>> No, it is not. The one constant of the software world is that
>> specialized programs will always function better in their assigned roll
>> than the same component of a generalized program. Too many programmers
>> forget that and as a result we get bloated mediocre problems which are
>> best described as useless.
AM> This ideal setup that you're speaking of imposes an increased
AM> degree of complexity to the user. He buys an e-mail application and now
AM> has to worry about getting an editor and now has to worry about getting a
AM> image viewer and now has to worry about installing a browser and now has
AM> to ..... etc. etc.
Not necessarily. As the developers already see themselves developing
a "monolithic app", they could just as readily develop the apps as
"stand-alone," and then via configuration swap this and that one out
because you like these other ones. Sounds reasonable to me.
I remember when I started emailing. I used elm. It was SO easy. Oh,
damn it's calling this editor that I hate... Guess what I did? I
changed the editor invokation to start a different app. However, as
it was installed it was usable, if I had wanted to learn Yet Another
Editor.
AM> Very often, he wishes to write simple notes, yet he has to learn
AM> vim to do this or something like vim. He may wish to only view
AM> images in his mail and yet he has to get ACDSee or something of
AM> the sort etc. etc.
Then comes the time when he wants to do something that the software
doesn't support, and is left without a solution entirely.
-tom!
--
Hopin' this said *something* useful, [EMAIL PROTECTED] out.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
