Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Can't Emerge Thunderbird-5.0/6.0

[Frank Peters]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:43:05 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:

>
> So I've been wondering what the rest of the story might be, and why
> people, at least non-Japanese (no offense, just that info's easier to
> absorb if it's not filtered thru google translate or the like), might
> prefer sylpheed to claws.  If you could shed some light on either the
> difference in emphasis and split, or why you personally prefer sylpheed,
> I'd be quite interested. =:^)
>

When I first began using Linux, I tried a few of the console email clients
such as pine, mutt, and nmh.  These programs were useful, but I really
preferred a GUI approach to composing and organizing, yet I also did
not want to lose the simplicity of the console clients.  Sylpheed (the
name connotes "light weight" in Japanese) was the answer.  It is graphical
without being bloated.

Sylpheed reminds me of a MS Windows email client called Pegasus, which has
a very similar style, ease, and functionality.

The Sylpheed web site describes its attractive attributes, I think, nicely: 

# Simple, beautiful, and well-polished user interface
# Comfortable operationality which is built in detail
# Well-organized, easy-to-understand configuration
# Lightweight operation
# High reliability with one-mail-corresponding-to-one-file format

Sylpheed has undergone a lot of development over the years, but I really
haven't noticed.  Email is a simple medium and my Sylpheed has always
been simply configured.  I don't bother with any of the advanced features.

As I mentioned, if I need more complex functionality, such as certificates
or encryption, I can always use thunderbird which I keep in reserve, but
Sylpheed is my regular email workhorse.

I cannot comment on claws which I haven't used, but it is essentially
Sylpheed with a lot of extra features incorporated, and, again, it is
those features which I don't require.

In the end, preferences are based on philosophy and philosophy is based
on knowledge.  I see, in my mind, every email message for what is is:
a string of text.  Even MIME attachments, like images or sounds, are there
as text strings.  I don't need, or prefer, a complex program to dissect
all the pieces and "magically" present them to me.  It is somehow more
appealing to my digital sense to approach these things from a basic level
where nothing else will interpose itself.  This is why I appreciate
software that does not attempt to "do it all" for me and to conceal the
details of the process.  Others may find this strange, but to me it is
the only way.

In fact, there was a time when I sent email messages directly from the
command line using sendmail clones.  The appeal to this was a complete
transparency of the process.  However, this soon proved to be too much
of a burden.  Sylpheed restores the ease, but it remains simple and
straightforward.


> > But there are times when I need to communicate to someone that is using
> > MS Outlook
>
> Argh!  If they want to read my mail, they can very well read it in plain
> text,

I also often shriek when I have to deal with the average MS Outlook user.
These people don't even understand computers in the least, let alone
email.  I could relate many horror stories about their antics, but
it really is not appropriate here.  However, what peeves me the most
is that every MS Outlook user will invariably top post (it is the default
in Outlook), and top posting is taboo in email communication.  But any
attempt at explanation of this is futile.  The Outlook user has no comprehension
of top posting or any thing else about the email standard, and probably
believes that Outlook is the only email client that exists.

Frank Peters