On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:23:10PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > =- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 13:13:54 -0600 -= > > > If a useful feature should be excluded (when there is someone > > willing to write the code), there should be a strong technical > > reason for such an exclusion; not simply "duh, Unix philosophy!!" > > It's resource efficiency: I don't want to always by new hardware > just to read my simple text mails. :)
This argument is almost competely bogus. Mutt's memory fingerprint is very, very small, and its CPU utilization is similarly low for nearly everything it does. Even 20-year-old hardware will have no trouble running it. That's well past the reasonable life expectancy of most computer hardware. Further, most feature additions that have been proposed would, in fact, cause no appreciable change in resource utilization. The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination of proposed features. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpTAIYkQMvi7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
