On Mar 01, David Champion [dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > In fact I don't think it's incumbent upon us to justify giving mutt > common-practice features when the only reason not to do it is that mutt > loses some perceived moral superiority. This is like the old > descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy in linguistics. For better or worse, > it's common practice because it's what senders and recipients want, not > because Gates and Ballmer told the Outlook team it would be sell more > units. > > I would prefer mutt not to be the contrarian old geezer who smokes a > calabash and tells people it's "I shall, not I will". As much sympathy > as I have for prescriptive rectitude, it doesn't build acceptance, and > acceptance is what mutt needs. I was mostly nodding along until the last sentence. But why does mutt need acceptance? FWIW, I still prefer adding features because the people writing mutt want them, not because someone who doesn't use mutt might use it if it had them. Or do you mean something else by "acceptance"?
Attachment:
pgpWUhqFScISr.pgp
Description: PGP signature