 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Eudora / August 2006Eudora 7 (soon) announced by Qualcomm
Hi, http://www.eudora.com/betas/Looking_for_Mac_Eudora_7.html says "Dear Mac Eudora user, Our apologies for the longer than expected delay in the release of Eudora 7 for Mac. We are reworking Eudora to make the most of Apple's MacOSX Tiger environment, and are incorporating the new features of SpotLight and WebKit HTML display/authoring. The plan for Universal Binary is also on the agenda for the Mac Eudora 7 release. However, Eudora's current performance is as good on the Intel-based Macs as on Power PC based Macs. The Eudora version 6.2.4 for Mac download is a minor update that we are able to provide without impact to the development of version 7. We ask for your patience while we reconstruct Eudora for today's Macs. We know you will be very pleased with the results. Thank you for your continued support and loyalty. The Eudora Team" =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Ilgaz_=D6cal?= <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> writes: >Our apologies for the longer than expected delay in the release of >Eudora 7 for Mac. We are reworking Eudora to make the most of Apple's >MacOSX Tiger environment, and are incorporating the new features of >SpotLight and WebKit HTML display/authoring. Does this mean it will require X.4?  SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Ilgaz_=D6cal?= <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does this mean it will require X.4? I'm just guessing, but no, I don't think so. I think they just want it to work well also in X.4. SignatureKathy - post reviews of other newsgroups in news:news.groups.reviews help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/> Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/> > =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Ilgaz_=D6cal?= <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does this mean it will require X.4? I don't know but it would be sad if it required Tiger because of being more "native" OS X program. Apple kinda "forces" developers to say "10.3.9+ required" if they use certain frameworks as far as I know. Omniweb 5.5 will require 10.4 for example. Their "sneaky peek" release notes tell that. It is a browser though, it has to do many additional things/tricks compared to rendering a versiontracker html mailing. We really need a developer to make a simple thing clear. Does use of webkit and shipping universal binary means it must be 10.3.9+ only? It doesn't need to be a Qualcomm employee or coder... Perhaps Sander Tekelenburg like Eudora supporters (for free!) /professional developers would make it clear when they see these messages. Qualcomm is a communication company having huge communication problems with users. :) They should put that page with projected system requirements like months ago. Before 100s of people call Eudora for Mac "dead". Ilgaz Öcal [...] > Does use of > webkit and shipping universal binary means it must be 10.3.9+ only? I don't think so. An app can make use of available technologies, and fall back on old ones (or just plain nothing) when they're not available. I imagine that Eudora 7 will make use of WebKit when it can and use its old internal HTML parser when not. Plus I see no reason why they'd need to remove the "Open in Browser" command. If we take iCab 3 as an extreme example: the current version is available as a Universal Binary (not yet for non-paying users), but there's also still a PPC-only build, which can even be used still on Mac OS 8.5. (Although as I understand it Eudora 7 is planned to be a Cocoa app, not Carbon, which would mean it will require Mac OS X. Which in turn probably means Eudora 7 will require 10.2.8 or newer, given that Mac OS X pre-10.2 isn't worth the effort.) Having said all that, it's of course up to the developers to decide. They might consider it too much of an effort to continue supporting something 'old'. (If there will be any compatibility issues, I imagine it's most likely with the mailbox format as it seems to me that might have to be changed to accomodate Spotlight support?) [...] [Qualcomm] > They should put that page with projected system requirements like > months ago. Before 100s of people call Eudora for Mac "dead". It might be that there will be no new compatibility requirements and Qualcomm therefore didn't consider any need to specify that. It might be it is still too early to tell.. It might be they suck at communication :) SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > (If there will be any compatibility issues, I imagine it's most likely > with the mailbox format as it seems to me that might have to be changed > to accomodate Spotlight support?) I certainly hope not. Eudora's use of the mbox format has always been one of its great strengths, in my view. If anything goes wrong (and let's face it, things go wrong), my friendly text editor is right at hand. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> (If there will be any compatibility issues, I imagine it's most likely >> with the mailbox format as it seems to me that might have to be changed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > let's face it, things go wrong), my friendly text editor is right at > hand. Wow we really missed a big deal it seems. MBOX is really important since it is standards based. I don't know internals of spotlight that much but if you have followed Apple Mail, they changed to single file per message on Tiger and I suspect it was because of Spotlight. It loves to keep messages offline because of Spotlight too. Question comes to mind: If Apple can't manage to make it? :) There _is_ a way which will make spotlight lovers/haters happy.. A setting could be put saying "use MBOX format (and use Eudora internal search)" and "Use Spotlight compatible format". They should also tell system (spotlight) to stay away from their MBOX with a resource, plist, whatever needed. Spotlight clearly loses its mind. It is spotlights fault , Eudora does its job fine. It is spotlight which tries to index a 10-100 MB file. The sad fact is, you know the deal, guy/gal will run to Versiontracker or similar sites, post 1 star review(!) saying "It made my system slow down". I am on a Quad Mac with 2.5 GB RAM. I saw the whole deal when I restored my Eudora Folder from backup and forgot to add it to "privacy" pane. Even on such machine, you figure something is going wrong at background. How do we suggest these? Forums? Internal feedback? MBOX format is really really big deal. I know lots of people use Eudora with single folder, on network. (with secure permissions). If there are multiple Eudora formats, it will fail. Ilgaz > > (If there will be any compatibility issues, I imagine it's most likely > > with the mailbox format as it seems to me that might have to be changed > > to accomodate Spotlight support?) > > I certainly hope not. Eudora's use of the mbox format has always been > one of its great strengths, in my view. And a problem as well, because it has no room for metadata. As a result, they've used "toc" files next to the mailboxes or TOC resources in the resource forks of the mbox files, and the latter approach has imposed limits on mailbox size that some people actually find limiting. Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't really know) and it uses carriage returns instead of standard linefeeds. This means that even though Mac Eudora is now on a Unix machine where they are a lot of tools for manipulating mbox files, it's still a Eudora or text editor task. > If anything goes wrong (and > let's face it, things go wrong), my friendly text editor is right at > hand. Spotlight support almost demands a change to one message per file. It does not mean abandoning a transparent format that can be manipulated by a text editor. Apple Mail messages are not binary blobs, and there's no rational reason for Eudora to adopt a non-text format just to work in Spotlight. Adopting a format much like Mail's would also eliminate the mangled message issues. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > > I certainly hope not. Eudora's use of the mbox format has always been > > one of its great strengths, in my view. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resource forks of the mbox files, and the latter approach has imposed > limits on mailbox size that some people actually find limiting. What are the limits? > Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. > They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't > really know) and it uses carriage returns instead of standard linefeeds. > This means that even though Mac Eudora is now on a Unix machine where > they are a lot of tools for manipulating mbox files, it's still a Eudora > or text editor task. Yet, there are other benefits of being in this format, albeit imperfectly, like being able to translate easily to other mail programs. > > If anything goes wrong (and > > let's face it, things go wrong), my friendly text editor is right at > > hand. > > Spotlight support almost demands a change to one message per file. Does it? I thought that Ilgaz had some good suggestions for how this might be handled, in another message in this thread. I'm happy with Eudora's search features. I know when what I'm looking for is in my email or elsewhere. I'm not really looking for Spotlight on my email. I can understand why others would want it, but I am willing to forgo it to keep the file format as it is. Right now, according to the "Count the mail" script (if that works properly on Eudora 6.x), I have 60,768 messages. The thought of Eudora using that many files makes my stomach churn. I don't want that mess on my computer. I'm sure that others have many more messages than that. > It > does not mean abandoning a transparent format that can be manipulated by > a text editor. Apple Mail messages are not binary blobs, and there's no > rational reason for Eudora to adopt a non-text format just to work in > Spotlight. Adopting a format much like Mail's would also eliminate the > mangled message issues. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had astonishingly few of these in the ~10 years I've been using Eudora. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Apple Mail messages are not binary blobs, and there's no > > rational reason for Eudora to adopt a non-text format just to work in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had astonishingly few of these in the ~10 > years I've been using Eudora. I don't think you're exceptionally lucky- it's true for me as well, with Eudora 1.x, 3.1.3 and 6.1. Sadly, although like you I feel no need for Spotlight, as it's a major OS10 feature these days, in any new version of Eudora we're going to have to have it, whether or not we need it. SignaturePeter > I'm happy with Eudora's search features. I know when what I'm looking > for is in my email or elsewhere. I'm not really looking for Spotlight [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > using that many files makes my stomach churn. I don't want that mess on > my computer. I'm sure that others have many more messages than that. Same here. Backing up hundreds of thousands of small files is just dead slow when making a backup or moving them to a laptop. One big file is a lot easier to handle. > > > I certainly hope not. Eudora's use of the mbox format has always been > > > one of its great strengths, in my view. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What are the limits? 32k messages in a mailbox. I believe there's a bytesize limit as well, but it isn't obvious what it is from the resource format. Likely 2GB. > > Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. > > They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had astonishingly few of these in the ~10 > years I've been using Eudora. You've had one every time you get a HTML message, every time you get an attachment, and every time you get a multipart/alternative message. The mangling is not obvious, and is done by design, not accident. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > > What are the limits? > > 32k messages in a mailbox. I believe there's a bytesize limit as well, > but it isn't obvious what it is from the resource format. Likely 2GB. Geez, what a straightjacket. Less sarcastically: I realize we all of have our own ways of doing things, and even though it seems like I get a lot of email, I know there are people who get a lot more. But still. If you've got 32,000 messages or 2 GB in a mailbox, then it's time to split your mailbox or send some of that off to a CD, or whatever. Those are some generous limits, and anyone who is going beyond them is going to have a tough time handling all of those messages anyway. > > Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had astonishingly few of these in the ~10 > > years I've been using Eudora. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The mangling is not obvious, and is done by design, not accident. As we discussed in another thread. I've come around to thinking that one person's "mangling" (in the sense you mean here) is another person's feature. But when you said that going to a "one file per message" format would eliminate mangling, I thought you meant the other kind (you know, the kind where your data are destroyed altogether). Even if it goes to a "one file per message format," Qualcomm still might decide to have Eudora use a separate message folder for attachments, still might decide to strip out HTML, etc. There are reasons that people like these features that have nothing to do with the one file issue. As with any software, I guess, you decide if the features are what you need and like. I can put up with the "mangling," and even like it, in some cases (attachments). But I cannot put up with one file per message, so, sadly, that will be the end of Eudora for me if they make that change. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > What are the limits? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > limits, and anyone who is going beyond them is going to have a tough > time handling all of those messages anyway. Personally, I agree. See the archives of this group for me trying to convince someone else that they should not need 32k messages in a mailbox... > > > Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had astonishingly few of these in the ~10 > > > years I've been using Eudora. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > thought you meant the other kind (you know, the kind where your data are > destroyed altogether). Removing message part in multipart/alternative messages is that. Detaching files as Eudora does it is as well. Adding the 'x-html' markup based on MIME headers that are then all stripped is also. There is no way in Eudora to reconstruct the original message Eudora received if that message was anything more than plain text. Going to message-per-file does not necessitate an end to the mangling, but it would provide an opportunity for Qualcomm to revisit whether the mangling is a good thing. >Even if it goes to a "one file per message > format," Qualcomm still might decide to have Eudora use a separate > message folder for attachments, still might decide to strip out HTML, > etc. There are reasons that people like these features that have > nothing to do with the one file issue. It's not symmetrical. There's no feasible way to fix all of the message mangling with the current format. A number of functional changes that have been asked for publicly imply a change in the storage model, and it is still a mystery which of those functional changes are actually coming. The storage model seems doomed because of the long aggregate wishlist and the statement of Spotlight support, but which pieces of the list will happen is unpredictable. > As with any software, I guess, you decide if the features are what you > need and like. I can put up with the "mangling," and even like it, in > some cases (attachments). But I cannot put up with one file per > message, so, sadly, that will be the end of Eudora for me if they make > that change. I'm not certain that file-per-message is ideal, but I am unclear on why anyone would find it so offensive as to be intolerable, even after reading through your posts again. The on-disk storage model does not need to be reflected negatively in the user-visible functionality, and Apple's model for Mail shows that file-per-message can retain access for fiddling. It's even MORE accessible for fiddling because where Eudora hides message metadata in a big binary resource-per-mailbox, Mail has it in a text plist in each message. My only concern for file-per-message is speed. I don't hit the 32k limit, but with a decade of archives and a professional interest in spam, I do have some very large mailboxes which are split up as they are to avoid that limit. If Eudora does go to file-per-message, it might mean trading the hard limit of 32k messages for a speed penalty on mailboxes over a few thousand messages. The creation of that many files (169k in my case) overall doesn't really bug me, but the speed of operating on directory-based mailboxes with 10k messages in them does. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > Removing message part in multipart/alternative messages is that. > Detaching files as Eudora does it is as well. Adding the 'x-html' markup [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would provide an opportunity for Qualcomm to revisit whether the > mangling is a good thing. I think the average user would find none of these problematic. For the kind of work that I do, only removing the plain text is problematic. One of the things I've always liked about Eudora was the ability to change a lot of settings behind the scenes. The interface is (relatively) uncluttered, but people who want to configure things, and bother to figure out how to configure things, can do so. I wonder if the "mangling" could be handled that way -- separate attachment, or not? etc. It is true that these are major manipulations for Eudora to have to deal with, but then, so is the old-style TOC vs. new style, and they made that an option, didn't they? So, it seems feasible that they could make the "mangling" optional. > It's not symmetrical. There's no feasible way to fix all of the message > mangling with the current format. A number of functional changes that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wishlist and the statement of Spotlight support, but which pieces of the > list will happen is unpredictable. Yes, it is a bit frustrating being in the dark about how things are changing. > I'm not certain that file-per-message is ideal, but I am unclear on why > anyone would find it so offensive as to be intolerable, even after [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hides message metadata in a big binary resource-per-mailbox, Mail has it > in a text plist in each message. Here are some of my concerns, even assuming that the files remain editable (not in any order -- some of these concerns are more crucial than others): 1. Even though I use BBEdit, and so can do multi-file changes without too much trouble, still, it is easier to work with one file rather than many if I want to make changes to an entire mailbox. 2. I do regular backups. These take longer with more files. That's a hassle. 3. Even given Spotlight, I still often just want to search on the filename. The more files I have on my computer, the more false positives I get. (I am constantly deleting the cache from various apps to deal with #2 and #3 above. Obviously, I could not do that with my email...) 4. It's just messy. I know this sounds trivial, but it bothers me. I hate when apps leave a lot of files around. I guess I do my best to keep my folders organized and under control. Part of being "under control" is not have a zillion items in a folder. 5. I like the standard mbox format (yes, it's not fully standard, but it's easily fixable, as has been discussed elsewhere in the thread). I like the fact that if I want to switch to another app, I can do so relatively easily. Now, granted, this one probably doesn't motivate the Eudora folks much, but it ought to. In the ~10 years that I have been using Eudora, I probably did it once. (I went back to elm for some reason; I no longer remember why). It's more a peace of mind thing than anything else. I'm willing to bet there are others, but that is all that comes to mind for now. > My only concern for file-per-message is speed. I don't hit the 32k > limit, but with a decade of archives and a professional interest in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (169k in my case) overall doesn't really bug me, but the speed of > operating on directory-based mailboxes with 10k messages in them does. And that, too, is a serious concern. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Here are some of my concerns, even assuming that the files remain > editable (not in any order -- some of these concerns are more crucial > than others): I have occasionally thought of editing the mailboxes to resolve some problem or other. While the changes were character for character replacements, there was no problem. However, when I added or deleted characters, Eudora would report that the mailbox had been interfered with, and insist on rebuilding the TOC. If I let it go ahead, messages I had moved to other mailboxes or had deleted reappear. Lots get indeterminate status so I don't know whether I have read them or not. Is there a way to avoid this when you edit a mailbox? Cheers David In article <davidmor-F50CD8.23231324072006@eth00.pnews.internode.on.net>, > > Here are some of my concerns, even assuming that the files remain > > editable (not in any order -- some of these concerns are more crucial [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Is there a way to avoid this when you edit a mailbox? Compact your mailboxes regularly. The TOC has all of the status info and a map of where messages begin and end in the data fork of a mailbox, and when Eudora detects that it is no longer right, it rebuilds the TOC based on what is in the mailbox, using the existing TOC to recover status flags as it can. Anything indeterminate is likely a deleted message. If you compact mailboxes regularly, the deleted messages won't be there to reappear. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > 2. I do regular backups. These take longer with more files. That's a > hassle. So if you receive 10 mails that are a few kB each to a certain mailbox every day it is faster to back that up when it is in mbox-format and contains a few years worth of e-mail rather than backup 10 individual files? Do the math: a. 10 msg * 3kB = 30 kB to backup b. 4 y * 365 d * 10 msg * 3 kB = 43 MB to backup - every single day. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkbb4j.1loiw6sa4bxhiN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > 2. I do regular backups. These take longer with more files. That's a > > hassle. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a. 10 msg * 3kB = 30 kB to backup > b. 4 y * 365 d * 10 msg * 3 kB = 43 MB to backup - every single day. Backup speed is not only about the volume of data being backed up. If you have a directory with 12,000 individual message files in it, you have to do 12,000 readdir() and stat() calls to figure out what it is that needs to get backed up before you start moving data. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > In article > <1hkbb4j.1loiw6sa4bxhiN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have to do 12,000 readdir() and stat() calls to figure out what it is > that needs to get backed up before you start moving data. What Bill said. Plus, in addition to incremental backups, I periodically do full backups. Those take long enough as it is. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Backup speed is not only about the volume of data being backed up. If > you have a directory with 12,000 individual message files in it, you > have to do 12,000 readdir() and stat() calls to figure out what it is > that needs to get backed up before you start moving data. Do a time readdir and compare it to transfer of 1MB data over 100 MBit. ls, which is far more CPU-intensice than readdir, looks like this for adirectory with ≈ 100 items ona G4/1GHz: 0.004u 0.007s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w It is ignorable in the big picture. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkfves.1fyzd801w0icrlN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > Backup speed is not only about the volume of data being backed up. If > > you have a directory with 12,000 individual message files in it, you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It is ignorable in the big picture. Not if you use Retrospect, and I am not about to change my backup strategy for my email program. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Not if you use Retrospect, and I am not about to change my backup > strategy for my email program. Well, I use Retrospect as well and backup both users running Eudora and Mail. Eudora users waste a lot of space, possible Mail users waste some CPU-cycles, but it is mostly on their machines, not on the backup server. Space is far more expensive than CPU-cycles these days. In corporate environments, storage is the, by far, biggest expense in IT-departments. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkgqqc.u4k68m10s6radN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, [...] [backing up] > Eudora users waste a lot of space How? SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > > Eudora users waste a lot of space > > How? Because if you have a mailbox with 1000 messages and receive one new message into that mailbox, the whole mailbox must be backed up again. You don't even have to receive a mail, changing the sort order (and changing it back) is enough to force a new backup. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkjas4.10sscqagg4z5cN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > > Eudora users waste a lot of space > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You don't even have to receive a mail, changing the sort order (and > changing it back) is enough to force a new backup. I only see how that could be argued to be a waste of CPU or bandwidth (if you back-up over a network). The only situation I can think of in which this would waste disk space is when your back-up routine consists of making new copies of changed files, without deleting the old ones. AFAIK, most people don't do that. They either overwrite the old back-up, or do an incremental one, in which case only the changed bits are backed up. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > AFAIK, most people don't do that. They either overwrite the old back-up, > or do an incremental one, in which case only the changed bits are backed > up. RTFM. Normal incremental backups copy the whole file. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkgqqc.u4k68m10s6radN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > Not if you use Retrospect, and I am not about to change my backup > > strategy for my email program. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Space is far more expensive than CPU-cycles these days. In corporate > environments, storage is the, by far, biggest expense in IT-departments. It's not purely about CPU cycles, but about I/O transactions and whether they have to hit disk. If you're backing up a large number of files, you at least have to get all of their metadata and maybe (if your backup program is extra careful) read the file to confirm that something with the same name, mod time, and size is really the same file you backed up last week. IT departments spend huge amounts on storage in part because they need really solid storage. I deal with this all the time in trying to explain to business customers why it is that 100GB of usable space for an enterprise-critical database costs about as much as a couple of brand new desktop PC's with 250GB disks in them. On personal machines, storage is usually overabundant and absurdly inexpensive. This is why I use dd as my primary backup tool on some systems. Very fast because it only is limited by the hardware. On the other hand, it is a tool with some very sharp edges... SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > In article > <1hkgqqc.u4k68m10s6radN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > > Space is far more expensive than CPU-cycles these days. In corporate > > environments, storage is the, by far, biggest expense in IT-departments. > On personal machines, storage > is usually overabundant and absurdly inexpensive. Exactly. And since I'm a "personal" user with a lot more space than time (so to speak), I'm hoping that Eudora stays as is with respect to its file structure. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In article <1hkfves.1fyzd801w0icrlN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > Backup speed is not only about the volume of data being backed up. If > > you have a directory with 12,000 individual message files in it, you > > have to do 12,000 readdir() and stat() calls to figure out what it is > > that needs to get backed up before you start moving data. > > Do a time readdir and compare it to transfer of 1MB data over 100 MBit. I guess you probably mean something a little different... readdir() is an I/O function call, not a program that can be wrapped with 'time.' A demo is actually a bit complex because the determination of whether to back up a file is the same for every file, whether you need to back it up or not, and the speed of doing that is determined by the number of I/O calls (which for the most part in a backup situation will blow through the filesystem cache and have to hit disk) and the complexity of the database tracking past backups. > ls, which is far more CPU-intensice than readdir, ls without options very little more than a series of readdir calls and spitting out names. If you give it a -l option (or anything else that requires data not found in a dirent) it is about an order of magnitude or 2 slower because it has to stat() each file. If the system's filesystem cache doesn't have the full directory and file metadata cached (as it often will if it is your cwd in a shell, but almost never will in a backup scenario) then you actually have to hit disk for each and every call. Very expensive. > looks like this for > adirectory with ≈ 100 items ona G4/1GHz: > > 0.004u 0.007s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > It is ignorable in the big picture. That looks like a simple 'ls' on your cwd from a shell, which is the perfect customer for the system's built-in caching. Getting all of the names out of memory for the second through umpteenth readdir() is very fast. ls is not stat'ing every file unless you give it a -l flag or something else that makes it do so. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > In article > <1hkbb4j.1loiw6sa4bxhiN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > > > 2. I do regular backups. These take longer with more files. That's a > > > hassle. Another strike against one file per message: it takes more disk space. Space for files are allocated in blocks. Each file uses space rounded up to the next block. Not a big deal for a few files, but with thousands of messages, this adds up. -R. > Another strike against one file per message: it takes more disk space. > Space for files are allocated in blocks. Each file uses space rounded up > to the next block. Not a big deal for a few files, but with thousands of > messages, this adds up. Yes, on average you lose 2kB/file = if you have 100 000 messages you lose 200 000 kB = 200 MB. 1 minute on Pricerunner revealed that you can buy a 200 GB disk for $22. http://www.pricerunner.com/computing/storage/harddrives/177044/prices There are probably better deals if you spent a little more time. In other words, internal fragmentation doesn't matter anymore. However, the importance of the price for backup storage continues to increase. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkhmfq.1qscb2o1x2oh3pN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, [...] [allocation block size] > 1 minute on Pricerunner revealed that you can buy a 200 GB disk for $22. > > http://www.pricerunner.com/computing/storage/harddrives/177044/prices No it doesn't. Follow that link and you'll see that $22,- gets you a 256MB USB stick. 200GB SATA costs about EUR 80,- depending on brand/quality. For laptops the biggest avaiable is still only 100GB, at about EUR 150,-. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > 200GB SATA costs about EUR 80,- depending on brand/quality. For laptops > the biggest avaiable is still only 100GB, at about EUR 150,-. USD 58 ≈ € 50 for 200 GB USD 70 for 250 GB USD 60(?)/85 for 300GB You can store a practically infinite amount of mail on such a disk, even when you take internal fragmentation into account. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? In article <1hkwcx6.1ya3wu9gj22psN%messages.from.usenetREMOVETHIS@gmail.com>, > > 200GB SATA costs about EUR 80,- depending on brand/quality. For laptops > > the biggest avaiable is still only 100GB, at about EUR 150,-. > > USD 58 ‰ ¤ 50 for 200 GB Currency conversion rates are just that. Availability of 200GB SATA disks for EUR 50,- is something else ;) (Things like import tax and VAT probably play a big role.) SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. > They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't > really know) and it uses carriage returns instead of standard linefeeds. These are things you can fix with 1 line of Perl. If not a Perl hacker, most text editors (e.g., TextWrangler) read and write Mac/Unix/Dos text files. Then use global search & replace on ???@???. This is not a serious impediment. Richard > > Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. > > They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hacker, most text editors (e.g., TextWrangler) read and write > Mac/Unix/Dos text files. Then use global search & replace on ???@???. What would you put there? That is, what would you use to replace ???@??? ? SignatureKathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/> Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/> > > > Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. > > > They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What would you put there? That is, what would you use to replace > ???@??? ? What you would do is take all the lines between "From ???@???" (not including the From ???@???) and pipe it through the Unix formail command. The formail command's purpose in life is to generate the "From" line using information from the header fields. Okay, this might take more like 12 lines of Perl, something like: -------------------------------------------------------- #!/usr/bin/perl $all = "" ; do { $line = <STDIN> } until ($line =~ m/^From \?\?\?@\?\?\?/) ; while ($line = <STDIN>) { if ($line =~ m/^From \?\?\?@\?\?\?/) { open(FIX, "| /usr/bin/formail") ; print FIX $all ; close FIX ; $all = "" ; } else { $all = $all .$line ; } } open(FIX, "| /usr/bin/formail") ; print FIX $all ; close FIX ; -------------------------------------------------------- Needs more error checking, but you get the idea. Not sure why all the fuss about the ???@???. If you take a Eudora mailbox, convert it to Unix returns, and add a blank line before each "From ???@???" line, you can read it using "mail -f". Richard > Not sure why all the fuss about the ???@???. It's not a 'big fuss' but the correct content of that line (the SMTP envelope sender address) is not necessarily available to Eudora at all: Eudora is behaving reasonably by using the mystery address there. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > > Also note that technically, Eudora doesn't use a proper mbox anyway. > > They put ???@??? where mbox has the envelope sender (which Eudora can't > > really know) and it uses carriage returns instead of standard linefeeds. > > These are things you can fix with 1 line of Perl. Flipping the line endings doesn't even demand anything as heavy as Perl; 'tr' does the trick. My point was not that > If not a Perl > hacker, most text editors (e.g., TextWrangler) read and write > Mac/Unix/Dos text files. Then use global search & replace on ???@???. Actually it is impossible to fix the ???@??? issue unless a message has arrived through a server that puts the envelope sender into some message header in a parseable way. Return-Path is commonly used but can be spoofed, and some mail servers will include it in their Received header. > This is not a serious impediment. No, it is a very minor one, but it remains not quite true to say that Eudora's mailboxes are standard mbox format. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... [...] > Spotlight support almost demands a change to one message per file. My impression from (sloppily browsing through :)) <http://developer.apple.com/macosx/spotlight.html> is that it's not a requirement. (It may indeed be the easier approach though.) SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://developer.apple.com/macosx/spotlight.html> is that it's not a > requirement. (It may indeed be the easier approach though.) Spotlight works *now* with Eudora mailboxes, but it is pretty much useless because Spotlight returns files, not messages. For Mail.app it returns files as well, but each file is one message, making it feasible to define meta-data about the file specific to the one message it holds. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > > (If there will be any compatibility issues, I imagine it's most likely > > with the mailbox format as it seems to me that might have to be changed > > to accomodate Spotlight support?) > > I certainly hope not. Eudora's use of the mbox format has always been > one of its great strengths, in my view. Ditto. I will not upgrade to Eudora 7 if it goes to 1 file per mail message. I have no use for Spotlight. I keep my directories organized. If I can't find it, neither can Spotlight. I wish there was a way to turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. >[...] If anything goes wrong (and let's face it, things go wrong), >my friendly text editor is right at hand. No kidding. I tried mucking around in Thunderbird's mail directory. Everything disappeared. Definitely not friendly. Richard > I wish there was a way to > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. How do you search by filename? I almost never want to search the contents of a file, I just want to search on filename, and I haven't figured out how to do that. SignatureKathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/> Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/> > > I wish there was a way to > > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. > > How do you search by filename? I almost never want to search the > contents of a file, I just want to search on filename, and I haven't > figured out how to do that. In article <1hitiak.g8dnewnyjc0N%befr@eaglesoft.de>, befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) wrote: > > I have no use for Spotlight. I keep my directories organized. > > If I can't find it, neither can Spotlight. I wish there was a way to > > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. > > I turned Spotlight off and use EasyFind in the rare cases when I need to > find a file. > > I wish there was a way to > > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. > > How do you search by filename? I almost never want to search the > contents of a file, I just want to search on filename, and I haven't > figured out how to do that. Cmd-F in the Finder will bring up a window. If you don't see any pop-up menus, click on the "+" symbol next to "Save". You should get a row of two popup menus and be able to get "Name" "Contains". Before Spotlight existed typing in the search field in a Finder window did this. This feature was way more useful than Spotlight. Richard > > How do you search by filename? I almost never want to search the > > contents of a file, I just want to search on filename, and I haven't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pop-up menus, click on the "+" symbol next to "Save". You should get a > row of two popup menus and be able to get "Name" "Contains". Oh, Duh! That's so obvious, I don't know how I missed it. SignatureKathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/> Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/> > Cmd-F in the Finder will bring up a window. If you don't see any > pop-up menus, click on the "+" symbol next to "Save". You should get a > row of two popup menus and be able to get "Name" "Contains". That does not work over here. If I select "Name contains" and type some filename that definitely exists it does not find anything. It does not even look like it tries to *do* anything. Could it be that it needs the Spotlight-Index to work? > > Cmd-F in the Finder will bring up a window. If you don't see any > > pop-up menus, click on the "+" symbol next to "Save". You should get a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *do* anything. > Could it be that it needs the Spotlight-Index to work? Possibly, I remember that turning off Spotlight turns off other things. But there's a dark grey horizontal strip right above these pop-up menus that say things like "Servers", "Computer", "Home" and "Others..." The search will be done in the directory that's selected. Richard > Possibly, I remember that turning off Spotlight turns off other > things. But there's a dark grey horizontal strip right above these > pop-up menus that say things like "Servers", "Computer", "Home" and > "Others..." The search will be done in the directory that's selected. Strange. I did a search again with (I think) the exact same options as last time and now it finds the files. > > > Cmd-F in the Finder will bring up a window. If you don't see any > > > pop-up menus, click on the "+" symbol next to "Save". You should get a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > *do* anything. > > Could it be that it needs the Spotlight-Index to work? Now click "Others..." at the top, and choose where to search. For example, the whole disk. The default is only the current folder, I think. Or use "Computer" to search everything. SignatureG. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/ > > I wish there was a way to > > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. > > How do you search by filename? I almost never want to search the > contents of a file, I just want to search on filename, and I haven't > figured out how to do that. For those who are comfortable at the command line, 'locate' works fast at the cost of not being live and 'find' works live at the cost of speed. 'man locate' and 'man find' will tell you most of the gory details. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > For those who are comfortable at the command line, 'locate' works fast > at the cost of not being live and 'find' works live at the cost of > speed. Imagine a locate-command that subscribed to filesystem events similarily to how spotlight works and always had an up to date index! I want this. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > I have no use for Spotlight. I keep my directories organized. > If I can't find it, neither can Spotlight. I wish there was a way to > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. I turned Spotlight off and use EasyFind in the rare cases when I need to find a file. > I wish there was a way to > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. Take a look at the free Spotlight alternative "Spotlaser": <http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/20042> SignatureTerje K [...] > I wish there was a way to > turn off Spotlight without also turning off search by filename. I've turned Spotlight off[*] and can still do searches by filename. [*] $ mdutil -i off ; mdutil -E / See the man page for mdutil. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" Hi What does (soon) mean ? Eudora 7 for mac has been talked about for a long time and all indications I have read on the Qualcomm forums is that it is aways off yet. Michael > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Michael Hi, Sorry for late reply. "Soon" as it is mentioned on official website. Ilgaz > > What does (soon) mean ? Eudora 7 for mac has been talked about for a > > long time and all indications I have read on the Qualcomm forums is > > that it is aways off yet. > > Sorry for late reply. "Soon" as it is mentioned on official website. According to the Eudora website: "We've not yet determined the exact release date for this retooled version of Eudora, but anticipate Summer 06 timeframe." SignatureAlec McKenzie usenet@<surname>.me.uk >>> What does (soon) mean ? Eudora 7 for mac has been talked about for a >>> long time and all indications I have read on the Qualcomm forums is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "We've not yet determined the exact release date for this retooled > version of Eudora, but anticipate Summer 06 timeframe." I am currrently prisoned to Apple Mail.app because of a PHP encoding problem which sends mails as Unicode (which eudora can't handle) and can't wait for release. Having to have spotlight indexing monster turned on just to search mail messages is a reason alone to hate mail.app. I never liked to be "forced" to use an application and that was why I switched to Mac. We should really show our support to Qualcomm to make them figure "mail.app" being free and coming with OS doesn't mean everyone likes/loves to use it. BTW, we can argue "free" as it is part of $140 OS install :) Ilgaz > I am currrently prisoned to Apple Mail.app because of a PHP encoding > problem which sends mails as Unicode (which eudora can't handle) and > can't wait for release. TEC OSAX <http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~iimori/sw/TECOSAX.html> tell application "Eudora" try if not (get selected text) = "" then set selected text to Unicode2StyledText (get selected text) else set field "" of message "" to Unicode2StyledText (get field "" of message "") end if -- save window 1 on error msg number num if not (num = -128) then error msg number num end try end tell HTH. >> Sorry for late reply. "Soon" as it is mentioned on official website. > > According to the Eudora website: > > "We've not yet determined the exact release date for this retooled > version of Eudora, but anticipate Summer 06 timeframe." (sorry for double reply) That is something AMAZING since I am sure that sentence didn't exist when I check that page. That is billion dollar communication giant company for you :) Ilgaz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.