On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote: > mutt is not a good replacement for pine in the exact same way > that vi is not a good replacement for emacs, emacs is not a good > replacement for vi, ford is not a good replacement for chevy, > chevy is not a good replacement for ford, carob is not a good > replacement for chocolate, etc.
Vi *is* a good replacement for emacs. :) No, but seriously, this is irrelevant to my point. As you said, there's no reason to _stop_ using pine just because Red Hat doesn't ship it. But there *is* good reason for Red Hat to continue to ship _a_ good text-based e-mail client, and mutt fills that niche. -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
