I don't understand why people get so defensive over these kinds of
ideas. Upgrades aren't evil. If someone complained about a bug, the
first thing you'd do is tell them to upgrade to the newest version.
And I did suggest the multipart protocols to be used, unless you knew
the capabilities of the recipient. And, no, MS does not have to be
involved. There are plenty of standards they act like they don't even
know about!
I'm tired of everyone being so blatently rude in their defensive
stances over simple suggestions of improvement. For some reason, I've
noticed these actions move prevalently in regards to email protocols
and formats. The W3C wants to release a new version of HTML? No one
complains (mostly). Someone wants to create a new e-mail standard, or
expand an existing one? Off with their heads!
Going by the way everyone reacts to these ideas, one would come to the
conclusion that we should all still run nothing but command lines and
pass our information around on FTP and Gopher servers.
On 5/8/05, Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman schreef:
> > 1) I don't see how this should have anything to do with Microsoft, it
> > should be a free and open standard.
>
> ROFL....! Yeah, so should text documents, but as soon as I do any simple
> formatting to it (oh, no, not bold text!!!), it's not so free and open
> anymore (*.rtf, *.doc). As soon as you have any "standard" that's used
> by more that 3 people (making it "mass usage"), Microsoft *is* involved,
> and you can't just blow that off like it's not the reality that most
> every computer user has find some way to live with.
>
> > 2) If you are going 20, 15, or even only 5 years without upgrading
> > your software, then you deserve to be the victim of every single
> > exploit and hole discoved in that software and patched within that
> > time, if you couldn't be bothered to do a simple upgrade.
>
> Right, because I control every single email client I might ever use.
> Suppose I travel a lot for business-- I can't make the hotel or Internet
> cafe upgrade.
>
> Suppose I use a company-provided laptop for business and I have no
> rights to install or upgrade software. Suppose those responsible for
> upgrading the software on my company-provided laptop are slackers, and
> it's just all-around better to not submit the forms required to get an
> upgrade authorized, since I would then lose the use of the laptop (and
> probably have to use an even worse "loaner") for 1.5 months just to get
> this "non-essential" upgrade.
>
> *Suppose I live in an underdeveloped country* and I'm lucky to have a
> donated 486 that someone richer than me gave to the Peace Corps.
>
> In that case, I may not even have the option to upgrade, as my hardware
> doesn't support the upgrade. And there are a lot of people who don't
> have good Internet access, so are really limited to whatever software is
> on the CD that they got-- if they got a CD at all and the donating
> facility didn't just pre-install the PC in the first place.
>
> Really, think. Every single person in the world does not have the
> advantages or capabilities that you do-- isn't that punishment enough
> without you 1) blaming them further ("it's their fault if they don't
> upgrade") and 2) preventing them from becoming better human beings (sic)
> by way of your deathless wisdom (sic) by making that wisdom unavailable
> to them because you *must* disseminate that wisdom in a format that they
> cannot access?
>
> Holly
>
> >
> > On 5/7/05, Walter Dnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0000, Calvin Spealman wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>then support for it can grow until everyone will have updated just
> >>>over time. once you know someone's reader has support for it, because
> >>>they send you emails using it, you can send to them without the old
> >>>inline-quoted version.
> >>
> >> AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH NNNNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!
> >>
> >> You know what we'll end up with??? "This email best viewed with
> >>Internet Explorer 6.5 at 800X600 resolution and 16,000,000 with Active-X
> >>and Schlockwave-Trash enabled". I do *NOT* want to have to go out and
> >>buy Windows in order to be able to read email.
> >>
> >> Secondly, I can read today's text email with a 15 or 20 year old email
> >>client. (X)HTML doesn't work that way. It's always changing. Try
> >>reading most web pages with a 5-year-old browser and see what I mean. I
> >>should *NOT* have to change my email client every few months to keep up
> >>with deliberate incompatabilities thrown in by Microsoft.
> >>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
