Completely OT (not so much anymore) -- threads

[Eric D.]

on 29/4/02 05:47, Simon White at simon@mtds.com wrote:

> 28-Apr-02 at 14:59, Eric D. (liriodendron@mac.com) wrote :
>> Hi ya'll, I was so excited when I discovered something about the DOS "dir"
>> command that I just felt compelled to share it.
>> 
>> You can _sort_ the display of files by whatever criteria you specify (I used
>> to have a Norton utility to do that but have long since lost it). I've been
>> using the piece of !@#$!@# OS for 15 years now and only just discovered the
>> command:
>> dir /o:e (now mapped to ls.bat as dir /o:e %1 %2 :)
> 
> Are you talking about DOS, which has never run on a Mac?

Hmmm? I've been running DOS on Macs since 1994 (and, now even have a 6100
with a PC486 card)! First SoftAT so I could use pkzip204g & primitive DOS
science apps, and then more recently Virtual PC to run more advanced stuff
(in fact, I have to run it because of software that _only_ exist for DOS
(well, if I had spare time on my hands I'd go through the hassle of
recompiling them (some Fortran & mostly C) for OS X but I don't so I'll
stick to running Virtual PC)... no Windoze, Linux, or Mac version
(equivalents exist but that would mean having to learn a new command set & I
don't really foresee having to use the app again)!)

> Hmmm... no comment here. I prefer ls to dir anyway. ls --sort=size, ls
> -lrt, etc etc are my favourites.

Then again... ls is a UNIX-only thing. In DOS (I did say it was completely
OT) it's an add-on (or, in my case a batch file... actually I prefer d or l
but those are my own lazy batch files)

> You also replied to a previous post, without starting a new thread. OK,
> you changed the subject line, but in my mail software I can sort (and do
> sort) by thread, and replying to a thread with a new question screws up my
> nice display of all relevant posts grouped together. Others have done it
> too. Can I ask you all not to?

To drive you nuts, I will _not_ create a new thread but simply rename this
one slightly. It drives _me_ nuts when people do what you advocate because
then I can't track "dependencies" (and, I do sort by subject line and keep
threads together (I don't like the kind of thread display where the thread
is displayed as a hierarchy... I prefer a "flat" display)). The only time I
think a new thread (without the re:) is warranted is when you write a
message from scratch without quoting an active thread.