On Thu 4, Feb'10 at 8:07 PM -0800, Morris, Patrick wrote:
Some of us are fans of the interpretation of the Unix philosophy that
includes gluing together a lot of small, purpose-built apps into a greater
(albeit sometimes messy and convoluted) whole.
I agree with this for the most part.
On Fri 5, Feb'10 at 5:28 PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
Well, you want an automated processing, not writing regular mail
where you type something. You don't need a MUA for that, you can go
directly to te MTA.
Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks for that.
Though, there are
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:32:59 -0500 -=
Though, there are other reasons why you might want to edit the
body of the message. If I'm not mistaken, there are commands you
can send to some list addresses. Not that anyone uses those...
I do, but the interfaces vary, so ... I just
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:50:02PM -0600, David Young wrote:
Isn't this a problem of packaging, not a problem of architecture
or philosophy?
It should be evident from the large amount of traffic on this list
that it is not. If you've been here long enough, you see the same
threads over and
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 13:13:54 -0600 -=
If a useful feature should be excluded (when there is someone
willing to write the code), there should be a strong technical
reason for such an exclusion; not simply duh, Unix philosophy!!
It's resource efficiency: I don't want to
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
You, however, expect all the solutions to be put into the core
C-code
Not *all*... just the ones that make sense. The Unix Philosophy
doesn't preclude maintainers from using their brains to decide what
features do or don't make sense.
'Evening, Derek
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
of proposed features.
Why do you link _against_ C libraries? Surely you
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:19:13PM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
of proposed features.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 14:39:24 -0600 -=
The Unix Philosophy doesn't preclude maintainers from using their
brains to decide what features do or don't make sense. Dogma does.
Can't you imagine that there is actually some brains behind that
dogma?
I'm all against mindless
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 29.Jan'10 at 17:45:28 -0600 -=
There has been a tendency in some quarters to blindly and rigidly
advocate that following the Unix Philosophy is the One True Way,
which has often hindered progress.
What kind of progress do you mean?
Maybe your goals or ideal world
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
As I said, I believe that if you need to have complexity, it
should be in the code, not on the user end.
The glue to accomplish complex goals needs not necessarily to be in
the user end, it can be put in meta-code (wrappers), which
On Thu 04 Feb 2010 at 15:44:08 PST Derek Martin wrote:
It's not that simple. Outlook sucks for a lot of reasons, many of
them technical. Mutt has very few technical weaknesses, but its user
interface is from 3 decades ago. I, and I suspect a lot of people,
would love to see a modern Mutt.
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 05:44:08PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
As I said, I believe that if you need to have complexity, it
should be in the code, not on the user end.
The glue to accomplish complex goals needs not necessarily to
Charlie Kester wrote:
On Thu 04 Feb 2010 at 15:44:08 PST Derek Martin wrote:
It's not that simple. Outlook sucks for a lot of reasons, many of
them technical. Mutt has very few technical weaknesses, but its user
interface is from 3 decades ago. I, and I suspect a lot of people,
would love
* Morris, Patrick patrick.mor...@hp.com [02-04-10 23:08]:
(Disclaimer: I'm on a borrowed laptop at the moment, so don't read
the headers on this one.)
you don't have a stick with putty on it? For shame :^)
--
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:09:41PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
I would love to see RFC2369 handling built in to mutt, but have not had
time to explore this in code. I'm certain there are others here who
would cite the Unix Philosophy or whatever, and assert that an external
program could do
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:55:32PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
Another way to look at it, if you think that the above idea is
stretching the Unix Philosophy beyond what was intended (which it very
arguably is), is that the Unix philosoply is about 4 decades old, and
software (and users) have
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:55:32PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is this: the Unix
philosophy is to do one thing, and do it well. In the case of my mail
program, the one thing is to handle my mail. It should be capable
to do all of the essential
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:40:18PM -0600, David Young wrote:
It sounds to me like you may be confusing two ideas. One idea is a way
of assembling an application from small programs that perform discrete
tasks in a script or pipeline. The other idea is a user's experience
that an application
19 matches
Mail list logo
