Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
On 23 Jun 2023 17:56, Fred wrote: Or you could try Devuan which is Debian without systemd. I did, when I didn't know Debian still had sysv. But since you can do it on Debian directly, I don't see the point now. Maybe more polished packages, ie. no surprises like "if you install this package, I'll remove sysv" ? I admit I didn't use Devuan a lot, so can't really compare.
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
On 6/23/23 08:12, zithro wrote: On 23 Jun 2023 16:41, mick.crane wrote: On 2023-06-23 11:58, Nicolas George wrote: Andy Smith (12023-06-23): It seemed fine the way it was. The only reason why I didn't answer is that I don't know anything about removing systemd! Me I know just a little about it, enough to know that discussion with people who want to remove it but are not already capable of doing it by themselves is a waste of time. It's a subjective thing. It is what it is but I do feel warmth towards those try to make it work without systemd. it's not particularly logical. mick Yes, init freedom is subjective, it's like using Firefox or Chrome. It's not a matter of logic ; ) I have some Debians with sysvinit, some with systemd, both work. Switching from systemd to sysv following the Debian wiki page was painless, although I mostly did it on "small hosts", with not much packages installed. Maybe installs with many packages are harder to manage ? Because you have to be careful during package management, some commands would propose to remove sysv and install systemd instead ! I guess not all packages are "sysv aware" (or rather non-systemd aware). I suggest non-systemd init users (sysv, rc,...) to use --dry-run and --no-install-recommends during package management, it can help. But for the OP, who iirc asked if he should switch to sysv -before- or -after- the bookworm update, I have no idea. I updated sysv- and systemd-based Debians from bullseye to bookworm without problems, but didn't try the switch since, from a bookworm host. YMMV ! Or you could try Devuan which is Debian without systemd.
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
On 23 Jun 2023 16:41, mick.crane wrote: On 2023-06-23 11:58, Nicolas George wrote: Andy Smith (12023-06-23): It seemed fine the way it was. The only reason why I didn't answer is that I don't know anything about removing systemd! Me I know just a little about it, enough to know that discussion with people who want to remove it but are not already capable of doing it by themselves is a waste of time. It's a subjective thing. It is what it is but I do feel warmth towards those try to make it work without systemd. it's not particularly logical. mick Yes, init freedom is subjective, it's like using Firefox or Chrome. It's not a matter of logic ; ) I have some Debians with sysvinit, some with systemd, both work. Switching from systemd to sysv following the Debian wiki page was painless, although I mostly did it on "small hosts", with not much packages installed. Maybe installs with many packages are harder to manage ? Because you have to be careful during package management, some commands would propose to remove sysv and install systemd instead ! I guess not all packages are "sysv aware" (or rather non-systemd aware). I suggest non-systemd init users (sysv, rc,...) to use --dry-run and --no-install-recommends during package management, it can help. But for the OP, who iirc asked if he should switch to sysv -before- or -after- the bookworm update, I have no idea. I updated sysv- and systemd-based Debians from bullseye to bookworm without problems, but didn't try the switch since, from a bookworm host. YMMV !
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
On 2023-06-23 11:58, Nicolas George wrote: Andy Smith (12023-06-23): It seemed fine the way it was. The only reason why I didn't answer is that I don't know anything about removing systemd! Me I know just a little about it, enough to know that discussion with people who want to remove it but are not already capable of doing it by themselves is a waste of time. It's a subjective thing. It is what it is but I do feel warmth towards those try to make it work without systemd. it's not particularly logical. mick
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
Andy Smith (12023-06-23): > It seemed fine the way it was. The only reason why I didn't answer > is that I don't know anything about removing systemd! Me I know just a little about it, enough to know that discussion with people who want to remove it but are not already capable of doing it by themselves is a waste of time. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
Hello, On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:06:04AM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote: > I though it would have been easier to read if I had forwarded it. > In hindsight, I could have just copied it over. It seemed fine the way it was. The only reason why I didn't answer is that I don't know anything about removing systemd! Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: OT: Forwarding and top posting (was: Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong)
Hello, On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 04:24:47PM -0700, Manphiz wrote: > Personally I don't have a strong preference either way, but would like > to hear more opinions on this. The complaint about a top-posted forwarded message just because it had a contextual hint at the top, seemed excessive to me. I would have done the same as the OP without thinking anything of it. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
OT: Forwarding and top posting (was: Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong)
David Christensen writes:
> On 6/22/23 03:28, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>> Am 21/06/2023 um 15:46 schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
>
>>> ... top posting ...
>
>> ... When the message is forwarded ("Weitergeleitet", ... you have no
>> other choice than to top post because the forwarded message is not
>> indented. It would make no sense to bottom post because there would
>> be no way to tell the comment apart from the post. ...
>
>
> I use Thunderbird. When I want to start a new thread based upon an existing
> thread and keep prior content, I click "Reply", copy the content to the
> clipboard, create a new message, paste, and choose Edit -> Rewrap. This
> produces a new thread with proper indentation of prior content. Perhaps your
> mail client has a similar capability.
>
>
> HTH,
>
> David
Honest question regarding forwarding and top posting: while I totally
get that bottom posting style works naturally in a conversation thread,
for a forwarded email the situation is slightly different: it may not be
obvious why the recipient is getting a mail starting with a (potentially
long) quoted message. IMHO in such case top posting with an explanation
on why the sender is forwarding the mail kind of makes sense.
Regarding forwarding in MUA, old school MUAs (like gnus, mu4e) provides
a quote automatically and put the cursor below; however in Thunderbird
it doesn't quote the forwarded message but provide a separate line, and
even if I set posting style to be below original message, it will post
the cursor above the forwarded message anyway, which makes me feel that
this may be a sensible way to handle forwarded message after all.
Personally I don't have a strong preference either way, but would like
to hear more opinions on this.
--
Manphiz
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
On 6/22/23 03:28, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 21/06/2023 um 15:46 schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
... top posting ...
... When the message is forwarded ("Weitergeleitet", ... you have no
other choice than to top post because the forwarded message is not
indented. It would make no sense to bottom post because there would
be no way to tell the comment apart from the post. ...
I use Thunderbird. When I want to start a new thread based upon an
existing thread and keep prior content, I click "Reply", copy the
content to the clipboard, create a new message, paste, and choose Edit
-> Rewrap. This produces a new thread with proper indentation of prior
content. Perhaps your mail client has a similar capability.
HTH,
David
Re: Angry, yet wrong too (was: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong)
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:09:28PM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 22/06/2023 um 10:46 schrieb Reco:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:28:42AM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> >
> > > > don't appreciate top posting around here)
> > >
> > > You've managed to be pedantic and patronising yet wrong. When the
> > > message is forwarded ("Weitergeleitet", you should know this, since
> > > you use a *.de domain), you have no other choice than to top post
> > > because the forwarded message is not indented.
> >
> > Before the message is forwarded, you actually have a choice whenever to
> > use dumb "inline forward style" (which you did) or proper
> > rfc822-compliant attachment (which your MUA should support).
> > In the latter case you're free to express yourself using top-posting,
> > bottom-posting or interleaved posting (which is preferred here) or even
> > cat-pictures posting.
> >
> > Of course, proper forwarding requires using a real MUA. You could
> > consider start using one.
>
> Thunderbird is a real MUA.
Consider using it properly then, because currently you're not.
Read a user guide or something.
> > PS Using real OS cannot not hurt you too, you know.
>
> You have never heard of user agent spoofing have you?
I did. So did Spamassasin.
But most importantly - you just had to prove that you're using real OS,
*and* you did just because I've asked you nicely.
See - my approach works, yours - not so much :)
Reco
Re: Angry, yet wrong too (was: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong)
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:09:28PM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote: > You have never heard of user agent spoofing have you? Sounds like yet another reason to discontinue communications with someone who has already raised many other red flags.
Re: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong
Ottavio Caruso (12023-06-22): > You've managed to be pedantic and patronising yet wrong. You expect help with that attitude? Not from me at least. Goodbye. -- Nicolas George
Re: Angry, yet wrong too (was: OT: Pedantic, yet wrong)
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:28:42AM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> > don't appreciate top posting around here)
>
> You've managed to be pedantic and patronising yet wrong. When the
> message is forwarded ("Weitergeleitet", you should know this, since
> you use a *.de domain), you have no other choice than to top post
> because the forwarded message is not indented.
Before the message is forwarded, you actually have a choice whenever to
use dumb "inline forward style" (which you did) or proper
rfc822-compliant attachment (which your MUA should support).
In the latter case you're free to express yourself using top-posting,
bottom-posting or interleaved posting (which is preferred here) or even
cat-pictures posting.
Of course, proper forwarding requires using a real MUA. You could
consider start using one.
PS Using real OS cannot not hurt you too, you know.
Reco
