Re: Pico (Was: freedomization task list)
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 08:11:18AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> > To have freedom, perhaps? If freedom is important to you,
> > then you won't want to use PINE.
> That's why I'd gladly switch to a free pine clone.
> What I wanted to say is that I don't want to spend my *free* time
> into learning the usage of a *free* program if I'm allowed to use
> a *non-free* program for "free" (here free means, that I am allowed
> to use pine for my purpose without having to pay money and, yes, I
> know your definition of free and I like it, but it was for the
> nice play of words).
I've been using mutt (free) with an rc file which causes it to emulate
pine (there is now one included in the Debian mutt package) with jpico
(supplied with joe, also free) and these required practically zero
learning curve (even for a 60+ codger like me). The look is slightly
different, but after using them for a while, I like them better than
pine/pico.
>
> The intention of my mail was to say that in my opinion it would be
> more important to clone pine than to discuss if we should clone pico
> or not. Even a free pine using the non-free old pico would be
> better than using the non-free pine with non-free pico, right?
It's sort of like being a little bit pregnant, isn't it? They should
both be cloned (although it looks like "YewDub" might finally be starting
to get the message).
--
Bob Nielsen, W6SWE (RN2) Internet: nielsen@primenet.com
Tucson, AZ DM42nh AMPRnet: w6swe@w6swe.ampr.org
QRP-L #1985 http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Reply to: