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards" wrote: >> It's also not wrapping the text at all. > it wraps fine here Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
Re: ancient perl versions
On 12/5/14, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > On 12/4/2014 6:24 PM, Noel Butler wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 20:22 -0600, Dave Pooser wrote: >>> > strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list >>> > as >>> >everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from >>> >evolution >>> >>> That one looked significantly larger in my mail client (Outlook 2011 for >>> Macintosh). Looking at source, your previous had 'font-size: 10pt' and >>> this one omitted font-size entirely. >> >> thanks, seems yet another problem with roundcube *sigh* >> > > It's also not wrapping the text at all. > > Ted > bullshit, it wraps fine here
Re: ancient perl versions
On 12/4/2014 6:24 PM, Noel Butler wrote: On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 20:22 -0600, Dave Pooser wrote: > strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as >everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from >evolution That one looked significantly larger in my mail client (Outlook 2011 for Macintosh). Looking at source, your previous had 'font-size: 10pt' and this one omitted font-size entirely. thanks, seems yet another problem with roundcube *sigh* It's also not wrapping the text at all. Ted
Re: ancient perl versions
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 20:22 -0600, Dave Pooser wrote: > > strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as > >everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from > >evolution > > That one looked significantly larger in my mail client (Outlook 2011 for > Macintosh). Looking at source, your previous had 'font-size: 10pt' and > this one omitted font-size entirely. thanks, seems yet another problem with roundcube *sigh* signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ancient perl versions
> strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as >everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from >evolution That one looked significantly larger in my mail client (Outlook 2011 for Macintosh). Looking at source, your previous had 'font-size: 10pt' and this one omitted font-size entirely. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
Re: ancient perl versions
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 17:45 -0800, jdow wrote:
> Clipped from the quoted message:
>
> body style=3D'font-size: 10pt'
>
> 12 pt would be better. Everybody else seems to come through with 12pt or
> larger
> font - or else plain text, which sane people prefer. (I may have to read HTML
> format. I try never to send it. {^_-})
>
> {o.o}
strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as
everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from
evolution
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ancient perl versions
On 2014-12-04 17:06, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 06:19, jdow wrote:
Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not uniformly
made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old (lose me there,
too) wunderkinds. Thank you in advance.
{o.o}
Ummm, nothing is in tiny print AFAIK, it's the same font size as all my posts
about 12pt according to roundcube... and checking in Evolution my posts made in
roundcube are the same as anyone else's on this list, I dont tend to shrink text
unless its the disclaimer in my sig, which does not go on this account since
this a list account and not personal/private/business, which do have them (and
in smaller print) So I dunno how you saw this any smaller than anything else's
Jo, maybe its your windaz thunderbird /me ducks for cover :)
Clipped from the quoted message:
body style=3D'font-size: 10pt'
12 pt would be better. Everybody else seems to come through with 12pt or larger
font - or else plain text, which sane people prefer. (I may have to read HTML
format. I try never to send it. {^_-})
{o.o}
Re: ancient perl versions
On 05/12/2014 06:19, jdow wrote:
> Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
> print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not
> uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old (lose
> me there, too) wunderkinds. Thank you in advance.
>
> {o.o}
Ummm, nothing is in tiny print AFAIK, it's the same font size as all my
posts about 12pt according to roundcube... and checking in Evolution my
posts made in roundcube are the same as anyone else's on this list, I
dont tend to shrink text unless its the disclaimer in my sig, which does
not go on this account since this a list account and not
personal/private/business, which do have them (and in smaller print) So
I dunno how you saw this any smaller than anything else's Jo, maybe its
your windaz thunderbird /me ducks for cover :)
Re: ancient perl versions
On 2014-12-04 13:29, Bob Proulx wrote:
jdow wrote:
footnotes:
Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not
uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old
(lose me there, too) wunderkinds. Thank you in advance.
I guess you are reading the text/html alternative? I personally read
the text/plain alternative. Then the text is rendered in my MUA's
choice of fonts which I control. :-)
If you read the text/plain version of the message you would never have
noticed the html alternative and would have read all of the text in
the font of your choice. Plain text is for me the most accessible.
Bob
Unfortunately I have customers
{o.o}
Re: ancient perl versions
jdow wrote: > >footnotes: > > Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny > print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not > uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old > (lose me there, too) wunderkinds. Thank you in advance. I guess you are reading the text/html alternative? I personally read the text/plain alternative. Then the text is rendered in my MUA's choice of fonts which I control. :-) If you read the text/plain version of the message you would never have noticed the html alternative and would have read all of the text in the font of your choice. Plain text is for me the most accessible. Bob
Re: ancient perl versions
On 2014-12-03 15:55, Noel Butler wrote:
On 04/12/2014 00:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
...
footnotes:
I use slackware, yes its releases come with latest versions of most things, and
updates move with upstreams due to slackwares philosophy and releases are
maintained for usually 5 or more years, but even then, the packages can't cater
for all configurations, since its no hassle using upstream sources, it wont
break anything, and if I only need X and Y built into a binary, I *know* only X
and Y is built in, not massive bloat in having A-W, and Z as well, so updating
perl for instance is a no brainer should I desire, I have requested the -current
repo be updated to 5.20.1 fopr benefit of all slackers, but if I can a rejection
on that request, it'll take all of 20 mins to install the bastard from source
myself :) (well last time I built it it took 20 mins - might be tad longer now
days lol)
Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not uniformly
made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old (lose me there,
too) wunderkinds. Thank you in advance.
{o.o}
Re: ancient perl versions
On 04/12/2014 00:28, Greg Troxel wrote: > I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with > old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other > things. > > More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a > different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system > doesn't mean someone can't do that; that's what you'd have to do if the > base system didn' have perl. Exactly! The problem is, those who use distro_X only want to use packages released by distro_X's repo, in some cases its pure laziness, in others, not so, some of those package managers have I'm sure been designed by ex Microsoft employees, because try remove one thing, and the package manager will try remove 3/4 of the system. IIRC with Redhat you can tell it to singular remove that program and ignore the deps, so it is, or wasn't, that bad compared the debian's apt. The remainder are just lazy, or don't live on the edge :) footnotes: I use slackware, yes its releases come with latest versions of most things, and updates move with upstreams due to slackwares philosophy and releases are maintained for usually 5 or more years, but even then, the packages can't cater for all configurations, since its no hassle using upstream sources, it wont break anything, and if I only need X and Y built into a binary, I *know* only X and Y is built in, not massive bloat in having A-W, and Z as well, so updating perl for instance is a no brainer should I desire, I have requested the -current repo be updated to 5.20.1 fopr benefit of all slackers, but if I can a rejection on that request, it'll take all of 20 mins to install the bastard from source myself :) (well last time I built it it took 20 mins - might be tad longer now days lol)
Re: ancient perl versions
On 12/3/2014 6:28 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other things. Microsoft thinks like you do, that's why Internet Explorer 8 was the last version of IE to run on Windows XP. Google does not, that's why Chrome today still runs on Windows XP. Chrome is kicking IE's ass out of major swaths of market share because of this decision. I still see IE required by large IT departments running big commercial apps which require IE - but every end user nowadays I setup with a new PC tells me to install Chrome because they prefer it. What does the SA project want to be? More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system doesn't mean someone can't do that; that's what you'd have to do if the base system didn' have perl. Perl stopped being a good idea to include in the base distos when it decided it was an OK thing to break backwards compatibility with Perl scripts around Perl version 5.0. The clueful distro maintainers started dropping it then. Ted
Re: ancient perl versions
I'm only expecting new rules sets to work, sir. I still run a lamentably antique
version of SA with my middle aged version of perl.
{o.o}
On 2014-12-03 06:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with
old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other
things.
More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a
different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system
doesn't mean someone can't do that; that's what you'd have to do if the
base system didn' have perl.
Re: ancient perl versions
Am 03.12.2014 um 15:28 schrieb Greg Troxel: I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other things. More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system doesn't mean someone can't do that; that's what you'd have to do if the base system didn' have perl nobody really talks about "newer versions of other things" the whole discussion was about *rule updates* signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ancient perl versions
I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other things. More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system doesn't mean someone can't do that; that's what you'd have to do if the base system didn' have perl. pgp6PK9YCc9qv.pgp Description: PGP signature
