Re: mail clients
> Windows is not Linux. Linux is not Windows.
This is not about "what OS is for whom," "who is what kind of user," or
anything like that. The question is: "Does a client with these features
exist for the Linux platform?"
If one does not, it would be nice if somebody made one. It doesn't have to
be any more complex an issue than that.
Until one does exist, I will continue to use Windows for my mail needs since
it DOES have a client that fits MY needs (maybe not YOUR needs, but MY
needs). And, I will use Linux for everything else. =)
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Pitts <smpitts@midsouth.rr.com>
To: <grep@oriole.sbay.org>
Cc: Stephen Pitts <smpitts@midsouth.rr.com>; Steve Lamb
<morpheus@rpglink.com>; <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: mail clients
> Define casual user. People who spend 4+ hours/day on the computer, whether
it be
> for business, or for school, or just for fun, are not casual users. I
think that a
> whole lot more of the market fits that criteria than most people realize.
>
> Windows is designed for the causal user. That's great, initially. There is
> no learning curve, but you are limited in terms of functionality. Get
Outlook
> Express to automatically delete messages two weeks old in three specific
folders.
> Get Windows to automagically backup your database files every day, at
exactly
> 12:00 noon, running the database through a compression program and
automagically
> setting the date. Set it up so you can fix your database if it breaks down
> when you are halfway across the world. And do it all, day in, day out,
> without crashing.
>
> Instead of complaining about the learning curve, start learning. WOW!
Isn't
> that a scary word? Windows is not Linux. Linux is not Windows. Both have
> different target audiences, and the Linux audience likes to learn.
> --
> Stephen Pitts
> smpitts@midsouth.rr.com
> webmaster - http://www.mschess.org
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org <
/dev/null
>
>
Reply to: