John Hinsley jhinsley@telinco.co.uk wrote:>
It's really the difference (I think) between a Mac/Windows way of doing things and a *nix way. On nixes, the dialler is absolutely distinct from the Netscape or whatever application: the emailer doesn't call the dialler (nor does it assume a diallup connection), but will complain if it's not connected. (I guess you could say that this is part of the *nix paradigm: rather than having each program which requires diallup to have it's own dialler, you write one good dialler and everything else can use it.) Thinking of just how complex a peice of software a dialler is, and that getting Celeste to grab the password from wherever whatever *nix dialler is in use stores it would be a wee bit tricky, I'm not *that* surprised that they wrote it as they did. And it probably also makes it easier to use the same code for different OSs. Even though it does require you to enter the password twice (and there may be security implications in this).
Or in other words, the Unix way is to create a strong abstraction, and maintain it. In this case, either your apps have TCP/IP connections available, or they don't. What do your socket using applications have with your ISP authentication?!? The Mac/Windows way is to create a user experience more users will accept (and if possible, that they won't like to let go of). Specifically, the user clicks on Netscape, and gets to look at their mail (if not understanding what's going makes this user less comfortable the first time they try to use an alternative, so much the better...). Except for the (very real and important) parts parenthesized, I agree equally with both kinds of reasoning.
To me it's not very important to bring the dialing into Squeak (though I've considered a quick hack using OSProcess), which would be needed to make a model that handles both connecting and email together and conviniently.
But no *nix email software will ask you for your password unless, I guess -- you can't do this with the 4* series of Netscape -- you're trying to grab mail from a server not belonging to the ISP you're hooked up to.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they would (ask). Do you have examples to the contrary?
AFAIK - GNU/Linux at least, maintains a central list of usernames and passwords to be use in authentication when connecting to an ISP. These are called the "PAP (or CHAP) secrets" file. The same file is used whether you connect using a regular modem or an ADSL modem over ethernet, or whatever. However, there is no such common abstraction for "mail profiles". So I seriously doubt Netscape (or any of the mail clients I know for GNU/Linux) would try to autodetect my mail profile. But, having used Celeste for quite a while, I don't really know.
John
Daniel
danielv@netvision.net.il wrote:
John Hinsley jhinsley@telinco.co.uk wrote:>
It's really the difference (I think) between a Mac/Windows way of doing things and a *nix way. On nixes, the dialler is absolutely distinct from the Netscape or whatever application: the emailer doesn't call the dialler (nor does it assume a diallup connection), but will complain if it's not connected. (I guess you could say that this is part of the *nix paradigm: rather than having each program which requires diallup to have it's own dialler, you write one good dialler and everything else can use it.) Thinking of just how complex a peice of software a dialler is, and that getting Celeste to grab the password from wherever whatever *nix dialler is in use stores it would be a wee bit tricky, I'm not *that* surprised that they wrote it as they did. And it probably also makes it easier to use the same code for different OSs. Even though it does require you to enter the password twice (and there may be security implications in this).
Or in other words, the Unix way is to create a strong abstraction, and maintain it. In this case, either your apps have TCP/IP connections available, or they don't. What do your socket using applications have with your ISP authentication?!? The Mac/Windows way is to create a user experience more users will accept (and if possible, that they won't like to let go of). Specifically, the user clicks on Netscape, and gets to look at their mail (if not understanding what's going makes this user less comfortable the first time they try to use an alternative, so much the better...). Except for the (very real and important) parts parenthesized, I agree equally with both kinds of reasoning.
I'd agree that neither is inherently wrong.
To me it's not very important to bring the dialing into Squeak (though I've considered a quick hack using OSProcess), which would be needed to make a model that handles both connecting and email together and conviniently.
Yes, that occured to me. But I'll probably not get round to it for a long while: it wouild make the process of using Squeak as a desktop replacement more comfortable. If you do do it, I'd love to see it.
But no *nix email software will ask you for your password unless, I guess -- you can't do this with the 4* series of Netscape -- you're trying to grab mail from a server not belonging to the ISP you're hooked up to.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they would (ask). Do you have examples to the contrary?
This would mean me re-initialising everything, so can I get back to you after I install SuSE 7.2 (probably 7.3 by then) around Christmas?
AFAIK - GNU/Linux at least, maintains a central list of usernames and passwords to be use in authentication when connecting to an ISP. These are called the "PAP (or CHAP) secrets" file. The same file is used whether you connect using a regular modem or an ADSL modem over ethernet, or whatever.
Yes.wvdial (my favourite dialler) uses these. But I don't think that kppp (which is more Windows like) does.
However, there is no such common abstraction for "mail profiles". So I seriously doubt Netscape (or any of the mail clients I know for GNU/Linux) would try to autodetect my mail profile. But, having used Celeste for quite a while, I don't really know.
Cheers
John ****************************************************************************** Marx: "Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?" Proudhon: "Because all proper tea is theft." ******************************************************************************
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org