Wrote Matthew Hawkins on Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:46:58PM +1100:
> On 2000-03-01 23:09:22 +1100, Chuck Dale wrote:
> > <RandomRant generality="waytoohigh">
> >
> > The problem (as I see it) is that .muttrc goes against the principles
> > which Mutt is following. Particularly in modularisation. The .muttrc
> > contains absolutely everything configurable in the program - it defines
> > the interface (keys, column presentation, folder hooks, colours), mail transfer
> > (sendmail settings, mailboxes which receive mail), personal settings
> > (real name, personal headers) and a few other random settings as well.
> >
> > </RandomRant>
>
> Actually it doesn't have to have anything at all. You can get by with
> no .muttrc. In fact, sometimes I start mutt with "-F /dev/null" when I
> need to do something where I know stuff in my .muttrc is going to stop
> me, for example I want to use another IMAP server and have none of my
> hooks (which really are tied to my normal server) working.
Exactly right - .muttrc doesn't have to do anything at all. But it can also
define absolutely everything. This does not make it
modular or easy to understand. Big bloated programs like sendmail (ooh
is that a bad thing to say?) don't have to do anything at all. You can
just use sendmail as an MTA and not set it up as an MDA. This does not
make it a good structure.
We are talking clearly defining purposes and keeping modules within
those purposes. So have a few config files for the various settings, or
put them into sections.
Mutt may be extremely powerful but you've got to take that power and
make it usable by users who aren't as smart as you.
This isn't about making mutt make more sense for the current, hardcore
users or those who want to put the effort required in to be a hardcore
user, this is about making mutt accessible to a few more people who
otherwise would never bother trying to understand Mutt and stick with
Pine or something.
And don't tell say "you can just use the default setup without a
.muttrc". Pine has much better new user defaults. So users use Pine.
They are disappointed by the lack of depth. They might try mutt but have
difficulty getting anywhere. Why not make mutt usable in the default
setup? And not just usable in terms of sending and receiving mail, but
usable in terms of intuitive ways of switching mailboxes and an
interface to change user options rather than editing .muttrc by hand.
Users who try mutt don't want the basic operations which they can get
anywhere, they want an easy way of using the powerful features that Mutt
is always said to have.
<Generalisation, but I like it>
Mutt seems to have followed the Unix lie: that making interfaces simpler
to use for the novice is "dumbing down" the program and that a good
program is one that gives the advanced user as many options as possible.
The Unix lie says that advanced users are somehow smarter than less
experienced users. Of course not, they are just people who've had more
time to learn the interface. Make the interface simple for novices but
keep all the power and excellent features. These are not opposing
ideals. If something is useful and makes sense for advanced users then
include an option for it, don't put it near the default.
Maybe it would be good to take the useful part out of the Windows lie: that
the interface should be as simple as possible for the novice user but
have absolutely no depth in terms of customisability or usability for
advanced users.
Simplicity + Depth
</GeneralisationAndGeneralBlah>
I'll just shut up now.
Night!
Chuck
