91–100 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing the spirit of the comment. This is not a matter of can it be done and be standard, but whether it should be. That's just as important here.
I'm not missing anything. There's nothing wrong with placing links in emails. The link is good, presumably in and out of gmail, and is clearly a gmail feature, not an email feature. There's no problem here.
It's a curious purgatory the project is in, which I think would make it difficult to attract developers. On one hand, a user base wants the old product with minimal twists and they are known to balk at anything more than that. On the other, project survival likely depends on getting new users on board, in which case an old design and UI are probably going to be detriments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how in most corporate/commercial code past 2005 or 2010, you'll rarely ever see profanity in comments. I've never put profanity, or even any jokes, in comments. I really try to keep my professional code professional. Even on my own OSS projects I tend not to do that anymore.
Unfortunate that we (as a collective --- not something I personally believe in) seem to think that that is being "professional", and that it is somehow a reason to make everything as bland and soulless as possible, and that that is somehow better? I agree that a lot of code has lost its "character", so to speak. The Linux kernel still retains much of its fucks and shits, and apparently has gained a whole lot of crap:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not missing anything. There's nothing wrong with placing links in emails. The link is good, presumably in and out of gmail, and is clearly a gmail feature, not an email feature. There's no problem here.
When the link is the message, and the user thinks it won't change, or go away, it's a problem.
So maybe I'll be replying "Why did you send me an empty message?"
And maybe some email list software will have the same problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an abuse of the standard. The email standard was built so that you can check your email with a client, and view the contents offline at your convenience, archive, back up, etc. Google's email proposal kills this functionality. When was the last time I used this, you may ask? On Saturday. I was in one of the slot canyons in Utah with zero signal, and, while taking a break, I wrote several emails in my Opera email…
The email standard allows links in emails.
Damn. The "bad" words have been sanitized. Seeing the programmers' frustrations as they appear in the comments enhances the experience when viewing old code like this.
Fun idea. We liked to try to make it look like the produce section at Fiesta.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how in most corporate/commercial code past 2005 or 2010, you'll rarely ever see profanity in comments. I've never put profanity, or even any jokes, in comments. I really try to keep my professional code professional. Even on my own OSS projects I tend not to do that anymore.
Unfortunate that we (as a collective --- not something I personally believe in) seem to think that that is being "professional", and that it is somehow a reason to make everything as bland and soulless as possible, and that that is somehow better? I agree that a lot of code has lost its "character", so to speak. The Linux kernel still retains much of its fucks and shits, and apparently has gained a whole lot of crap:…
Once you don't have a word to express a concept, that concept can quite quickly fall out of circulation. Professionalism was a useful part of modern culture: it would be a shame for it to disappear from the lexicon. A horse that's bolted, I fear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That license means it's essentially dual licensed, and the more liberal license will trump it (BSD), you cannot publish something as BSD and then "downgrade it" afterwards. The license you were forced to accept is probably just a generic license covering all software in the computer history museum for when the owners have _not_ provided a more liberal license.
> The license you were forced to accept I didn't accept it. I'll try to get them to remove those terms, that appeals to me more than agreeing to legal terms I don't intend to abide by.
Copyright (c) 2017, Computer History Museum. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted (subject to the limitations in the disclaimer below) provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of Computer History Museum nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the link is the message, and the user thinks it won't change, or go away, it's a problem.
And when my email client doesn't fetch remote content, it will be a problem :) So maybe I'll be replying "Why did you send me an empty message?" And maybe some email list software will have the same problem.