Re: Don't even know where to start...

* Peter da Silva [2005-11-02 12:20]: > Hateful software that doesn't look at headers. Or shields the dumb users from such hideable technicalia and yes, I'm looking at you, Outlook Express. (Thank god that is so long ago it was in another life.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Dear Finder search

On 2 Nov 2005, at 11:25, Peter da Silva wrote: Please to be not sucky! Are you talking about classic Finder search in 10.3 or below, or the new All Your Search Belong To Spotlight in 10.4? I was using the Finder search in 10.4; using Spotlight didn't even cross my mind. Now I see that Spo

Re: Dear Finder search

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Peter da Silva wrote: > Are you talking about classic Finder search in 10.3 or below, or the > new All Your Search Belong To Spotlight in 10.4? Heh, I often wonder if I should be using Spotlight. I tried it a few times at first, but then I swapped that keystroke back to Quick

Re: Dear Finder search

On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:55 AM, Stig Brautaset wrote: Please to be not sucky! Are you talking about classic Finder search in 10.3 or below, or the new All Your Search Belong To Spotlight in 10.4?

Re: Don't even know where to start...

On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote: what's wrong with the the List-Id: header? Hateful software that doesn't look at headers.

Dear Finder search

Please to be not sucky! Searching for "Foo" in my home directory returns lots of hits, but clicking on each one in turn (and having to do this is almost worthy of a hate on its own) shows that they are each in ~/.Trash. Hmm... so I look for a quick way out to "ignore stuff in Trash", but no

Re: Don't even know where to start...

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 11:02:07AM -0800, Mike Macgirvin wrote: > Oh great - there's no [list-id] in the message subject for this forum. because there's nothing like overloading fields. what's wrong with the the List-Id: header? -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agr...@poo

Re: Preview

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Peter da Silva wrote: > BeOS metadata is useful for humans in organizing and managing > information about files at a higher level, but it's no better a place > to put stuff like hard file types than resource forks, finder info, or > file extensions. I don't really mean BeOS's

Re: Preview

On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:58 PM, Luke Kanies wrote: Traditional Unix apps don't seem to do anything with extensions; they don't really seem to do any sort of filetype recognition at all, from what I can tell. I'm sure there are exceptions, but everything I've seen just uses extensions for the huma

Re: Preview

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:58:49PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Peter da Silva wrote: > > > >> Not that any platform is substantially better at this. > > > > Traditional UNIX apps used to look for files with the right extensions > > but happily ignore them if you told them othe

Re: Preview

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Peter da Silva wrote: > >> Not that any platform is substantially better at this. > > Traditional UNIX apps used to look for files with the right extensions > but happily ignore them if you told them otherwise, with a few > exceptions (eg, the old trick of linking "tty.c" to "