Re: Linux Mail Client
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:56:11PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> The first one is acmemail (and it's not what we are talking about here).
My apologies. Ever since I started the project several months ago it was
the first listed project. I had assumed it was still the case as it was the
last time I checked a few days ago. AIMS Prototype.
> Stop being a smartass, if you have a project, just give us a link.
I would if I had it but I do not. I have, however, mentioned that project
once and clearly people missed it so I was trying to describe the location.
> If you YOURSELF do not, then fine. There are dozens of email projects, 55
> at least, and I'm not going to look thru them all. Not to mention Evolution
> and others that aren't there....
You wouldn't have to since, quite frankly, since I indicated it was at the
top maybe look at the 2-3 near the top would yield it.
You know what, I just checked. I stated look at the first one in email
clients. The first in email is Acmemail. The first in email clients, right
where I said it was, is AIMS Prototype. Registered by greydmiyu. User info
on greydmiyu shows the real name as Steve Lamb. I fail to see how "look at
the first one in email clients" failed since it really is still first.
> This means doing things like using betas and giving feedback, writing
> documentation, and much more.
Hmmm. Let's see. Member of the PMMail beta process on both OS/2 and
Windows since it was pre v1.5 on only OS/2. Member of the The Bat! beta
process for over a year now. I run and maintain the unoffical PMMail mailing
list on my machine.
You're right, it is about participation. It is also about knowing when to
participate and when /NOT/ to. I don't participate in the Pegasus beta
program, or the Outlook or Eudora beta programs because the basic design
decisions they have made run contrary to what I believe is the correct way to
do things when it comes to mail. I am well aware that I am not going to
convince programmers to make a change to the basic way they do things.
To that end I cannot change Evolution, or KMail, or XFMail, or mutt, pine,
elm, et al. because all of those teams have made a basic design decision that
I cannot alter.
> Complaining on the debian-user list is NOT part of that process.... Right
> now, if you aren't a coder, and aren't willing to learn, then go give
> feedback on a list that at least _matters_ to what you are complaining
> about.
This list does matter. Every time someone says, "I want something like
this" you know what the immediate knee-jerk reaction is? "You don't want
that. What you want to do is this." That is utter bullshit and you know it.
So every time people ask for something quite specific I give them a very valid
answer, "It doesn't exist yet." I don't tell them that they don't want to do
it the way they have been doing it for 5-10 years, I tell them it doesn't
exist. I tell them the truth. In the process of telling them the truth I get
people like you and Brian Moore and who knows how many others telling /me/
that I am wrong and I feel compelled to explain my position.
> Go bother the Evolution guys... they have a mailing list, where at
> least you can have the honor of being flamed by the likes of Miguel and
> Jamie.
Why, they have made a design decision to be the Lookout! of Linux. That's
fine, they can be that since there is a need for that. Why would I want to
try to get them to change a basic design decision they have made. I don't
agree with it so why waist their time and mine?
So there is another part of the process. You know what that is?
Admitting there is a problem.
Something that you, Brian, and loads others cannot admit. That there is a
problem in the current spectrum of how mail is handled, a whole that needs to
be filled.
> Fine, none of the existing _Linux_ programs do what you want _exactly_.
Not just me. PMMail2000 and The Bat! have a dubious disctinction between
the two of them. They both have consistantly been rated #1 and #2 in polls of
email clients. Not of Windows clients, of clients in general. They swap
places lots of times and far outstrip the pack. They are constantly cited
with how nicely they handle multiple mail accounts. That isn't just me, that
is a LOT of people.
> This means nobody has felt the same itch as you, or has, but hasn't taken
> the self-responsibility to fix.
Or that and the fact that they have been told the ONE TRUE WAY and have
decided to go through the masochism of trying to mangle their mail into that
form.
> Fixing it can mean a lot of things. Heck, put up money offering for someone
> else to write it... Sponsorship is a form of self-responsibility.
Which I have done, witness the colorization of joe even though I no longer
use joe. However I don't think $35 is going to be enough to cover the costs
of development of a mail client to decent standards. I haven't been able to
set aside the money to put up yet (I'm figuring it will take a good $500 to
get basic functionality down) nor have I felt comfortable with any of the
languages I do know to start serious coding. I don't feel that Perl is
acceptable to large tasks and, as the AIMS page states, I'm leaning towards
Python with wxPython providing the GUI. However, my Python skills are at the
neophyte level since I've only been seriously using it for less than 3 weeks.
I'd like to get CVS asccess going on SF but so far that hasn't been happening
and I cannot figure out why.
> If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. And
> right now, people are wasting time trying to answer you, instead of doing
> more productive things.
You're right. You aren't part of the solution, you're part of the
problem. That problem is failing to admit that there is a hole that needs to
be filled and offering the same set if silly solutions over and over when
every single one runs contrary to what has been stated.
My favorite is when I state, flat out, that having to filter everything
out from a single source is bad yet people point out that I can filter from
fetchmail. Right, didn't I just say that filtering from a single source is
bad?
> <plonk>
Ah, a plonk. Interesting, don't you think. Correct me if I'm wrong but
plonk stands for "please leave our newsgroup, killfiled." I do believe you
mean *PLOMLK*. Not as catchy, though, is it?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: