Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Samuel S Thom » Sun, 21 Jun 1998 04:00:00




Quote:>I suspect Gnus/{X,}Emacs could at least make a tie with it.  Well,
>Mutt is less bloated for sure.

Hey, no fair comparing an MUA to an operating system(environment). I know
folk (down the hall, working for some other company, thank god) that hardly
get out of Ehmacs, and claim to accomplish a full day's work. I suspect that
a few would be surprised to learn that *NIX has commands that can do all
the shi^H^Htuff that Emhacs does. ;-)

--
Sam
Emhacs - because Unix is just too lean.

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Jahwan K » Tue, 23 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> ``All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.'' ME.

                                               ^^^^
                                         Or should we say "least" now?
Why not?

Jahwan

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Felix von Leitn » Tue, 23 Jun 1998 04:00:00



> Hey, Elm sucks.  Why not compare with Pine or MS Outlook or
> something? :)

So you want to compare to _Pine_ or _Outlook_ because _ELM_ _sucks_?!

Man, this was the laugh of the day!

Bwaaaahahaha! ;)

Fefe

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Rob Fu » Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00:00




>Looks like ELM's pluses will go pretty soon:

While you're taking away Elm pluses, you might consider adding one --
the options screen.  Sure it's not as complete as it should be, but it
does help make elm more usable than mutt.

Quote:>Anyway, once mutt goes beta, many sites will switch from elm to mutt.
>That's for sure.

Only if it becomes as easy for newbies to use.  I've been seeing a lot
of sites switching from elm to pine; you must admit that pine is much
easier to learn than mutt, and is comparable (though inferior) in
power and look.

--



    -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"  |http://er4www.eng.ohio-state.edu/~funkr

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Sven Guck » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> While you're taking away Elm pluses, you might consider adding one --
> the options screen.  Sure it's not as complete as it should be,
> but it does help make elm more usable than mutt.

Indeed - that's a very good point - for Elm.  Here's what I added:

ELM+: Options Menu
        ELM has a nice Options Menu which allow to change the values of some
        options/variables of the running Elm.
        MUTT does not have an Options Menu.
        Actually, Elm allows to change just 22 given options/variables - and
        they need to be specified with "configoptions" *before* Elm starts.
        You cannot change configoptions from the Options Menu itself, though.
        MUTT however allows to change all variables from within, also allowing
        to "source" a setup file.  And MUTT soon will have a command to write
        the current configuration to a file.  [980624]

It sure would be nice for Mutt to have a *full* options menu -
but with all those hooks this can get quite complicated.
I think this should be added after mutt-1 has shipped.

Quote:> >Anyway, once mutt goes beta, many sites will switch from elm to mutt.
> Only if it becomes as easy for newbies to use.

"Write a program that every idiot can use - and every idiot will use it." ;-)

Quote:> I've been seeing a lot of sites switching from elm to pine; you must
> admit that pine is much easier to learn than mutt, and is comparable
> (though inferior) in power and look.

Easier to learn?  Well, somewhat, due to its on-screen command hints.
Mutt could look the same if the developers allowed more lines for this.
But then again, we'd rather have users RTFM, right?  :-)

Sven

--

MUTT WOOF!,,  http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/   with COLOR+PGP+POP
MUTT   (__/'. http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/vs.elm.html Elm is dead!
MUTT   /| |\  Newsgroup: comp.mail.mutt | Latest release: mutt-0.91.1i [98????]

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Rob Fu » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00




>It sure would be nice for Mutt to have a *full* options menu -
>but with all those hooks this can get quite complicated.
>I think this should be added after mutt-1 has shipped.

I agree that an options menu couldn't be complete until the options
stabilize, but it might be a good idea to get something basic in
before then.

Quote:>> >Anyway, once mutt goes beta, many sites will switch from elm to mutt.
>> Only if it becomes as easy for newbies to use.

>"Write a program that every idiot can use - and every idiot will use it." ;-)

Well, you want everyone to switch from elm to mutt, don't you?

Quote:>> I've been seeing a lot of sites switching from elm to pine; you must
>> admit that pine is much easier to learn than mutt, and is comparable
>> (though inferior) in power and look.

>Easier to learn?  Well, somewhat, due to its on-screen command hints.

Exactly.  Those hints are important.  One nice thing about elm is that
it has varying levels of on-screen help, including turning off the
command menu display completely.  This functionality would be a big
step in making mutt more acceptable as an elm replacement.

Quote:>Mutt could look the same if the developers allowed more lines for this.
>But then again, we'd rather have users RTFM, right?  :-)

Admit it, most users just don't read manuals -- and they shouldn't
need to to use their mail program.  A brief man page should be all
that normal users ever need to read, not a book.  I never read the
full manuals for elm until I was consulting on it, and I've never read
any manuals for pine.  But at this point mutt requires reading a book
just to get started.

That brings up another point: Mutt will not run without a pre-existing
.muttrc file, while elm and pine will create a default/skeleton config
file if one doesn't already exist.  This seemingly minor point makes
those two much easier to get started with.

--



     -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |http://er4www.eng.ohio-state.edu/~funkr

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Sven Guck » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> I agree that an options menu couldn't be complete until the options stabilize,
> but it might be a good idea to get something basic in before then.

patch! patch! patch!  :-)

Quote:> >"Write a program that every idiot can use - and every idiot will use it."
> Well, you want everyone to switch from elm to mutt, don't you?

NOOOO!  I want the idiots to use PINE, of course!  hehe

Quote:> One nice thing about elm is that it has varying levels of on-screen help,
> including turning off the command menu display completely.  This would
> be a big step in making mutt more acceptable as an elm replacement.

I know.  That's why the developers added that line for the "mini-menu".
But it certainly cannot take all commands, so mutt has a "help" command.

I wouldn't mind an options menu/screen, either, but it's quite a task!

Btw, I had asked for an extra "message line" for feedback for a long time now,
but the consensus was that mutt shouldn't give screen real estate away.
Anyway, if there was a patch which would give me that message line
then I'll certainly write the feedback messages.  How about that for newbies?

Quote:> Admit it, most users just don't read manuals -- and they shouldn't
> need to to use their mail program.  A brief man page should be all
> that normal users ever need to read, not a book.

I admit that.  Heck, all my webpages are trying to fill that gap:
Give info to the user that he cannot find in the manual YET.

But I'd rather keep mutt from the bloat of "messages" and
"context help" until mutt has all the good features we all need.

Quote:> But at this point mutt requires reading a book just to get started.

Sure, but that's just because mutt is so powerful,
and not because it sucks so much as elm or pine.  ;-)

Quote:> That brings up another point:
> Mutt will not run without a pre-existing .muttrc file ..

Sorry?  Mutt certainly *does* run without a muttrc!

Quote:> .. while elm and pine will create a default/skeleton config file if one
> doesn't already exist.

I hear that there's a patch for mutt already which adds a command
that creates a config file with the current state of mutt.
And it shall be added to the next public release.  (Correct?)

Quote:> This seemingly minor point makes those two much easier to get started with.

For now.  ;-)

Quote:> I never read the full manuals for elm until I was consulting
> on it, and I've never read any manuals for pine.

tsk tsk

Sven

--

MUTT WOOF!,,  http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/   with COLOR+PGP+POP
MUTT   (__/'. http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/vs.elm.html Elm is dead!
MUTT   /| |\  Newsgroup: comp.mail.mutt | Latest release: mutt-0.91.1i [98????]

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Brandon Lon » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00


On 06/24/98 Sven Guckes uttered the following other thing:

Quote:

> It sure would be nice for Mutt to have a *full* options menu -
> but with all those hooks this can get quite complicated.
> I think this should be added after mutt-1 has shipped.

I for one hope that mutt never has an options menu.  Given the
complexity of the options, and the ability to have multiple rc files via
sourcing, etc, it would be a great deal of work that would give very
little benefit.

Read the manual, that's what its for.

Brandon
imagining a configuration menu for sendmail

--

"religion is the ultimate legacy system."
               -- Giles Bowkett

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by Navindra Umane » Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:00:00



> imagining a configuration menu for sendmail

Emacs and XEmacs now have custom
<URL:http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/custom/> which lets you set and
save variables and do other miscellaneous stuff from a point and
clicky interface.  Just thought I'd mention it.  :)

Btw, that new feature which lets you dump Mutt's current configuration
sounds awesome!  I wonder what kind of overhead that has.

Navin

 
 
 

Mutt vs ELM [980617]

Post by tom minch » Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:00:00




>> "Write a program that every idiot can use - and every idiot will use it." ;-)
>Write a program that every idiot can use -
>    and everyone who uses the program will become an idiot

Write a program that every idiot can use -
        and only idiots will use it.