=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 14:39:24 -0600 -=
> The Unix Philosophy doesn't preclude maintainers from using their
> brains to decide what features do or don't make sense. Dogma does.
Can't you imagine that there is actually some "brains" behind that
dogma?
I'm all against mindless d
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:19:13PM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > 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
'Evening, Derek
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> 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.
Why do you link _against_ C libraries? Surely you
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> You, however, expect all the solutions to be put into the core
> C-code
Not *all*... just the ones that make sense. The Unix Philosophy
doesn't preclude maintainers from using their brains to decide what
features do or don't make sense. D
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
=- 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 t
=- 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 pe
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:50:02PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> Isn't this a problem of packaging, not a problem of architecture
> or philosophy?
It should be evident from the large amount of traffic on this list
that it is not. If you've been here long enough, you see the same
threads over and
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:32:59 -0500 -=
> Though, there are other reasons why you might want to edit the
> body of the message. If I'm not mistaken, there are commands you
> can send to some list addresses. Not that anyone uses those...
I do, but the interfaces vary, so ... I just
On Fri 5, Feb'10 at 5:28 PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
Well, you want an automated processing, not writing "regular" mail
where you type something. You don't need a MUA for that, you can go
directly to te MTA.
Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks for that.
Though, there are
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:02:10 -0500 -=
> One could certainly write a utility to parse the headers and
> display them. However, the final action that one takes with the
> selected output is not to pass it off to a program of your choice
> based on mailcap, but to send another messa
On Thu 4, Feb'10 at 8:07 PM -0800, Morris, Patrick wrote:
Some of us are fans of the interpretation of the Unix philosophy that
includes gluing together a lot of small, purpose-built apps into a greater
(albeit sometimes messy and convoluted) whole.
I agree with this for the most part. Sett
* Morris, Patrick [02-04-10 23:08]:
>
> (Disclaimer: I'm on a borrowed laptop at the moment, so don't read
> the headers on this one.)
you don't have a stick with putty on it? For shame :^)
--
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org
Charlie Kester wrote:
On Thu 04 Feb 2010 at 15:44:08 PST Derek Martin wrote:
It's not that simple. Outlook sucks for a lot of reasons, many of
them technical. 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
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 05:44:08PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> > > As I said, I believe that if you need to have complexity, it
> > > should be in the code, not on the user end.
> >
> > The glue to accomplish complex goals needs not necess
On Thu 04 Feb 2010 at 15:44:08 PST Derek Martin wrote:
It's not that simple. Outlook sucks for a lot of reasons, many of
them technical. 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.
S
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> > As I said, I believe that if you need to have complexity, it
> > should be in the code, not on the user end.
>
> The glue to accomplish complex goals needs not necessarily to be in
> the user end, it can be put in meta-code (wrappers), wh
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 29.Jan'10 at 17:45:28 -0600 -=
> There has been a tendency in some quarters to blindly and rigidly
> advocate that following the Unix Philosophy is the One True Way,
> which has often hindered progress.
What kind of progress do you mean?
Maybe your goals or "ideal wor
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:40:18PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> It sounds to me like you may be confusing two ideas. One idea is a way
> of assembling an application from small programs that perform discrete
> tasks in a script or pipeline. The other idea is a user's experience
> that an applicati
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:55:32PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is this: the Unix
> philosophy is to do one thing, and do it well. In the case of my mail
> program, the "one thing" is to handle my mail. It should be capable
> to do all of the essen
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:55:32PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> Another way to look at it, if you think that the above idea is
> stretching the Unix Philosophy beyond what was intended (which it very
> arguably is), is that the Unix philosoply is about 4 decades old, and
> software (and users) have
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:09:41PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> I would love to see RFC2369 handling built in to mutt, but have not had
> time to explore this in code. I'm certain there are others here who
> would cite the Unix Philosophy or whatever, and assert that an external
> program could
22 matches
Mail list logo
