On 10/25/2016 3:46 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 25/10/16 03:19, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 8:19 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 25/10/16 00:49, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2016 5:26 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/16 19:55, rickman wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/24/2016 2:45 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/16 19:02, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2016 11:33 AM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2016 10:17 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2016 5:48 PM, wavemediagram@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> May I suggest Waveme?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> waveme.weebly.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a new, free, GUI-based, digital timing diagram drawing
>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>> for Windows (and Linux/MacOS via Wine).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Waveme is intended primarily for documentation purposes,
>>>>>>>>>>> where a diagram can be exported (stored) to an image file (PNG,
>>>>>>>>>>> BMP or
>>>>>>>>>>> TIFF) or a PDF document.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Waveme can be used to draw waveforms (signals and buses), gaps,
>>>>>>>>>>> arrows
>>>>>>>>>>> and labels (see attached images).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is "free" software in the sense of "free beer", but not
>>>>>>>>>> as in
>>>>>>>>>> "free
>>>>>>>>>> speech", right? It doesn't appear that there is an interest in
>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>> money from this, at least not for now. Why not make it open
>>>>>>>>>> source?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've seen too many special purpose graphical tools go by the
>>>>>>>>>> wayside to
>>>>>>>>>> consider spending time to learn a tool like this that I would
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> sporadically. If this tool ends up with no support I don't
>>>>>>>>>> think I
>>>>>>>>>> would want to be using it unless the source were available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have an email program like that which I don't want to stop
>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> because it works well and I'd have a learning curve to switch.
>>>>>>>>>> But no
>>>>>>>>>> more bug fixes and one of these days it won't port to the new
>>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah. I use T-bird for newsgroups, but I've never gotten used
>>>>>>>> to how
>>>>>>>> it would
>>>>>>>> work with filters and such for my regular email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly the same way, with either IMAP (for gmail) or POP (for
>>>>>>> everything else) access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever that means. I'm talking about the user interface. I
>>>>>> expect the
>>>>>> internals to work the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> So am I, and I don't care, respectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMAP keeps a copy of the emails on my machine (in case
>>>>> google disappears), and leaves the original on the google
>>>>> server. Occasionally I the gmail web interface when doing
>>>>> more complex searches.
>>>>>
>>>>> POP3 copies the files to my machines and deletes them
>>>>> on the server.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm familiar with the two. But that isn't the user interface.
>>>> All email
>>>> programs use one or the other or either of the protocols. But they
>>>> have
>>>> different user interfaces.
>>>
>>> The GUIs are the same. The semantics are /slightly/
>>> different, but that's directly understandable from
>>> the high-level POP3/IMAP philosophy of where the
>>> files are stored.
>>
>> At this point I think we are not communicating. I am talking about
>> the user
>> interface of an email program. I've never seen two the same. I think
>> you are
>> still talking about the protocols although I don't know how you can
>> relate the
>> protocol to a user interface.
>
> Sigh. GUI=what you see. Semantics=what happens
> when you interact with the GUI.
>
> I repeat: the GUIs are the same for Seamonkey
> and Thunderbird, for IMAP and POP3.
I have no idea what you are talking about "for IMAP and POP3". I am
talking about the overall functioning of the email program. I have no
idea why you keep focusing on the protocols. I won't bother to continue
to talk past each other.
> The principal difference between IMAP and POP3 is that
> in IMAP the messages are stored and synced between
> your machine and the email server. There is thus, *of*
> *necessity*, a *semantic* difference between the two.
>
> The semantic differences do *not* appear in the GUI
> operations, widgets, etc, and can only be *seen*
> in almost imperceptible and unimportant differences
> to do with copying messages.
>
> Try it. In TB, create two accounts and set the server
> settings to POP3 and IMAP. Have a look at the GUIs:
> they are the same.
I've never said there is any difference between the user interfaces as
far as the protocols go. I don't know what you are going on about.
>> My point is all email programs work without the user knowing anything
>> about the
>> protocol. It has little impact on the user interface other than error
>> and/or
>> status messages. Eudora gives a bit more info by showing the several
>> stages
>> involved in getting the email, but that is not central to the user
>> interface.
>
> Yes. What's the problem? The IMAP and POP3
> GUIs are the same.
I'm not talking about IMAP and POP3. I'm talking about different email
programs.
>>>>>> At one point there was an effort to morph T-bird into a Eudora work
>>>>>> alike,
>>>>>> Penelope. I think it was never completed. Probably found there was
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> benefit compared to the huge amount of work involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Caveat: I haven't used TBird recently, but I use Seamonkey,
>>>>>>> which is effectively the same thing. Certainly transferring
>>>>>>> from one to the other was trivial: just use the same mbox
>>>>>>> file (or a copy if you are feeling slightly pessimistic)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eudora is a great program, but
>>>>>>>> some day I won't be able to use it anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ISTR Eudora kept attachments separate from the email,
>>>>>>> with all attachments in the same directory. If two
>>>>>>> attachments had the same name, you lost the first,
>>>>>>> doh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, duplicate file names happen all the time. They add a digit to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> subsequent attachment file name and note that in the email.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem I have is trying to cull the directory. If I move useful
>>>>>> files
>>>>>> elsewhere the email points to a null file. If I leave them in place
>>>>>> the numbers
>>>>>> get huge over years! It is nearly impossible to delete all the crap.
>>>>>> Bazillions of tiny files are used in graphic HTML emails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keeping them in mbox format avoids splitting them up,
>>>>> avoids fiddling with filename suffixes, and multiple
>>>>> entirely different tools can read the same format. If
>>>>> I want to extract a single message including attachments,
>>>>> then I simply select it and copy it to a folder, and
>>>>> hey presto there it is.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with mbox format, but then this is anotehr
>>>> implementation
>>>> detail that a user won't be aware of. I assume you are saying Eudora
>>>> didn't do
>>>> the best job on this feature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't cope with Eudora's complexity for something
>>>>> simple like that.
>>>>
>>>> Complexity??? What's complex?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The only disadvantage is that my gmail inbox contains
>>>>> 10034 messages, and the mbox file is 890MB. Seamonkey
>>>>> has no problems whatsoever (Thunderbird did; that's why
>>>>> I swapped)
>>>>
>>>> I use T-bird for newsgroups and it's my calendar. Both have some
>>>> issues, but
>>>> mostly I find the user interface to be a little awkward. I find it
>>>> freezes for
>>>> some seconds periodically, even while typing. There is no need for
>>>> that really.
>>>
>>> Long pauses are what made me swap. IIRC, and it
>>> is a long time ago, TB hit a cliff with large files.
>>> That happened suddenly from one TB release to another,
>>> and it is the reason I started looking at alternatives
>>> such as Eudora.
>>>
>>> I see no reason why Seamonkey shouldn't have exactly
>>> the same problem, but it doesn't.
>>
>> I was just going to ask...
>>
>>
>>> Of course, when I compress the mbox (before archiving
>>> it) that account freezes while the 1GB file is copied
>>> at 50MB/s. Other accounts and newsgroups keep working,
>>> so I assume a degree of multithreading.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I didn't realize Seamonkey was much different from T-bird. What would
>>>> it take
>>>> to switch? Could I port all the emails I have used on T-bird and the
>>>> account
>>>> setups including the newsgroup stuff?
>>>
>>> Yes, with 99.5% probability. I suspect you could
>>> flip between the two on the same directory tree,
>>> but prudence dictates copying the directory tree.
>>> On my machine that is
>>> ~/.mozilla/seamonkey/k7xa5cev.default/
>>> Note the similarity in naming conventions!
>>>
>>> Download seamonkey, copy tree, try it, see
>>> what you think.
>>
>> Maybe I will. Does it have anything like Lightning for a calendar
>> program?
>
> No idea what that is, I use tkremind.
> But see http://tinyurl.com/jn7rlfb
Lightning used to be a calendar plugin for T-bird (maybe it still is),
now it comes with T-bird.
--
Rick C