On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:26:03AM +0200, Gerrit Holl wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:26:10PM -0500, dannyman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:31:11AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > It is possible that some people actually like Pine better than Mutt, as
> > > absurd as that seems to us ;) If they really don't like it, they'll find
> > > something else (like I did).
> >
> > There was a time when I like pine better than mutt. :)
>
> Why?
> Are there actually things where pine is better?
> Some people seem to like a menu-driven system, I think...
This is border-line troll ...
1) The commands are listed at the bottom - immediately available.
2) You can configure it without reading the man page ... errr, I mean, going
to the web site, errr, I mean finding the manual, err, I mean, reading the
whole fucking manual to find the keyword you want ... errr, I mean, going to
the mailing list for an explanation or finding an excellent .muttrc from
someone else ...
3) News support, without reverse-hacking in one of Brandon's old patches.
4) Nice, short, multi-column listing of mailboxes.
Not that I prefer pine, but these things used to be more important to me.
Especially basic configuration ... just going through a menu of options and
setting them one-by-one with contextual help available for each item. Pine
does a few things right, and some of many of these things will ultimately find
their ways in to mutt.
-danny
--
dannyman - http://www.dannyland.org/~dannyman/
