Pico (Was: freedomization task list)
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
> That's just my 2C there. Personally, I think that EMACS is far too big to
> kluge into a pico workalike.. and it would still leave the problem of
> PINE. Pico is relatively simple, and PINE is just another mailer-- neither
> would be too difficult to clone exactly. It's just not been done.
I really wonder, if Pico is the cruxial thing, why people use pine.
I use Pine with vi (vim), because I know him well and it is my
favourite Editor for quick editing (software development I do with
Emacs). The problem of Emacs of quick editing is not its size
but that it takes some time to come up.
In my opinion an editor with is aimed to edit emails has to be
simple and should be loaded quickly. That's all. Many people
use other editors together with pine.
So I sugest: Don't bother about the editor. A realy free pine clone
would be fine also without any editor. There are so many editors
available that users can chose.
Also a "pine-like" mutt would be fine. Sometimes I considered to
switch to mutt, but it was a short attempt. Why should I switch
from a program which does all tasks I want to do and is comfortable
enough? Why should I learn a new UI and new configuration tools?
This is the real crux, not the editor.
This mail was written with vim and send using pine ...