text based mailer user's need to wake up? hmmmm

[jwaddell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Scott,

couple of quick questions... see inline....

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Scott Wood wrote:

<snip>

-->Just because there haven't been any 'ease-of-use' desktop
-->environments that you have run across in X environments, does not
-->mean that they cannot exist.  In that X windows is NOT on 80% of the
-->desktop environments, that means that the majority of X windows users
-->are still developers, administrators or otherwise individuals 'in the
-->know' that usually have their own idea of what should be and what
-->shouldn't be.  (I would dare anyone to try to build an 'end-all'
-->desktop environment layout for X and try to market it to X windows
-->end-users and see how far you get)
-->

I believe that the SEUL (Simple End User Linux) Project is addressing this
issue.  Check them out at www.seul.org.

<snip>

-->Huh?  I think that anyone on a *nix that still insists on using a
-->text based mailer better wake up or they are going to find themselves
-->in their little corner cubicle as the rest of the world has passed
-->them by (and probably has already).

Please explain and expand on this concept.  I find it distribing as an
avid text based email client user that you think I'm going to be isolated
if I don't "wake" up.  Please explain why text based email doesn't stack
up in today's gnu world.  I'm not saying you are wrong, because you may
very well be right (in which case I need to know so I can "wake up").
However, without the reasoning behind which you came to this conclusion I
must dismiss it.

-->I get so annoyed when people start spewing about how *nix's aren't
-->user friendly then yell at people who are trying to use 'real'
-->programs within them.  GET A REAL MAILER if you can't handle HTML!

My text based email reader handles html through a configurable secondary
application (sort of like an html helper in Netscape...), what are you
talking about?

-->And be glad they are sending HTML and not that RTF/etc proprietary
-->crap that Microsoft 'tried' pushing a few versions back....
-->

rtf is as far as I know NOT proprietary.  It is actually an open
standard.  The AbiWord word processor (GPL'ed if I recall correctly) uses
rtf as it's primary (read default) file format does it not?

Too bad MS isn't sending standards compliant HTML as defined by the w3
consortium.  Oh and if you want to see how horribly Netscape and Internet
Explorer have fractured html, just look at your favorite sites using amaya
(the standards compliant html browser from w3.org)


<snip>
-->packages just to be sure - same scenario.  I would be willing to bet
-->that when I convert that box to house my linux stuffs that it will
-->not be a similar result....
-->

Made that conversion yet?  I'd like to know the results....

<snip>

Sincerely

Jeff Waddell
jwaddell@ix.netcom.com