[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: why I don't want CCs



On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:45:38 +0200
martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote:
> The UNIX philosophy says: xbuffy!

    Every little task does not have to be in a separate binary.  Esp. when
that binary can't really take input.
 
> > > Aside, xbuffy can do it all for you if you wish.
> >     Free blindness included.  Uh, no, it doesn't.
 
> Like what does it not do?

    Erm, be readable for one case.  Also let me be able to, dunno, click on it
and be right where I need to be.
 
> > > And I save 25 Mb of RAM and am way faster than you.
 
> >     Are you now?  How can you be sure?
 
> Because sylpheed is a memory hog and mutt+xbuffy isn't.

    No, you said you're way faster than me.  If you think 25Mb is going to
make you way faster than me then... well...

top - 10:17:48 up 4 days,  3:23,  3 users,  load average: 0.05, 0.08, 0.05
Tasks: 107 total,   1 running, 106 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
 Cpu0 :   2.0% user,   1.3% system,   0.0% nice,  96.7% idle
 Cpu1 :   0.0% user,   0.0% system,   0.0% nice, 100.0% idle
Mem:    904364k total,   812912k used,    91452k free,   125456k buffers
Swap:        0k total,        0k used,        0k free,   363688k cached

    ....I still have another 500Mb to go before I even touch swap.  How're you
doing on memory?

    You see what you, and others, seem to forget about the Unix philosophy is
that at it's core are these words:
The right tool for the job.

    For the job I need them to do the MTA/MDA/MUA chain is *NOT* the right
tool.  It is the wrong tool for all the reasons I have enumerated which,
again, have not been refuted.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
       PGP Key: 8B6E99C5       | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
	                       |    -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpooQPJAzxjT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: