On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 12:22:07AM -0700 or thereabouts, Paul Scott wrote: > Thanks for all your input. I've got "The Mutt E-Mail Client" doc open > now and I will read some more and try some of this. I think I am > equally at home in both GUI and text-based worlds and I think this may > be a case where a quite good GUI email client like Thunderbird is going > to win out overall over mutt at least on a larger sized screen. Maybe > if mutt could simultaneously show more of it's views for X's sake it > would be the total winner since graphics by itself are not needed and > are extra overhead for reading plain-text email. Not attempting to flame or anything, but I'm puzzled. I've used Mozilla/Thunderbird/Mutt off|on for several years. As much as I like Thunderbird (one of the better GUI clients), I find myself always coming back to Mutt, simply because it's more efficient (well I can't stand the lack of reply-to list function in the Gecko clones to). I can read, delete and track important e-mail much easier in Mutt. I can't see, quite frankly your assertion that anything is faster in Thunderbird than in Mutt, (in terms of using it's functions). CLI as always been faster than a mouse and point 'n click. That's why many high end GUI apps, give one the choice of keyboard equivalent commands. ;) I can however understand the argument that a GUI client is prettier, and easier to operate for the less-skilled term user, or that someone simply prefers Thunderbird to Mutt. It is a personal preference -- I'm just suspicious of any claim that a GUI e-mail app is faster or more efficient. ;) -- Steve +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saturday Jun 12 2004 11:21:01 AM EDT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "During the race We may eat your dust, But when you graduate, You'll work for us." -- Reed College cheer
Attachment:
pgpBPSUvh0jFj.pgp
Description: PGP signature