Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

* Daniel Pittman [2010-10-22 04:50]: > The fiends! The people who create new threads by replying to > something and polishing off all the visible parts of the > message finally won, so now GMail does exactly what they > *thought* was happening for them. > > Daniel > > I don't know if this

Re: bash

* Tony Finch [2010-10-19 12:30]: > D'oh! That explains why I never see this stupidity. > > 1.1 (fanf 01-Sep-99): shopt -s cdspell checkhash checkwinsize extglob > histappend It almost seems like half my .bashrc is unbreak-me-harder crud. My very most favourite recent addition is bind -x '"

Re: bash

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:30:42AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > > > So, instead, we have 'set -o checkhash' to ask it to please work like sane > > people expect. > > D'oh! That explains why I never see this stupidity. > > 1.1 (fanf 01-Sep-99): shopt -s

Re: X

Peter Kruse writes: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote: -- X Windows is the Iran-Contra of graphical user interfaces: a tragedy of political compromises, entangled alliances, marketing hype, and just plain greed. X Windows is to memory as Ronald Reagan was to money.    -- Th

Re: X (was: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible)

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote: -- X Windows is the Iran-Contra of graphical user interfaces: a tragedy of political compromises, entangled alliances, marketing hype, and just plain greed. X Windows is to memory as Ronald Reagan was to money.    -- The Unix Haters Handbook

Re: GMail can edit the subject (was: Re: gmail is terrible)

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 09:53:09PM +0200, Nik Clayton wrote: > On 21 October 2010 21:46, Michael Leuchtenburg wrote: > > Someone on a mailing list I'm on recently commented, on having created a > > new thread with a new subject line rather than replying to the thread and > > just changing the subje

Re: GMail can edit the subject (was: Re: gmail is terrible)

On 2010.10.21 3:53 PM, Nik Clayton wrote: > On 21 October 2010 21:46, Michael Leuchtenburg > wrote: > > Someone on a mailing list I'm on recently commented, on having created a > new thread with a new subject line rather than replying to the thread and >

GMail can edit the subject (was: Re: gmail is terrible)

On 21 October 2010 21:46, Michael Leuchtenburg wrote: > Someone on a mailing list I'm on recently commented, on having created a > new thread with a new subject line rather than replying to the thread and > just changing the subject line (i.e., having a correct References header): > {Sorry about t

Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:21:57AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:50:34PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > > And neither of these replies had In-Reply-To or References headers, at > > > least by the time they reached me. > > > > The fiends! The people who create new t

Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:50:34PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > And neither of these replies had In-Reply-To or References headers, at > least by the time they reached me. The fiends! The people who create new threads by replying to something and polishing off all the visible parts of the mes

Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

Roger Burton West writes: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Gerry Lawrence wrote: > >>Um, what? gmail may be hateful but there is a button that says "edit >>subject" > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 09:53:09PM +0200, Nik Clayton wrote: > >>There's an "Edit Subject" link right below the

Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Gerry Lawrence wrote: >Um, what? gmail may be hateful but there is a button that says "edit >subject" On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 09:53:09PM +0200, Nik Clayton wrote: >There's an "Edit Subject" link right below the cc: text box. I used it to >change t

Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

On 2010-10-21 15:52, Gerry Lawrence wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Michael Leuchtenburg mailto:mich...@slashhome.org>> wrote: Someone on a mailing list I'm on recently commented, on having created a new thread with a new subject line rather than replying to the thread a

Re: EDITING SUBJECT with gmail is POSSIBLE terrible

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Michael Leuchtenburg < mich...@slashhome.org> wrote: > Someone on a mailing list I'm on recently commented, on having created a > new thread with a new subject line rather than replying to the thread and > just changing the subject line (i.e., having a correct Ref

gmail is terrible

Someone on a mailing list I'm on recently commented, on having created a new thread with a new subject line rather than replying to the thread and just changing the subject line (i.e., having a correct References header): {Sorry about the independent thread - gmail doesn't have a way to change

Re: Out of Office AutoReply: bash

Talking about hateful software...: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:21:44PM +1300, Nigel Tidswell wrote: > I am on leave, and will be back at work Tuesday 2 November. > > For urgent enquiries please ring (06) 873 7550 > > Nigel Tidswell > > > _

Re: bash

On 2010-10-19, at 05:30, Tony Finch wrote: My favourite shell hate is POSIX's "logical" cd behaviour. And I see that POSIX does not have the "don't be stupid" option `set -o physical`. Augh. What, you mean where "cd .." does a string operation on $CWD instead of just following ".."? I can see

Re: bash

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > So, instead, we have 'set -o checkhash' to ask it to please work like sane > people expect. D'oh! That explains why I never see this stupidity. 1.1 (fanf 01-Sep-99): shopt -s cdspell checkhash checkwinsize extglob histappend > Which, of course, acco

Re: bash

On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 08:18 +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:02:38 +1100, Daniel Pittman > wrote: > > What I find hateful is the "Don't Be Stupid" switch. Which, naturally, the > > developers of bash supplied because you wouldn't want to surprise people by > > changing this m

Re: bash

Bash lets me work every day, despite its shortcomings. Just start me on Finder. Neil PS and top posting. On 19 Oct 2010, at 00:02, Daniel Pittman wrote: Nicholas Clark writes: Dear bash, Why do you insist on hashing the paths to commands. And never expiring the cache. Or detecting that

Re: bash

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:02:38 +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > Nicholas Clark writes: > > > Dear bash, > > > > Why do you insist on hashing the paths to commands. > > And never expiring the cache. > > Or detecting that it has gone stale. > > In this day and age, of more RAM and CPU than we know wh

Re: bash

Nicholas Clark writes: > Dear bash, > > Why do you insist on hashing the paths to commands. > And never expiring the cache. > Or detecting that it has gone stale. > In this day and age, of more RAM and CPU than we know what to do with? > > How hard would it be to record the device, inode and mtim

Re: bash

On 2010-10-18, at 10:30, Peter Corlett wrote: Er... oh, fuck it, why didn't Linus come up with a VMS clone instead? Because nobody would have given a shit. A company did come up with a cheap VMS clone for PCs back in the '80s, and didn't get any sales until they ported a UNIX compatibility la

Re: bash

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:18:36AM -0700, Joshua Juran wrote: [...] > But if you want to use classic Mac OS (or any other OS) *without* a POSIX > layer, then be my guest. I used to use AmigaOS, which wasn't all that bad. You could spot the stuff ported from Unix using an emulation layer because it

Re: bash

On 2010-10-20, at 05:19, Peter Corlett wrote: Sure, it was hateful in its own special ways, but it was no less usable than a Unix system of similar vintage. I'm a big fan of the Amiga and its design, but if I could have bought something like a 3b1 for the price of an Amiga it wouldn't have sto