Re: [Evolution] copy & paste oddness

[Gottfried <jeffrey g123 de>]

This is actually the problem. how come that Ubuntu and therefore 
LinuxMint use such an old version of Evolution? can't they just pass on 
a newer version? The version used is by far not stable, at least not any 
more. And I do need different software in order to keep different 
accounts separate. To put all the emails I have now collected over the 
years into Thunderbird would blow that thing up and make it useless. Do 
I really have to run then Evo on a Windows PC, just because the 
distributors decided to love only their own thing? That does not sound 
very credible.

Claws Mail is a kind of medieval client that I use for security reasons 
in a different account. So what would be possible to do? change the 
whole distribution? But don't the other distributions limit the other 
software that I am using? In my understanding Ubuntu/LinuxMint are those 
distributions that make most apps accessible.

Anyone has a good tip?

Gottfried


On 05/12/2017 11:32, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 16:06 -0800, bg wrote:
> > bg:
> > > > When I copy an email address into the buffer,  it refuses to paste in
> > > > any of the address fields.
> > Andre:
> >
> > > What is "the buffer" and how do you "copy" and how do you "paste"?
> > bg:
> >
> > The buffer is a basic system function used by all forms of editor within the system - when I
> > smack "copy" during a LibreOffice edit, or in a "ReplyEdit" in Evo, I presume that they both
> > go to the same place. The "buffer".  You may have another name for it. When I ask for
> > a paste, from whatever application, that string is pulled from the buffer and pasted into
> > the working document. This has been the case for well over thirty years AFAIK. I don't know
> > whether in current setups the buffer runs under Linux or under Gnome, but it crosses virtually
> > all applications that can manipulate text. If I want to copy a URL from my main browser window,
> > and paste it into the body of an email text message, then the buffer is involved. If I want to
> > pull a quote from my quotes collection and load it into a LibreWriter doc, same same.
> Although I understand what you are saying, there is actually more than
> one copy & paste mechanism in Gnome/Linux.  There is, what I think you
> are talking about, the Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V method, probably the same as
> Edit->Copy / Edit->Paste in most well behaved applications. This is
> usually known as "the clipboard". But some legacy applications in X
> still use cut buffers for cut and paste (which are incompatible), and
> even within ICCM (which is what the clipboard is) there are multiple
> buffers and multiple mechanisms for populating the buffers - besides
> the ^C/^V mechanism (which populates the buffer called "CLIPBOARD"),
> when you highlight some text that goes into a buffer called "PRIMARY"
> (without any user interaction) and can be pasted using the middle mouse
> button - but not all applications support that.
>
> And then you get the confusion introduced by clipboard managers which
> stores a history of clipboard contents and allows different mechanisms
> for selecting and pasting content.
>
> So, Andre's question is not unreasonable.
>
> > Here's the difficulty I've always had with that last, Andre;  I don't care to use the very latest
> > release of any distribution, preferring to stick with the newest "LTS" (as Ubuntu styles it) version.
> > I've found that being on the bleeding edge uses up a lot of valuable hemoglobin :-)
> There's no problem sticking with an LTS (or whatever your distro calls
> it) version. But doing so comes with consequences - it's all swings and
> roundabouts.
>
> > But from all I have read the last several years, I conclude that I am stuck with whatever version of
> > EVO ships with that latest LTS. Everything I've seen about downloading and attempting to install
> > the most current version of Evo into an Ubuntu distro and concomitant Gnome version which
> > did not contemplate that EVO version suggest that I'm letting myself in for a nightmare.
> If you choose to use an LTS version of a distro, then, to be perfectly
> honest, it would seem to be a strange decision to upgrade a complex
> entity like Evolution to a newer version.  The whole point of an LTS is
> that the versions of the packages are stable for the lifetime of the
> distro.
>
> However, you are then relying on whatever distro you use doing things
> "properly" with the content of the LTS - i.e. back porting bug fixes,
> providing support for out-of-date packages and so on.
>
> > So as I have done for a long time, I'll settle for workarounds, and hope that succeeding distro
> > versions might improve some aspects of the Evo experience. Why Ubuntu seems to stay so far
> > back in versions is unknown to me.
> Ubuntu fell out of love with Evolution a while back and their preferred
> MUA was Thunderbird. At that point they stopped keeping up with the
> most current version of Evo in their distros and supplied ones that
> were a couple of versions back - the benign explanation being that they
> don't have the manpower to keep two MUAs up-to-date, although the less
> charitable would hint that they wanted to cripple Gnome in general to
> promote their own desktop.
>
> P.
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution-list mailing list
> evolution-list gnome org
> To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list