Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.cars > #237243

Re: OT Thunderbird

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/7/2016 7:51 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2016 8:59 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old
>>>> computers seem rather pointless to me.
>>>
>>> But I could say that you should stop messing with old aircraft and
>>> spend your valuable time working out improvements to new designs,
>>> to further the good of all humanity. (actually I've got things
>>> to look into in that department myself too, but not with great
>>> expectations)
>>
>> Were I qualified to do so and had the resources, I would do so. Since I
>> I am not so qualified, and am deficient on the resource side I do the
>> next best thing.
>>
>>> The point is that sometimes people like myself enjoy working on
>>> projects that don't have the pressures introduced by trying to
>>> design something that serves the masses and competes with the
>>> latest existing solutions (which in computing today will often
>>> have been developed by numerous individuals, often with
>>> financial support or incentive). There are examples of people
>>> trying to do that with software, and few use their works anyway
>>> because they simply can't independently develop them to the
>>> standards of the "competition".
>>
>> I used to write software in the commercial field, now I do it for my own
>> pleasure, and utility, I may make it available for others if that seems
>> appropriate.
>
> So you're not writing it for the good of the general population
> in the first place, you're writing it for your own purposes. You
> might as well be developing it for a Commodore 64 if that was what
> would give you most pleasure.
>
>>> At least my newsreader (which in reality will probably never
>>> be made) would be used by some people, who would enjoy the
>>> expenience, and Perhaps, unlike if I'd tried to work with
>>> all the technicalities of developing cutting-edge modern
>>> software, I would have enjoyed myself too.
>>
>> No more technicalities these days than in the past, in fact, in some
>> ways, it is easier than it was, modern software has capabilities that
>> the old stuff didn't.
>
> But the level of overall complexity in commonly used software (which
> one would be aiming to replace if one actually wanted to "advance
> things") has also vastly increased. What I'm saying is that if you
> actually wanted to make software that truely contributed to the
> noticeable advancement of computing, or society, (I'm assuming
> something like a new video compression system, new web browser,
> new operating system) it would be outside the bounds of a normal
> personal hobby project. You could try - but you wouldn't get it
> up to the existing standards.
>
> If you want to write software that's just useful, or enjoyable, for
> you then no problem, and sure it's easier than it was. But you might
> just as well be doing it for a Commodore 64, for all the good it might
> do overall.

The Commodore 64 is a dead system, writing software for it is like 
writing a novel in latin.

Back to aus.cars | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-03 21:11 +0000
  Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-04 13:31 +1000
    Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-04 13:56 +0800
      Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-04 19:28 +1000
        Re: OT Thunderbird D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> - 2016-11-04 21:25 +1100
          Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-06 21:54 +1000
            Re: OT Thunderbird D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> - 2016-11-07 09:36 +1100
              Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-11-07 09:59 +1100
                Re: OT Thunderbird D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> - 2016-11-07 11:41 +1100
                Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-11-07 12:35 +1100
                Re: OT Thunderbird D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> - 2016-11-07 13:24 +1100
                Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-11-07 21:03 +1100
                Re: OT Thunderbird "jonz@ nothere.com" <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 18:40 -0800
                Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-10 22:30 +1000
                Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-11-11 00:29 +1100
                Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-10 22:29 +1000
                Re: OT Thunderbird "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2016-11-10 15:33 +0000
                Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-10 22:22 +1000
                Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-11-11 00:29 +1100
        Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-04 22:59 +0000
          Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-06 20:24 +1000
            Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-06 21:51 +0000
              Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-07 19:33 +1000
                Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-07 21:28 +0000
        Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-06 22:27 +0800
          Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-07 19:29 +1000

csiph-web