Re: installing pine
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Dwight Johnson (dwj@aaronsrod.com):
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, ktb wrote:
> >
> > > You might want to try mutt. I like it a lot better. It
> > > took some configuring but it isn't as clunky as pine.
> >
> > I have recently been trying mutt and, quite honestly, I have find mutt a
> > lot clunkier than Pine.
> >
> > One example: when you call up Pine for the first time in any home
> > directory, Pine creates a default .pinerc and it is extremely easy to
> > customize Pine from the Pine master menu.
> >
> > In contrast, with mutt, no .muttrc is created automatically on first use
> > and evidently there exists no easy to use configuration program (at least I
> > have been unable to find one) as there is in Pine.
>
> These are the sorts of issues that concern "beginners" who can be
> helped by having a good /etc/Muttrc file. Power users aren't really
> concerned.
These issues concern people who are _not_ beginners. Time is money and
taking a lot of time to configure an application is wasteful, when an equal
result can be achieved in much less time with Pine.
> As my institutional copy of mutt resides in my own disk space (they
> don't support it), I would be disappointed at being quota'd for all
> that redundant help.
Some years back, storage cost was an issue. But these days, when you can
buy a 5Gb drive for $130, the expense of storing Pine is only $0.02.
If Pine saved only a single $100 consulting hour in configuration time, the
tradeoff would already be gigantic in Pine's favor. The advantage offered
by mutt's smaller footprint is nill on any platform larger than a PDA or
cellphone.
> > It took me an hour of
> > wading through documentation to figure out how to just get my 'From:'
> > header to display my e-mail address. Apparently, I must do the same for
> > each item of customization I want in mutt.
> >
> > Another example: control and navigation keys are clearly displayed at the
> > bottom of each Pine screen. For the equivalent functionality in mutt, I
> > must press '?' and wade through a gadzillion keys displayed over multiple
> > screens.
>
> ... for the power user, there's no desire for real estate to be
> wasted on stuff like that.
On the contrary, the power user does want these aids. The power user wants
to make efficient use of his time by being able to quickly access help to
execute commands that perhaps he uses only occasionally, like printing an
e-mail or finding a particular e-mail by searching for a keyword, without
having to search through a nearly endless alphabetical list of commands or
waste brain synapses memorizing something he might do only once a week or
less.
> There are very few different commands you actually need just to
> read day-to-day emails, and the keystrokes needed can be (and are
> by default?) displayed in one line.
This is true, but there are many less frequently used commands that will
not be committed to memory -- and Pine makes these much more accessible for
quick use than mutt.
There is, in fact, an option in Pine to not display these lines of command
prompts. However, in 4-1/2 years of using Pine, I have not yet begun to
find these help prompts obtrusive.
> > So I am very surprised to hear you say that you think Pine is clunkier than
> > mutt. I would welcome learning in what ways.
>
> Configurability, customisability, whatever, of keystrokes and status
> information for each type of screen, navigation, colours, headers,
> editor, etc.
What???? I seriously doubt that -- getting into the specifics -- mutt is
superior to Pine in configurability and customisability.
Only in one respect, that I can see based on my brief exposure, is mutt
better -- mutt is a better _threaded_ mail reader. It looks like a lot of
effort has been put into mutt's threading features. People who want a
threaded mail reader may well prefer mutt. Since I want to process my
mail _strictly_ in arrival order, threaded is not a feature I would ever
use.
I am willing to give mutt a try based on its purer free software license.
But I have used Pine to process in excess of 300 mails a day, including a
high volume of personal mail, for long stretches over 4-1/2 years. Pine is
extremely well designed to process and archive a high volume of mail
quickly. My mail archive is currently 14Mb in 489 folders. If Pine were a
lightweight program, I would have noticed it by now and changed to
something else.
Pine's help and configuration systems are vastly superior to mutt -- making
Pine much easier to learn and use on a daily basis -- I submit that these
features are highly significant for 'power users' who value their time.
The mutt developers have much to learn from Pine (and I'm sure have already
learned much). It is too bad the Pine license is flawed. Fortunately, this
is only slightly and should not inhibit our use of Pine while we continue
to support the development of completely free mailreaders like mutt.
Dwight
Reply to: