From: Timothy Knox Date: 01:47 on 15 Dec 2006 Subject: KDE is *not* Windows Okay, everyone, repeat after me: KDE is *not* Windows! KDE is *not* Windows! KDE is *not* Windows! So why does it insist on pretending to try and act like Windows? I can understand having a "Windows-transition/compatibility mode" to help folks moving from Windows, but I am not making such a move. If I wanted bloody Windows, I'd run bloody Windows! So what particular bit of KDE hatefulness inspired this? The bloody "Windows" key. I have large hands, and sometimes fat-finger the control or alt key, and wind up hitting the never-to-be-sufficiently-d*mned "Windows" key, which pops up its big menu and steals the keyboard focus. Windows key, be still! I *never* want you to pull up that menu, *ever*! Under any possible circumstances! Am I being clear enough, you moronic key? Stay out of my way!
From: jrodman Date: 02:20 on 15 Dec 2006 Subject: Re: KDE is *not* Windows On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:47:01PM -0800, Timothy Knox wrote: > Okay, everyone, repeat after me: > KDE is *not* Windows! > KDE is *not* Windows! > KDE is *not* Windows! Sir, I say unto you: http://standards.freedesktop.org/autostart-spec/autostart-spec-0.5.html -josh
From: Peter da Silva Date: 22:26 on 16 Dec 2006 Subject: Re: KDE is *not* Windows On Dec 14, 2006, at 8:20 PM, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > = http://standards.freedesktop.org/autostart-spec/autostart-spec-0.5.html "When a desktop environment mounts a new medium, the medium may contain=20= an Autostart file that can suggest to start an application or an=20 Autoopen file that can suggest to open a specific file located on the=20 medium." NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! =A1Ay Caramba! Here, let me fix this: "The desktop environment MUST ignore Autostart files altogether unless=20= the user has created the file '.OWN_ME_HARDER' containing a unique=20 explanation of why the user is magically immune to viruses and other=20 malware. This explanation will be converted to an MD5 hash that must be=20= unique among all the registered excuses at=20 we-are-the-internets-sluts.com. If that site is not available,=20 autostart will be disabled for that session until it becomes=20 available."=
From: Peter da Silva Date: 22:30 on 16 Dec 2006 Subject: Re: KDE is *not* Windows Aaaah... it's WORSE! "When an Autoopen file has been detected and the user has confirmed that the file indicated in the Autoopen file should be opened then the file indicated in the Autoopen file MUST be opened in the application normally preferred by the user for files of its kind UNLESS the user instructed otherwise." BAD! WRONG! EVIL! RUDE! SKANKY! "When an Autoopen file has been detected and the user has confirmed that the file indicated in the Autoopen file should be opened then the file indicated in the Autoopen file MUST NOT be opened in the application normally preferred by the user for files of its kind UNLESS the application is registered as being permitted to open untrusted files OR the user has instructed otherwise." That's better.
From: jrodman Date: 00:40 on 17 Dec 2006 Subject: Re: KDE is *not* Windows On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 04:30:05PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > Aaaah... it's WORSE! My only hope is that my distribution will turn all this crap off by default. I have no real hope that the implementors will realize just how stupid they are being. If you think you can talk sense into them the xdg mailing list is easy to subscribe to. This idiocy is still "under discussion". http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg I don't think I can, and I already hate both KDE and Gnome for mindlessly cloning all kinds of other Windows misfeatures, so I don't really see the point in engaging them. Maybe I really should though, since I keep thinking about trying out something like XFCE, but if they implement crap like this, I obviously won't. -josh
From: Peter da Silva Date: 01:42 on 17 Dec 2006 Subject: Re: KDE is *not* Windows On Dec 16, 2006, at 6:40 PM, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > My only hope is that my distribution will turn all this crap off by > default. I have no real hope that the implementors will realize just > how stupid they are being. If you think you can talk sense into them > the xdg mailing list is easy to subscribe to. This idiocy is still > "under discussion". Please try. I have tilted at this windmill in the past and I suspect I might make things worse. http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/io/autostart.html
From: Tia Marie Date: 02:09 on 23 Dec 2006 Subject: Bogofilter hates hates-software Yes you. All of you; from A. Pagaltzis to Yoz Grahame it hates you soo much it wants to keep me from seeing your spamful hatred. Or maybe Bogofilter thinks he is doing my mental health a favour by keeping all of the hate from my innocent eyes (We shall forget the fact that I have opted to view the hatred). Regardless of having given him the ability to read and archive "Not-spam" and "Spam" so that it can identify things based on their spamminess. Though my specific bogofilter can't seem to get this right. Now I'm pouring over thousands of -real- spam messages looking for your hatred.
From: David Landgren Date: 10:23 on 31 Dec 2006 Subject: Re: Bogofilter hates hates-software Tia Marie wrote: > Yes you. All of you; from A. Pagaltzis to Yoz Grahame it hates you soo > much it wants to keep me from seeing your spamful hatred. bogofilter doesn't have the concept of whitelists? How hateful.
From: Patrick Carr Date: 14:19 on 03 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Bogofilter hates hates-software On Dec 31, 2006, at 5:23 AM, David Landgren wrote: > Tia Marie wrote: >> Yes you. All of you; from A. Pagaltzis to Yoz Grahame it hates >> you soo much it wants to keep me from seeing your spamful hatred. > > bogofilter doesn't have the concept of whitelists? Maintaining a whitelist is hateful. Especially when shopping for a couch on craigslist. Pat
From: David King Date: 15:40 on 03 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Bogofilter hates hates-software >> Yes you. All of you; from A. Pagaltzis to Yoz Grahame it hates >> you soo much it wants to keep me from seeing your spamful hatred. > bogofilter doesn't have the concept of whitelists? Not by itself. Bogofilter looks at an email, and gives back a return value. It's up to the calling program (like procmail) to decide what to do with the mail after it's classified
Generated at 10:28 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi