[Python-ideas] Python-ideas Digest, Vol 65, Issue 43

[anatoly techtonik]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Oleg Broytman <phd at phdru.name> wrote:
> Hell!

Ok. Let's discuss.

> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:45:20AM +0300, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>> won't install some awkward terminal
>
>   "awkward" indeed! Trolling as usual, yeah?

You won't win this fight. =)

"Awkward (Adjective): Causing difficulty; hard to do or deal with."

I can't see that's wrong with that. You don't want to say that
installing unknown program and learn how to work with the whole
terminal toolchain and syncing your mail archive across nodes is as
easy as working with GMail in Chrome, do you? You can record a session
at shelr.tv and try to convince me, but I have experience that tells
me that Linux keyboard terminal input is sick, and that is the reason
why terminal programs are awkward to deal with - the final explanation
I reached rests at http://www.leonerd.org.uk/hacks/fixterms/ - I wish
the library was a part of Python distribution.

>> Requirement to "use something proper
>> beforehand" was neither a solution nor an alternative.
>
>   It was not a requirement, just an advice. But that was an advice to
> solve a real problem. Replying to digest brings a lot of problems and
> thus prevents effective communication. Email, mailing lists and archives
> don't make sense if they don't help to communicate.

That's why I prefer Google Groups. You can use email, subscribe as a
mailing list, read the web, have a searchable archive and reply to any
thread you haven't been subscribed to. Everything from a single
interface - no need to carry your mail archive around anymore if you
want to search it without 3rd party services. That is my definition of
effective communication platform. The constructive advice - research a
tutorial how to properly integrate full sync between Mailman and
Google Groups and ban usage of digests altogether.

In fact I've asked in Mailman group how to properly setup it to
automatically accept the mails from Groups subscribers, but the stuff
got too complicated, so it was postponed for a better time to learn
email protocol intricacies.

>   And it was only AN advice, not THE advice. Another solution for the
> same problem would be not to reply to digest. I am sure there are other
> solutions.

Well, sorry for my tone. It seems I've entered "that" favorite style
again. Of course, I accept the idea that mh (which is Public Domain
and that's awesome) can solve the problem with digest reading, but the
story is too exotic for me, and I certainly won't sacrifice features
of web based mail services to make sure I can properly reply to
digests. I better won't reply to them at all next time, just because
my mail agent doesn't allow. That's my personal choice, but it is also
the choice that makes people exclude then they faced with such
requirements.

>> I am not sure that `programs` nowadays makes any sense if you can not
>> access your data from all the entrypionts.
>
>   Do you believe - those "awkward" terminal programs works remotely
> quite fine?!

But I can't use them from my (imaginary) tablet version 3. =)
And for me any SSH session interaction is still slow - maybe I am too
picky, but the typing delay in comparison with browser is more that
enough to feel the difference.

--
anatoly t.