Re: A rookie's query: Want to about Debian and the related
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:51 -0600, yaro@marupa.net wrote:
> On Monday, December 02, 2013 06:26:26 PM Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:20 -0600, yaro@marupa.net wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 02, 2013 05:56:09 PM Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 10:27 -0600, yaro@marupa.net wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, December 02, 2013 05:14:17 PM Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:14:27 +0100, AP
> > > > > > <worldwithoutfences@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Ralf Mardorf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> I can't remember what I tested a while ago. Perhaps Claws, maybe
> > > > > > >> Sylpheed. I'll try _both_ again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have all tried Thunderbird? I am eager to know about it. Is it
> > > > > > > excellent?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used it for years, it was and likely is excellent, but not a
> > > > > > native
> > > > > > Linux app and as already mentioned before, I dislike the Mozilla
> > > > > > policy.
> > > > > > It's my eccentric, whimsical notion that I don't use Mozillas _if
> > > > > > possible_, but I also guess that ... [1]. IOW Mozilla as a MUA for
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > never ever again. As browser I still use QupZilla and the Tor
> > > > > > Browser
> > > > > > Bundle quasi based on Mozilla software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would you say it's not Linux native? Is Thunderbird not compiled
> > > > > for
> > > > > Linux? It's not running on Java or Mono or anything, is it? I don't
> > > > > follow
> > > > > your logic here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean it's not exclusive to Linux? That's true, but why is that
> > > > > a
> > > > > bad
> > > > > thing?
> > > >
> > > > If you want adapt a Microsoft/Apple policy to Linux, then Mozillas are
> > > > perfect. Go and give Google all your private data, don't care about the
> > > > freedom to choose a mail format, use mbox (yes, it's UNIX, not
> > > > Microsoft, but how often is it used by Linux MUAs?) ... Mozilla software
> > > > is excellent regarding to technically aspects, but not regarding to
> > > > freedom.
> > >
> > > I don't see how POP3 or IMAP services are "nonfree" just because you have
> > > data on a server somewhere. There might be privacy concerns but those
> > > protocols are just as open as mbox is.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can elaborate how Mozilla's approach is "nonfree" aside from
> > > the trademark issue we already know about.
> >
> > You misunderstood my point. There might be nothing bad with using mbox,
> > but having the freedom to chose mbox or maldir is the freedom to chose.
> > Mozillas nanny you, they chose the mail format for you, the chose Google
> > as startpage for you, they make decisions for you. I want to decide on
> > my own. I don't need somebody to make decisions for me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ralf
>
> Oh, that does clear it up. But again, I don't see that as a "free vs. nonfree"
> issue. Most software will choose defaults for you and you can change it, even
> Mozilla. I'm a KDE user, often a lot of KDE defaults I don't like or don't
> make sense, Kopete being perhaps the worst offender.
>
> I often don't care for software that requires user-side configuration to
> already be in place when run. By user-side I mean dotfiles in home directory. I
> do not really mind if I have to set something up in /etc, however, largely
> because I will most often be changing the defaults.
>
> I prefer Google anyway, though, as I have yet to see a search engine that
> works nearly as well. I know a lot of people rave about Duck Duck Go, but
> every time I use it it loves to bring up results in an order that doesn't hit
> the same sort of relevance as Google. But Google using my search for
> advertising doesn't bother me.
>
> Conrad
My aversion against Mozillas is not objective. For me they cause a
"Windows feeling". Once upon a time especially the browsers where good,
but then they changed the sorting of the history and I never found out
how to get back a sane sorting, that is common for most browsers. For
the MUAs sharing the mails with other installs was and likely is a PITA.
I'm not thinking about sharing by IMAP, just simply linking the mbox
thingy.
Still unique and very good is that the browsers provide profiles, all
the add-ons. However, it's bloated software, even for the separated MUA
and browser we nowadays know as Thunderbird and Firefox.
The options to edit HTML mails in every why fakes that HTML mails do
work, will look the same at the recipient's side, but a HTML mail at
best can be share among MUAs by simple HTML editing and it anyway is
better to prefer plain text.
Reply to: