On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:12:14PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > and has been for a very long time now. And THAT > completely ignores the idea that Mutt's design > is over 15 years old, and its design philosophy > is much, much older. Mutt, and its user base > (or at least a substantial segment of it), could > certainly benefit from being brought into this > century.
The "old" design you talk about comes from UNIX concepts which power all the iThings, Androids and Kindles you most probably use and adore yourself. On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:57:31AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > But not everyone is a 55-year-old hacker who > wrote fetchmail. And not everyone wants to be. I like mutt in it's 1.5.18 state, minus some misfeatures, inconveniencies and bugs, and I disagree with ESR regarding integrated IMAP support -- I consider this an important feature, especially when served with header_cache and message_cachedir. Fetchmail is good for POP but for IMAP there are better options IMHO. We all have different opinions regarding mutt development, it seems, so I don't see any sense in discussing here "the future of mutt" and the "functionality that real users want" together. The latter is derivative of the former, not vice versa. And the former is derived from will and abundancy of free time (or lack of) on the part of a developer/developers. This "wanted functionality" thing are just input data for developer that can be accepted, discarded or reworked. Until we have a developer, this discussion doesn't have any practical sense -- there's no party that ultimately takes decisions. If you think mutt development is dead and miss something badly, you are free to fork mutt and implement missing features yourself. -- With best regards, xrgtn
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
