At risk of straying even more OT than where we started this thread from, I
came across this article today:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030201183139/http://mpt.phrasewise.com/discuss/msgReader$173Why
Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM, David Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At risk of straying even more OT than where we started this thread from, I
came across this article today:
Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it
David Lowe wrote:
This is a fascinating debate, especially in light of Stallman's speech.
David I agree with you.
Stallman has caused me to question my views on this whole issue and
consider more about what we're not paying enough attention to at present.
MS (and many other commercial
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:25:07 +1200
Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also wonder if SIP clients are really just 'not as finished as the
current Skype client'.
Cheers Don
RFC 3261 defines SIP. It's a standard. Like RFC 2821 defines SMTP. It's
complete. Finished. Working. Provides
Steve wrote:
I very much doubt that you set up your own mail server ( nope, you use gplhost
services instead )
Actually I have two of my own mail servers and I use GPLHost as well.
One day I will have 2 mail servers and no GPLHost... I'm just not that
confident yet :)
I think your point
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now we're really heading OT... but I 100% agree with you that there's
stacks of software out there in the MS world that just has bugs in it. To
me, anything that causes 100% CPU is just a bug.
Cheers Don
Try reading your
Good point
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 20:54 +1200, Steve wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:25:07 +1200
Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also wonder if SIP clients are really just 'not as finished as the
current Skype client'.
As for clients, is, for example, ekiga really that difficult
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can you call a program that is unusable 'pure'?
It depends on who the user is... software usually has multiple users and
buyers and they all value different things. Something that is technically
brilliant but cant be
David Lowe wrote:
So I
reckon they should break the standard to meet the real world. I'm not
holding my breath.
That's when you branch the code and start out on our own with something
that others want if the original guys won't.
Look at how many projects that's happened to.
Cheers Don
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Lowe wrote:
So I
reckon they should break the standard to meet the real world. I'm not
holding my breath.
That's when you branch the code and start out on our own with something
that others want if the original
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's when you branch the code and start out on our own with something
that others want if the original guys won't.
Yes indeed - and isn't that the
Nick Rout wrote:
I realise your post is slightly tongue in cheek, but... Although you are
right about the point of free software, free software is closely (one
might almost say necessarily) tied to open standards. Thats why your
request to the evolution authors to support an out of standard
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there's reason why ; shouldn't be used.
I don't know what those reasons are.
The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard.
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 15:14 +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard.
So the choices are:
(1) Get Microsoft to adhere to the standards, or
(2) Implement an exception allowing optional non-strict interpretation
of the standard.
(3) Let Open Source
Nick Rout wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there's reason why ; shouldn't be used.
I don't know what those reasons are.
The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard.
I know that. I was just wondering why they didn't
What *is* the appropriate process when a monopoly abuses its position in
defiance of a standard?
Vote with your feet suffer the (admittedly minor) consequences. If you are
interested, here's my bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/257101
I also logged it as a
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, David Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What *is* the appropriate process when a monopoly abuses its position in
defiance of a standard?
Vote with your feet suffer the (admittedly minor) consequences. If you are
interested, here's my bug report.
Nick Rout wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Don Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there's reason why ; shouldn't be used.
I don't know what those reasons are.
The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard.
The standard...there are so many.
You
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Stephen Irons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard...there are so many.
Not when it comes to the content of an SMTP message there aren't :-)
-jim
19 matches
Mail list logo
