Baslinux mailing list

[Lee Forrest <lforrestster AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:28:56PM +1030, Greg Mayman wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:10:01 +0000, Lee Forrest wrote:
> 
> > Have to say that doesn't interest me a bit. I don't like monolithic
> > apps like that. I want my web browser to be a web browser and my email
> > client to be an email client and my internet connections to be done by
> > a seperate utility. The html-rendering part I'd like to be a seperate
> > utility, as well as the image-displaying part.
> 
> That's alright. There is no compulsion on you to change to
> Arachne.

Or to consider it some kind of superior way of doing things.

> But those of us who do use it find the integration of the
> functions to be very useful. For example, we can click on a URL
> in an email and have it open up without having to go to another
> application.

Any good email client can do that.

> And as for HTML rendering, and image rendering, they are is
> almost essential in a browser. And with more and more people
> sending their email as HTML,

Which a lot us won't accept.

> and with images attached,

Not here. I don't accept either of those wasteful practices.

Nor am I alone.

> it is very
> handy to have those facilities in the email client.

My 7-year old mutt would do both of those things if I wanted it to.

> But each to his own. Arachne is just my preference.

> > Nor am I interesting in letting myself being dragged around by M$
> > web browser and web-page designers.
> 
> Which is one more reason why the arachnaphiles like Arachne.

The monolithic approach is very much a windoze approach. It just takes
it to the extreme.

> > Arachne is, it says above, very advanced. But it won't be if it isn't 
> constantly
> > changing for the above reasons.
> 
> It is NOT changing. People who want to stay with the old versions
> are under no compulsion to do otherwise. Those versions will
> continue to work just as they did when they were first released.

That is a contradiction: When they say "advanced", they mean "keeping up
with M$ web standards".

What's the point of using an "advanced" browser that can't read an "advanced"
page?

> But the later versions do have bug fixes and some extra features.

And they always will because M$ will change things just when they think they
are once again "advanced" and stable.

> > I'm sick of it. Links is a good browser. If I go to a page that doesn't 
> > make
> > sense in it, or has most of the text embedded in images, or that requires 
> > one
> > to install an executable, etc, etc, that site is _history_.
> 
> That's your choice, of course. There are other people who really
> want -- or NEED -- to get data that is on pages that links can't
> handle.

That "NEED" statement is garbage.

No one "NEEDS" to send HTML mail or use the mail to send image files.

No one even _needs_ a computer at all. The human race got along
fine without them for hundreds of thousands of years, and they
are obviously _not_ making the world a better place.

This is pointless. You think it arachne is wonderful and I think it isn't.

You can use it and I won't.

And you can send all the attached images and HTML you want to someone ELSE.

But you can't send them to me. Or rather, you can, but my filter will dump 
them.

I want substance from a mail, not eye-candy, and there are better ways to send
image files than email.

[delete]

Lee

-- 
BasicLinux: Small is Beautiful
http://www.basiclinux.com.ru