=- Derek Martin wrote on Thu 4.Feb'10 at 17:44:08 -0600 -=
> But when you have a requirement that things that are complex be
> done outside the app, it means:
>
> - It's not seamlessly integrated into the user's experience
> - Users need to engineer their own solutions
> - Invariably, many people re-engineer the same solution many times
>
> It's a monumental waste of effort. It's generally much, much
> better if someone takes the time to integrate the functionality
> into the program directly, so that users don't need to keep
> re-engineering it, or at least hunting down the solution that
> someone else engineered.
But that's what I meant.
You, however, expect all the solutions to be put into the core
C-code, while I suggest keeping it "outside" wrapped around it (or
plugged in, once we have a plug-in interface ;).
Those "wrap-up" solutions can be accumulated and delivered
centrally, too, like on the wiki. It need not be shipped with each
package release. Think of Firefox and it's add-ons.
> The quality of Mutt has not suffered for having {smtp built-in} ...
> how can that not mean that Mutt is better for having it?
With this argument you justify _literally_ any feature, even the
"ls" example I've given or a coffee-maker.
But I don't want a bloated mutt to make my coffee, there is a
coffee-machine for that.
Where is the limit in putting anything into the "one" killer-app-
for-everything?
> Mutt has very few technical weaknesses, but its user interface is
> from 3 decades ago. I, and I suspect a lot of people, would love
> to see a modern Mutt.
Actually I agree on that, but no volunteers on this front, and no
prio among the maintainers, bad luck. ;)
> You ever try to configure sendmail from scratch? To configure
> Mutt's SMTP functionality, you need only know the answers to a
> handful of questions. To configure a full-fledged MTA, you may
> very well need to know a lot more than that.
Yes, I did, but today that's not necessary anymore, since the OS in
which mutt is going to act often has either a working MTA by the
friendly admin or an easy enough UI to configure it yourself without
having to hack m4 macros, and often as simple as you asked for with
few questions.
> With Mutt's SMTP support, you tell it what smtp server to use, and
> if it doesn't work, you call your ISP and let them figure it out;
> the problem pretty much has to be on their end, if your settings
> are right...
That's pretty much the same with an MTA.
Beware, with mutt alone you can still mess up, think about envelope,
and the ISP-support has no clue about that. ;)
> It has nothing to do with the crowd. It has everything to do with
> reducing the amount of work that I shouldn't need to do. That's
> the purpose of computers. :)
Agreed, but simplicity can be achieved in different ways, not only
by adding C-code. :)
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
