On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 12:22:07AM -0700 or thereabouts, Paul Scott wrote: > Thanks for all your input. I've got "The Mutt E-Mail Client" doc open > now and I will read some more and try some of this. I think I am > equally at home in both GUI and text-based worlds and I think this may > be a case where a quite good GUI email client like Thunderbird is going > to win out overall over mutt at least on a larger sized screen. Maybe > if mutt could simultaneously show more of it's views for X's sake it > would be the total winner since graphics by itself are not needed and > are extra overhead for reading plain-text email.
Not attempting to flame or anything, but I'm puzzled.
I've used Mozilla/Thunderbird/Mutt off|on for several years. As much as I like
Thunderbird (one of the better GUI clients), I find myself always coming back to
Mutt, simply because it's more efficient (well I can't stand the lack of
reply-to list function in the Gecko clones to). I can read, delete and track
important e-mail much easier in Mutt. I can't see, quite frankly your assertion
that anything is faster in Thunderbird than in Mutt, (in terms of using it's
functions). CLI as always been faster than a mouse and point 'n click. That's
why many high end GUI apps, give one the choice of keyboard equivalent commands.
;)
I can however understand the argument that a GUI client is prettier, and easier
to operate for the less-skilled term user, or that someone simply prefers
Thunderbird to Mutt. It is a personal preference -- I'm just suspicious of any
claim that a GUI e-mail app is faster or more efficient. ;)
--
Steve
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Saturday Jun 12 2004 11:21:01 AM EDT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"During the race
We may eat your dust,
But when you graduate,
You'll work for us."
-- Reed College cheer
pgpGxscenceEe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
