Re: post


    Jan 15 2006 | 4:18 am
    not another list....
    this is the [maxmsp] list the other is a [max-msp] list who subscibed me to it ?
    I assume al [max-msp] members are on this [maxmsp] list nice we could have cross-list discussions
    someone stop this now
    -mj

    • Jan 15 2006 | 4:50 am
      As you may or may not have gathered, this is not *another* list -- this is *the* list. We migrated from one mailing list manager to another, and in doing so, incurred a small name change.
      Please read the email Lilli sent earlier today and everything is explained.
    • Jan 15 2006 | 5:57 am
      I never received this email from Lilli.
      can someone PLEASE repost?
    • Jan 15 2006 | 8:12 am
      billy gomberg wrote:
      > I never received this email from Lilli. > > can someone PLEASE repost?
      There's no need to repost. It's available via the forum:
      Now that we have this fancy new system, let's take advantage of it!
      thanks
      w
    • Jan 15 2006 | 8:26 am
    • Jan 15 2006 | 12:47 pm
      I really like the new setup. Very smart indeed ! It was well worth the wait in my opinion. One last thing to make it complete : the merger of maxobjects.com and cycling74.com !
      On 15-jan-2006, at 9:26, f.e wrote:
      > Who changed the C74 site ?!
    • Jan 15 2006 | 1:38 pm
      At 9:26 +0100 15/01/2006, f.e wrote:
      > My God ! Who changed the C74 site ?! It is U.G.L.Y
      This is the web.
      -- Jean-Yves Bernier http://www.pescadoo.net/
    • Jan 15 2006 | 2:35 pm
      On 15 Jan 2006, at 13:38, Jean-Yves Bernier wrote:
      Uck.
      Well, it works in Lynx, although the experience is rather disorientating...
      -- N.
      nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http:// www.cassiel.com
    • Jan 15 2006 | 2:41 pm
      On around Jan 15, 2006, at 14:38, Jean-Yves Bernier said something like: > This is the web. > > http://www2.pescadoo.net/thisisthweb.png
      It's nice to know that some people still use a Classic Mac OS.-)
      I still use OS 8.6 for a lot of things. But not for the Web. I fear even my Jaguar Safari is not really up to snuff for every site on the Web. That old Internet Explorer you're using had quite a bit of savoir-faire back when it was new. No longer.
      for how it's supposed to look. (This URI will die in a week or so.)
      -- Peter
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ -------------- Peter Castine | ^ | Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter pcastine@gmx.net | pcastine@bek.no | iCE: Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building 4-15@kagi.com | for Max/MSP | Extremely cool | http://www.dspaudio.com | http://www.dspaudio.com/software/software.html
    • Jan 15 2006 | 3:37 pm
      At 15:41 +0100 15/01/2006, Peter Castine wrote:
      > I fear even my Jaguar Safari is not really up to snuff > for every site on the Web.
      content.
      p! ck+ a- -a
      *g %e
      -- Jean-Yves Bernier http://www.pescadoo.net/
    • Jan 15 2006 | 9:11 pm
      On Jan 15, 2006, at 3:26 AM, f.e wrote:
      > My God ! Who changed the C74 site ?! It is U.G.L.Y (sincerly sorry > for the web designer) and the forum is not handy at all.
      Seriously... what the hell happened? My eyes!!
      Twiki of all things too? Ugh.
      - John
    • Jan 16 2006 | 12:02 am
      On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Peter Castine wrote:
      > I have a friend who swears that HTML is the work of the devil and > the only way to transport content is plain-text email.
      HTML email is silly. Not only does it make spam ten times more annoying, but you pull in the same javascript and other vulnerabilities that your web browser might have into your email client. It also has incompatibilities with numerous mail clients (I know a lot of people that still use mutt/pine for instance). It just isn't worth it, especially when you can inline attachments such as images anyway (although I know people hate these too). No sense taking a nice, compact email client, and turning it into a behemoth that pulls in Gecko.
      Just my opinion, for what it is worth (not much). ;-)
      - John
    • Jan 16 2006 | 2:10 am
      On Jan 15, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Peter Castine wrote:
      > I have a friend who swears that HTML is the work of the devil and > the only way to transport content is plain-text email. That's > pretty extreme. But, in 2006, a lot of Web sites seem to think it's > just as extreme to insist on nothing more modern than HTML 4 with CSS.
      In fact, the new Cycling '74 site *is* presented using nothing more than HTML and CSS.
      The horrid screenshot was clearly from browser that is only partially compliant with CSS. As Nick pointed out, the site even renders coherently in Lynx.
      best, Tim
    • Jan 16 2006 | 9:26 am
      On around Jan 16, 2006, at 3:10, Timothy Place said something like: > In fact, the new Cycling '74 site *is* presented using nothing more > than HTML and CSS.
      Sorry, I should have examined the HTML code behind the screenshots before claiming otherwise. Also, I recalled something about the newsfeeds using XML.
      Jean-Yves' screenshot looked like IE, which was (at least in its day) one of the more CSS-compliant browsers around. But I don't know which version of IE.
      -- P.
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ -------------- Peter Castine | ^ | Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter pcastine@gmx.net | pcastine@bek.no | iCE: Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building 4-15@kagi.com | for Max/MSP | Extremely cool | http://www.dspaudio.com | http://www.dspaudio.com/software/software.html
    • Jan 16 2006 | 10:04 am
      On Jan 16, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Peter Castine wrote:
      > On around Jan 16, 2006, at 3:10, Timothy Place said something like: >> In fact, the new Cycling '74 site *is* presented using nothing >> more than HTML and CSS. > > Sorry, I should have examined the HTML code behind the screenshots > before claiming otherwise. Also, I recalled something about the > newsfeeds using XML. > > Jean-Yves' screenshot looked like IE, which was (at least in its > day) one of the more CSS-compliant browsers around. But I don't > know which version of IE.
      IE 5.x for Mac OS 9 and earlier seems to deal with a lot of CSS better than the current version for Windows. A lot of people claim IE beat out Netscape through heavy handedness, but what they forget was IE was actually a much better browser. (Not to mention that if anyone was being heavy handed originally, it was Netscape.)
      - John
    • Jan 16 2006 | 12:11 pm
    • Jan 16 2006 | 1:24 pm
      --- Jean-Yves Bernier wrote:
      > Il will switch to OSX .... To run > ProTools 7 with a Digi001 instead of ProTools Free > with an M.Audio > interface (remember: PTF don't run under Classic).
      I wish! I had to ditch my 001 in order to run PT 6.something, let alone v.7 ! And I ended up with another 'barely supported' Digi-pig, an MBox, which started moaning only a few minor upgrades later; it doesn't seem to like OS10.4.4...