On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 01:09:50PM +0100, Jens Paulus wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 13:41:37 -0500, David T-G wrote: > > % > http://home.worldonline.dk/byrial/mutt/patches/ > > % > > % smart patches like this one should be made part of the standard. > > > > But there are so many that are each used only be so few that it isn't > > worth it. [Don't get me wrong; I love many patches, and my cocktail is > > nearly staggering.] We'd end up with MS Outhouse even if we included > > only the "smart patches" that you describe. > > That doesn't mean that we can't all campaign for it, but unless it really > > is used by just about everyone -- and doesn't break the standard behavior > > either -- it probably shouldn't be stock. > > but if you consider how much faster the computers get and how much the > available disk space gets bigger all within a short period of time I > think it is no problem if the programs get bigger. The computers get > faster more than the programs get slower. I would appreciate if my > preferred mail user agent was made the most powerful one if at the same > time the number of bugs does not increase meaningfully. You seem to be taking for granted that maintaining the most powerful mail user agent is just as easy as maintaining Mutt. We don't have Bill's cash to blow on ten zillion programmers; we need to keep Mutt small. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpz1biFwN2oh.pgp
Description: PGP signature