On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:47:56PM -0700, Eugene Lee wrote:
> One of my friends who loves his Pine tried out Mutt and hates it,
> because Mutt doesn't have a GUI method of configuring its settings the
> way Pine does. I can understand people that would prefer a low-powered
Unless things have really changed lately, Pine's "GUI" config method
isn't too different than editing .muttrc while section 6 of the manual
is open in another window. Having a field next to the configuration
option isn't _really_ any easier than typing the option/command
followed by arguments (the stuff that goes in the field) on a line in
a dotfile. Maybe the fields look/feel comforting.
I'm not trying to pick on your friend. It's just that I don't see any
_real_ difference beyond look and feel. Pine's config really boils
down to a list of options with space to enter values and access to
some help/descriptions. Mutt's manual has a list of options with
descriptions. The only difference is where the space to enter values
is located (text fields vs. dotfile). Granted, Mutt's manual is
pretty intimidating with the sheer volume of options, but Pine isn't
exactly short on options either.
> editor like Pico versus something more sophisticated like Vi or Emacs
> because the former is just easier to use and configure, while the latter
> requires semi-programmers to be useful.
Right. The kinds of people that are happy with Pico won't really
appreciate Mutt's advantages over other clients anyway.
--
Luke
