On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:31:29PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 02/03/08 11:08, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:05:43AM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote: > >> I'm finally taking the plunge from full CLI to using an X server, and in > >> place of Mutt I've been using Evolution; But Evolution is nowhere near > >> as good as Mutt, with threading/speed/customizability (And to boot I > >> can't even use GViM as my editor!). > >> > >> Can anyone suggest a good GTK+ e-mail reader/writer? I have cron getting > >> my e-mail so the client doesn't even need to have POP/IMAP. > >> > > > > Mutt in a gnome-terminal? (At least you can then pretend that its GTK). > > > > :) > > Why waste all that RAM, when rxvt & xterm work just as well? I've tried (only a little though) to understand the differences between different terminals, and darned if I can tell. Of course the bloated gui-ified ones have nice features like right click menus, url highlighting and that sort of thing. But once you get away from that, I can't see that there really are any substantive differences unless your goal is to customize the heck out of it. Then I suppose the different ways they are customized might come into play. So, I lately started using urxvt because of it's client-server model. The visible usable instances of a terminal are just clients to the one true terminal server instance, I guess. There is only one instance of urxvt shown in ps -e. I guess that is truly some savings in footprint. there is no point to this email, I guess, except to say the urxvt seems pretty cool and mutt appears to work just fine in it! (there's my nice tie-in to the original topic). A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature