Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Quietly Resurrects Eudora
Stony Stevenson writes to mention that the Mozilla Foundation has quietly released the first beta version of the revised Eudora email application. This is the first development Eudora has seen since Qualcomm stopped development and turned it over to the open source community in 2006. "Eudora first appeared in 1988 and quickly became one of the first popular email applications, enjoying its heyday in the early 1990s as it developed over the early days of the internet. Use of Eudora began to wane in the mid-1990s as the third-party application was muscled out of the market by web-based services such as Hotmail and bundled applications such as Outlook."
Linux.com has a bit more explanation about why many may not consider this simply a new release of Eudora. According to the release page the new Eudora application is not intended to compete with Thunderbird, but instead to complement it.
That's a blast from the past.
I used to use eudora back in the 90s. Then they incorporated the IE engine for mail rendering and a lot of their security lead over MS Lookout was lost so I moved on. But I had no idea that Qualcomm donated it to Mozilla last year. Kinda gives me pangs of nostalgia.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
All applications expand their feature set until they are capable of reading email.
I guess Eudora, now based on Thunderbird, finally can make that claim.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
A new release of "Eurdora," eh? Sounds good, but I'll probably wait for the Eudora release, myself ;)
Green Monkey
"Whereas "Eudora" is a branded version of Thunderbird with some extra
features added by the Eudora developers, "Penelope" is an extension (also
called an "add-on") that is used in Eudora and can also be used with
Thunderbird. The Eudora installer includes the corresponding version of
Penelope along with it so there is no need to install Penelope if you are
installing Eudora. Most features in Penelope can be accessed when used with
Thunderbird, but there are a few that require Eudora in order to work
correctly and it's not something that gets tested."
Can anyone un-WTF that paragraph for my tired little brain? Eudora is basically like Thunderbird, and Penelope is an extension that works with either to make it behave like...Eudora? Wait, what?
When I saw this yesterday, I actually experienced a few seconds of excitement that there might someday be a good X11 mail client. But then I looked a bit further into what it is they've actually created here; functionality-wise, this mostly appears to be Thunderbird with a few of Eudora's icons pasted atop.
If you take a look at the list of bugs submitted by users, you'll notice that the vast majority of them are regarding the fact that this application behaves nothing like Eudora.
Very disappointing, I'm afraid. I hope that some day there will be X11 mail clients available that aren't simply clones of a clone of Outlook.
Thunderbird Oh Eudora, you're too good to me!
make a fully inclusive, very feature rich web client for your email.
:)
I'd love to see a Mozilla branded 'hotmail' type of mail account I could use. I'd pay for it, if it had functionality that Gmail or Hotmail had but then again, why reinvent the wheel? The rich client for email is on its way out, thin clients are in.
That said, I think I'm the one guy on Slashdot that hates Gmail. I like Yahoo mail, and pay for it
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
So, it's really not Eudora, it's Thunderbird with some Eudora-like widgets thrown in. It's "Eudora" in name only, than?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Here's hoping the new Eudora includes the best features and functionality of both Eudora 7.x and Thunderbird (both of which I use daily). I haven't seen anything else which matches the the filtering capabilities in Eudora, but the HTML renderer is as powerful as a gopher browser. On the other hand, I really like Thunderbird's ability to keep multiple accounts separated and and treat their settings independently.
Time will tell...
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
Ok, in the article on linux.com, they say Penelope is NOT Eudora (although they are similar). However, on the download page, the header of the page is "Penelope releases", and the first item under that (presumably a Penelope release) is labelled "Eudora 8.0.0b1".
So, which is it? Are Penelope and Eudora the same thing or not?
Also, I hope this Penelope thing goes through the usual Mozilla trend of changing its name 4 or 5 times, because that name is just not doing it for me. Maybe they should just call it "Endora" since that's what every single person who called tech support about it in the old days called it anyway.
Hell, I don't care for gmail, either, and I work at google! (shhhhh)
Complement pomplement - It's a competitor even if it runs on the same technology platform. But that's good, really good. I mean see what competition did to Mozilla/Firefox.
I liked Eudora back in the end of the 90s, not sure if I would nowadays, but I for sure will give it a try.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
Mozilla DID NOT ressurect it. The Eudora add-ons/migration path/upgrade is a Qualcomm project.
No, I really loathe gmail as well. (And I work for Google.)
But I'm afraid that I may disagree with you on the broader topic. The reason I hate gmail is that it's webmail, and thus inherently something that is awful and should not be done. And indeed even more broadly, "web applications" are a terrible idea; the web makes a really crappy platform.
I would much rather have an elegant, well-designed, rapidly evolving application platform of my choice on which to run a variety of clients speaking well-defined protocols than try to retroactively turn a simple and reliable content-delivery medium into an entire operating system.
Yes well, some of us actually need webmail, and don't mind even a limited wordprocessor attached to it, so GMail is just the ticket. It's a helluva lot better that crap like Yahoo Mail and Hotmail.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
US Postal Service announced it was creating a new department. Title "United States Postal Delivery and Management System" it will not interfere with the day to day duties of the US Postal Service which manages and delivers mail. It instead complements the current department
Infiltrated dot Net
Give me offline web clients and then we'll talk. I fly, I train, I have a portable modem on my cell phone, but it's not reliable enough for the train and isn't allowed when I fly. These are good times for me to send email or at least clean up my inbox... the offline features of both Thunderbird and Outlook make them very productive times for me... gmail, not so much.
Not saying that the rich web clients are great for some people, just saying there's still plenty of space for the full blown apps.
Thunderbird: Oh Eudora, you're too good to me!
Outlook: What you doin' with my bitch, you Commie scum.
Eudora: Don't hurt Thunderbird! It's you I loved all along!
Pine: Might I trouble you kind gents for a bit of bread?!
Outlook I thought I told you never to come out of your hole again!
Will you be able to import decade-old and heavily munged Eudora email archives?
They can get very out of hand...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
(I'm only posting to this thread to get my .sig to show in it.)
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Out of curiosity, why would one need webmail?
Eudora could use some help!
That (or something similar) was what Eudora used to say on Macs when it was having network problems or something like that.
Just out of curiosity. Are there people that still use Eudora? And if so, do they have a reason? I have a friend who has to have Eudora because "its all he knows", and the sad thing is that he does not know the program at all. Is there a need that Eudora fills?
I'm still and old-school *NIX guy that uses a mailer from a terminal. No GUI for me.
Huh. I remember Eudora.
*goes back to gmail*
Seriously though, the days where I used a full email client for personal email are long gone. I have Thunderbird installed here somewhere, I think, and every so often I use it to download and save my gmail messages, but really... webmail has long been the choice for people who are not especially paranoid. (Including businesses, which have to be paranoid for legal reasons, plus there's the bonus of having somebody to fire when something goes wrong with the email.) (I actually am a little paranoid, hence the Thunderbird-downloading-saving, but not enough to forgo the convenience of webmail.)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
To check email anywhere in the world platform independent.
Ever traveled much?
Not in the US ... At least not until "they" do something about broadband speeds. I just switched from the Gmail browser (thin) client to Thunderbird via POP3-SMTP. I don't care what Thunderbird is a clone of. Bringing the mail down to my machine for local processing is an order of magnitude more satisfactory than trying to read the stuff while it is on the Google servers.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
I think it's more likely that HTTP is overhauled to make Web Apps more practical and rich.
This will probably be as a result of someone not happy with the current protocols inability to naturally support this type of communication without workarounds.
I like the idea of Web Apps and what companies like Google are trying to do, through practicality and experimentation. I'd agree HTTP isn't ideal and that Javascript is involved too much in the work around. It's reasonable to believe that HTTP won't be the protocol of the future.
It would appear what we see now, the movements towards richer interfaces and Javascript intensive Websites and Web Apps as the natural precursor to this protocol. We are interconnected and people are comfortable with it. We've become good at delivering data to a static content renderer and can manipulate it some with a client side programming language giving the impression of richness. People are trying to stretch this ability as far as they can and so far it has been practical. Needs will eventually outgrow what's possible however and a new protocol will have to be used.
Expect Web Apps and such to stick around. But keep in mind it's early and experimental right now. The future will likely bring a protocol designed around this paradigm.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
"PINE"!
It'll stand for "PINE is not Eudora!"
Whaddya mean, "Prior art"?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I'd need a good reason to upgrade from Eudora 6 that I'm using now. I've been using it since 1997 or so and have always been very happy. I don't use the IE rendering engine so it's clean, simple and just plain works. My filters have evolved over the last decade and work well. The small tidy files the mail is stored in a much more manageable than the humongous PST files Outlook uses so even my work machine has 8 years of email easily searchable.
I used a plugin for Google Desktop briefly to index the old messages, but searching was no easier that the built-in search so I just stopped using it.
Eudora is the one I app I have that over the years when I heard there was an upgrade my first thought was "why?" rather than "Great, I've been needing an upgrade".
I also use Gmail, having selected mail from my server go to both my Eudora POP account and my Gmail account. That gives me remote access and another backup If I have some funky formatted email that I don't just toss out, I view it in GMail via Opera where I'm well insulated from malicious attachments.
Eudora: It's old, it's boring, it works.
Actually, I'm kidding. I quite liked Eudora for it's simplicity. That and the fact that recovering mail was a breeze. After having gone through a few iterations of Microsoft Outlook PST hell and then finally wising up and using only IMAP with Thunderbird, I have to say that Eudora did things right for its day. I suspect the new Eudora will probably be a good deal different from the original. Although I wouldn't mind if they'd port it over to Linux since it's open source now. Thunderbird is OK, but it's not simple enough for my users.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The only complaint I really have with Gmail is that it is not IMAP-capable. That would be the sweet stuff. Of course, that'd require folders... Too bad, really.
I really don't understand why everybody hates the "rich" client. Even though I prefer the Gmail interface to Yahoo or Hotmail, the responsiveness of my rich client (Kmail) makes using web-based clients painful. With the new dual and quad core machines, we have more processing power on our desktops than ever before. Why not use it?
Laptop? PDA? Cellphone?
About 50% of the time, at least 25 countries a year. Never used webmail except when I need to help someone else figure out why it's not working for them.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
I gotta agree. I use Dovecot on Linux to run my own IMAPS server. I have complete control and complete and secure access from anywhere that has an email client that supports IMAPS (which is any modern email client) and wonder why anybody would want to surrender control of their email to somebody else.
Use it to compile more and more JavaScript and render more and more complicated Web pages. People don't like rich clients because the Web is ubiquitous. The age of the desktop application is coming to an end. I don't expect most things to be replaced on the current Web using current HTTP, but it's clear there is a movement to move everything to the Web that can be. Expect a new platform and set of protocols to become a new standard in the next 10 years that make web clients more and more rich and more and more practical.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Unless I'm missing something, doesn't ssh and mutt/pine/elm/whatever also allow you to get to your mail from anywhere?
I do travel a fair bit, but I'm not willing to give my credentials and email to every random internet cafe machine I pass. And I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by people who are.
I'm really only willing to give my credentials to a machine that I trust, which mostly means a machine of my own. So webmail doesn't really allow me to get to my mail from significantly more places than I can just have a civilized client running anyway.
is not intended to compete with Thunderbird, but instead to complement it
Translation: I come not to bury Thunderbird, but to praise it. That certainly explains this.
That's why I use IMAP.
I like music
and call it Pandora! :)
Is that a subtle bash against Vista? Or is it just my expectation of the open source commnity to knock a MS product whenever possible? Yeah, I know it probably means they just more thoroughly test XP compatibility, but I wouldn't be paranoid if I didn't question it.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Does parent really not know the difference between "complement" and "compliment"? (Yes, I know "complement" at one time shared meanings with "compliment", but that usage is obsolete according to Random House, American Heritage, and others.)
...something you have to pay for with Yahoo. Perhaps you are the only one on Slashdot who didn't check for POP3 in GMail.
With Penelope and Thunderbird, somewhere there's got to be a driver called Parker.
Even a cell phone is infinitely larger than nothing (that is, just use whatever internet-attached computer is available). Nothing also doesn't have a monthly bill or require you to perform 30 cryptic key presses just to type "lol kthx bye".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
My house is a block away from where Eudora Welty lived her life and died about three years ago. Now I've got to worry about freakin' resurrected zombies! Great.
It came from her short story "Why I Live at the P.O."
load "linux",8,1
So what you're saying is that the webpages will get slower and slower? What about the bandwidth that these pages will require? Since no 2 browsers are alike, you need to hack your pages to work with IE, Firefox and maybe Opera, thereby making development more expensive. If standard protocols and APIs are developed, then we shouldn't have to be tied to using a browser for interacting with a site, but could instead use whichever client is available. I think a good example is IMAP; you can access it via web interface or a rich mail client.
You seem to keep aserting that real applications are going away and will soon all be replaced by web applications, but I seem to have missed the part where you support the truth of those assertions. Or, for that matter, explain why this would be a desirable thing.
I'd be happy to go first, if you like: I find the consistency and interconnectedness of my entire platform to be hugely valuable. Every text field in every application gets spellchecked by the same dictionary, making it worth my while to actually add context-specific words to it. Copy/paste and drag/drop work smoothly between essentially all entities in all contexts in all applications. When I change my interface theme, all applications change along with it. And on, and on, and on.
Using web applications means using some foreign application that loses all of this consistency and interconnectedness. Even if I were to move absolutely all of my computing to web applications and just declare the web to be my new platform, they would still all be different from each _other_. Unless they all came from the same provider, which brings up the last point:
Web applications nearly always force the bundling of software and service. What if I like gmail's interface but prefer someone else's storage backend? Or if I like Yahoo's map database but want to use my own front end for it? Too bad, they're bundled together. And just as in the case of tying cellphones to cell carriers, reducing the granularity of choice is usually bad.
So tell me again why I should be interested in this supposed web app revolution?
Why not just release an official Thunderbird Extension Pack? Voila, Eudora?
If it's just Thunderbird with some extensions, what's the point in a new product?
It's making my mind wander to the old MSN Explorer of Microsoft, that was a customized Internet Explorer for their MSN network.
But at least MS kept the name reasonably similar to not confuse too much.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
It's great if you travel light without a laptop or other mail capable device but near internet cafe's (like I did last year, also this way you have a gmail or w/e and assuming it's temporary, not giving out your REAL email / internet account password in an unsecured environment). Just one example. I prefer my IMAP, mind you, but webmail does serve a purpose.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Organizing by thread has certainly been around in real clients for far longer than gmail has existed.
The first place I saw it was in mutt. I certainly use it every day in os x's Mail.app. I'm sure there are many other clients that offer it.
"Every text field in every application gets spellchecked by the same dictionary, making it worth my while to actually add context-specific words to it. Copy/paste and drag/drop work smoothly between essentially all entities in all contexts in all applications. When I change my interface theme, all applications change along with it. And on, and on, and on."
Why would this cease to exist? I'm not sure why this wouldn't be possible still. Protocols, standards and distribution couldn't be designed to keep these very important features intact? So, you not only have these same features, but now your preferences, programs, settings, etc, etc are ubiquitous and available to any supporting platform. Recall you're not limited by HTTP any longer in this imaginary world of mine.
"Web applications nearly always force the bundling of software and service. What if I like gmail's interface but prefer someone else's storage backend? Or if I like Yahoo's map database but want to use my own front end for it? Too bad, they're bundled together"
Another fine point. I agree. You'd hope with an open protocol the power of consumer choice would make this available?
I don't know. I don't know the answers to a lot of questions. I'm only proposing that it entirely makes sense that applications could be moved to the web and maintain the features you enjoy about them today. A reconstruction of Web protocols, "browsers", etc could very well make this possible. I don't think it's neatly possible right now.
But the benefits of having your documents, you programs, your preferences and settings available to you everywhere, on any device running any platform, is at least a little interesting.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
You want to be able to access it from anywhere (this means public terminals in airports, cafes etc), almost all of which have a browser but very few have ssh or the ability to install your own mail client.
Although, modern smartphones are making this idea somewhat redundant.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I'll sort of grant that (though I'll refer you to my earlier point that it's not "everywhere", it's "everywhere that you trust enough to give your passwords to".)
But if that's the goal, isn't it a bajillion times simpler to just use the network to distribute your documents and preferences, rather than trying to actually spread the running instance of an application over it?
Think outside the world of Web browsers you're in right now. Think about Client Factories and such. Why does a future Web protocol manager or whatever have to be tied to similar limitations we have now? Especially since it would be designed with these limitations in mind. A benefit the original HTTP authors didn't have.
Can a web language be developed that's recursive? How about a protocol definition language? Can we create rich UI's on the fly outside the browser? When are we going to have enough bandwidth to reasonably transfer users preferences, programs and data over a wire?
I'm just trying to think outside the box here a little. HTTP was designed to deliver HTML. Simple solution to a simple idea. But things are different now. We have stronger machines, faster wires, more devices and a desire to be more and more connected. HTTP was designed to fulfill a need and has since been manipulated 1000 fold. Why can't we learn form this, build something new that's more in tune with what people want? That is to have access to everything all the time from anywhere. Preserve a persons preferences among all applications. Share data across different programs, etc.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I keep a GMail account mostly to receive large attachments from others. But it's too limited to by my primary email interface. With Thunderbird/IMAP/procmail I can create a hierarchy of folders by topic and intelligently route new mail into those folders, read/write email and news offline, and still search, etc, as GMail allows me to do. GMail could add these features (all but offline support, obviously), but Google's focus on search as the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything suggests that they don't consider it a priority. And that's fine... I'll just keep using Thunderbird.
But what good are my documents if I don't have the tool to use them? I have my source code available to me anywhere, but not every machine is going to have the IDE I like. So I can't work on it anywhere. And I don't have global source control. And my database is out of reach too.
If the application is available to me anywhere, and it's as good as a modern rich application, that's all the better. If I had a SQL server that was hosted somewhere, pointed to by the UI I like somewhere else and accessed by software I'm writing somewhere else, I see benefit in that. I can go to another city and show people my entire platform. I can work wherever I want and not have a change in limits.
I'm not talking a single, global protocol to solve them all. But a protocol that's a factor for other protocols. Why not develop a protocol compiler that takes a protocol definition language and makes it available to networked machines? The "browser" now has this specialized protocol, built with a universal UI protocol, etc. I'm just making this crap up obviously, but you'd have to imagine it's obtainable.
I agree, we need to get past HTTP. It simply doesn't work as well as other protocols for certain tasks. Can we go a step further and develop a protocol factory? Can we make available programs, preferences and data anywhere all interconnected by another protocol?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Opera supports Server Sent Events.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Everything you say makes sense, but if you want to think "outside the box", then why are you limiting yourself to a web browser? Why can't we have a suite of rich clients that interact through the internet via other protocols? A rich client doesn't mean you can't store preferences on a networked (Google?) drive. The important thing about the net is that it lets you share *data*. I prefer to access my *data* through a rich client because it's faster and not limited by available bandwidth; I can also use it offline.
Consider Amarok for example. Can you imagine implementing it as a web app? Why not store your music on a remote server somewhere and play it using the normal stand-alone Amarok app? Why does it have to be one or the other? I prefer to see a hybrid of the two models emerge, which makes use of the strengths of each.
Deleted
so if this has been open sourced, why the does it still beg me to buy it and send me ads?
I counter that with why not both? If I can have my data and my application available to me anywhere, why not?
Now, you're 100% correct in suggesting that there will always be interfaces and applications more complex than what can reasonably be sent over a wire. I think this will always exist. for instance, videogames. The data is more and more on the net, but the shell is almost always a rich client that exploits the machines capabilities. Downloading this shell and running it isn't very practical, obviously. So that's a limitation.
The hybrid you suggest is probably right on. That's how it usually goes with things, anyways.
As for limiting myself to a browser, I've used that term here in reference to something like an application factory and protocol factory. A browser wouldn't be anything monolithic like we use today.
The key difference, and this is critical: Today's Web adapts itself to the Web browser. A future net would have web browsers that adapt themselves to the application and data.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
We can take as input a grammar and output a parser. Is it reasonable to think the same for a protocol? How about other elements of a networked program?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Eudora, are you kidding me?
I'm tagging this one 'phoenix'. Rather fitting, since they've already used that name on another product.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Why not all 3? :) You can't work in offline mode if you run a thin-client. Furthermore, you're wasting the power of your own machine. I experienced the thin-client paradigm when I was a engineering student, and frankly, I thought it sucked. We had a powerful (for the day) Sun machine that would slow to a crawl when 30 users were running Netscape at the same time. I know you're going to say that today we have more powerful machines, but we also have more compute intensive applications. How powerful a machine would you need to run the equivalent of MS Office for an entire company?
The hybrid you suggest is probably right on. That's how it usually goes with things, anyways.Maybe some sort of plugin architecture where functionality is downloaded/installed when you need it. Amarok has this functionality already, so a more advanced incarnation of plugins may be what we're headed for.
I would also point out that your original premise of 10 years may not be far enough away. I don't think that the web will change that drastically in that short a time. With all the time and money invested in the current web, it will be quite difficult to just erase it all and move on. Just look at how long Cobol has been around in banking. In a utopian vision of the future, maybe we'll all have tricorders like in Star Trek (the original thin client?), but in the meantime, I'll keep my rich client, thank you.
Somewhat on topic.
I never really liked eudora that much, but back then I was an OS/2 user, so PMMail is what I used. And they ported that to windoze, so I kept using it.
Now I use sylpheed. It's a great linux client that has also been ported to windows. It supports local mailboxes on linux, pop, imap, ssl. It even runs great as a portable app off the USB drive when I am not at my own computers. This configuration works great with IMAP over SSL.
My only complaint is that there is no way to tell it to remember "Yes, I know I'm using a self-signed SSL cert, please stop pestering me about it".
First of all, Qualcomm has to date done nearly all the work on Penelope. Mozilla has certainly been helpful, but this is not a project being done by Mozilla.
Secondly, this is the initial release, intended for developers, not for end users. We're as aware as anyone that it is incomplete.
Thirdly, by "not a competitor", we mean that we intend to make all our work available to Thunderbird. It will be up to the TBird guys to choose what to integrate, of course, but in principle we think they'll take most of it, so that in the long run, the difference between the applications will be largely what they're called and what the default behaviors are.
Will EMACS finally be getting a decent editor added to its functionality?
hawk
>Opera does HTML mail just fine.
How, pray tell, does a web browser inflict serious bodily harm upon the message sender when he is halfway around the world???
hawk
...talk about non-intuitive interface.
Ugh.
Thin clients do in fact mainly suck today. It has a lot to do with them being a relatively new in this context, being forced to use HTTP which wasn't designed for it and an array of other issues.
10 years probably isn't enough. Things always take a lot longer than they should. However, HTTP was along well before my mom and dad knew what the Internet was. Colleges and such (mainly science departments) were using HTTP in the 1980's. This of course influenced a couple guys to make Mosaic. The rest is history.
As for the clients, plug-ins, etc. I would imagine the only things sent to a user are UI elements, preferences for the UI and a protocol language that their client compiles into a real transmission protocol. I mean, all protocols are built on top of IP anyways. Why can't the top layer be dynamic? Minimal functionality would be left to the users. I'd imagine if you think of the wire as another part of the bus, the UI and protocol are on your end, the functionality and data is on the servers end. Rich UI's complete with preferences and look and feel shouldn't be an obstacle. A protocol complier might require some research. A program that ties it all together would be the real trick.
It wouldn't be appropriate for everything.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
webmail has long been the choice for people who are not especially paranoid
And those of us who don't have a high speed sat-phone data connection.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
rfc1945 states:
...so it would be pretty difficult for anyone to have been using it in the 1980s, wouldn't it?
mutt/elm/pine doesn't work everywhere. That's why I've given up and accepted webmail. Webmail works everywhere. My thumbdrive with PuTTY doesn't work on many client's networks; they block everything that's not approved. It doesn't work at internet cafes in several parts of the world. Webmail works in Mombassa. I accept the inevitability of my email password being compromised, for the convenience of checking my email. If I use PuTTY on their computer, now I've compromised a much more important password. No, WiFi isn't worldwide. However, web browsers are.
just installed it, only cnaged the damn buttons!
By "they block everything that's not approved", I assume you're referring to some firewalling that prevents you from connecting to port 22? If that's the problem, why not just start up sshd listening to port 443 and be done with it?
I find your willingness to consider your email and the password to it public knowledge to be mystifying, but okay. In my mind the catastrophe of email being compromised outweighs the inconvenience of carrying around a phone or laptop by... oh, probably four or five orders of magnitude. So it may be that our values on this topic are just too different to convince one another of anything.
Eudora is a mail client. TBird is a mail client. How the heck does this become complementary and not competition?
"According to the release page the new Eudora application is not intended to compete with Thunderbird, but instead to complement it."
WTF?
So does that mean a person can use Eudora and TBird at the same time? Oh I get it. Eudora for one mail account and TBird for another.
The one issue I have with this assumption is that it will be very difficult to remove HTTP and moved to something else, based solely on the installed base and inertia. Too much is invested in HTTP, so any attempt to switch will probably be glacial, at best.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
I like Gmail.
Why do I like Gmail?
I can search 2GB of email in about a second.
I can't even buy a harddrive that will transfer 2GB/sec. Let alone have the CPU power to perform meaningful searches.
So, if not web mail -- then what? A Java front end that queries a fancy back-end? Well, maybe I suggest, that that is more-or-less what webmail is... just without the Java?
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
No, I really loathe gmail as well. (And I work for Google.)
Not any more you don't.
Check your inbox, then check out.
Web apps I think are very cool. The idea at least, they do seriously lack in functionality. But then web apps, it's nothing new. It's what the whole browser war was started about a decade or so ago. And even further back in time, we were talking about dumb terminals. The concept is the same.
I'm as a hobby also programming some web apps. Nothing fancy, no AJAX, mostly database interfacing. The widgets a browser provides are limited, but do the job for that. Programming the same in Gnome would be faster for the end user and look fancier, but then it's stuck to one computer, and one operating system. My web apps run on one server, and can be accessed from anywhere. And that is cool.
Also I started fiddling with sql ledger, again a web based interface. Again the widgets provided by the browsers do the job quite nicely. Heavy word processing, wysiwyg, etc are not necessary in that application. The fact that it is web based, so effortlessly supports multiple users, and is accessible even when I am not in office, are really great things.
Admittedly for e-mail applications it's a bit limited. Mostly the text processing is limited, but now Firefox supports spell checking already, and actually not much more I can think of for an e-mail application that one would need. We're talking about e-mail people! No need for fancy stuff.
The main issue is responsiveness, which is quite moot when you're in a small office on a simple, 100 Mb LAN. And when away from office, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to take for the convenience of it.
I tried out the beta, to see how it looks. I am a hard-core paid-version Eudora user, and have found nothing that comes close to the real thing.
Basically, it's Thunderbird. It just has a Eudora label. It does however snarf the Eudora icon from the desktop, and make itself default mailer, so be forewarned.
It finds existing Thunderbird mail folders and settings, not Eudora's, and acts like the Bird. I have multiple POP servers, and by default it puts their mail into separate folders, not the way Eudora handles it. It also lacks certain Eudora features that distinguish it from other programs. It doesn't have a "delete from server" setting per message (nice for killing spam). It doesn't seem to have Eudora-style labels. It doesn't have lots of folder windows open.
I hope those gaps get filled in; I may end up using my trusty Eudora 7 (which btw has great search features) for a long time to come.
It is that annoying design of having all the windows for an application be contained within another window, which serves no purpose but to display the menubar, and make it life more difficult.
Ok -- why, exactly, does the Mozilla Foundation have to dilute its resources to support another e-mail program? Anyone want to help me out here?
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Eudora 8 is just a customized version of Thunderbird and not a different app in any way shape or form. If you install and run it on a machine that already has Thunderbird installed, it *WILL* mess up your existing Thunderbird profile.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
It was the simple solution compared to outlook.
Easy to install, easy to upgrade.
We would kill Outlook express, and for some people 'Had to support Outlook'.
But I always hated suporting Outlook...loved the simplicity of Eudora.
Well, I guess all those guys using the net over TCP/IP back in the 80's don't count. Hell, POP2 had its RFC in 1985. POP had an RFC in 1984. SMTP and email addresses were before that.
"Early days of widespread consumer Internet access" would be the 1990s, sure.
I've got several gigs of e-mail going back to 1999, part of which is in multiple layers of folders.
If I could import them automatically to a Linux mail client without turning the file structure into an unusuable mess, I would already have moved to Thunderbird or Evolution. I tried that script that's allegedly supposed to handle importing mail folders, it blew up. Luckily, I was moving a copy of my directory tree.
At this point, it's a lot less hassle to simply run VMware Server on my Debian box and run Windows so I can get to my e-mail, I figure moving the mailboxes manually and recreating the folders would take a full workweek.
It's a "good enough" solution, but I'd rather run a Linux Eudora, which would require Qualcomm to get its thumb out of its ass with respect to finding a Linux developer.
As for whether anyone else uses Eudora or not, ask the people who've posted on the Penelope wiki.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Maybe Parakey will finally provide the solution that you are seeking.
Apple Mail will do this; just go into the View menu (I think it's in the View menu) and choose "View by thread," then sort the list by Date. (You can also have a threaded view where each thread is listed alphabetically or by author, but this makes less sense to me than viewing each by the date of the newest message.) When you click on a thread, you'll see a list of the messages in the thread in the viewing pane.
Most other MUAs will do something similar. Off the top of my head, I think both Mutt and Pine will, and probably even (gag) Outlook. I know old versions of Outlook Express would.
Frankly, you'd have to have a pretty crummy MUA, whether web or real, to not support threading.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This could be a great opportunity for the Mozilla Foundation. Thunderbird could be the basic, streamlined email client for people who "just want mail," while Eudora's default build could include all of the PIM functions like server-side address books and calendars, etc. And they can make it talk to open source email/collaboration servers (read: Exchange killers) like Citadel for a true end-to-end solution.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Nobody has the right idea.
What we need is a small, secure, stable email client that doesn't store it's data in one giant file. Ideally with one-click backup, and simple import/export to make recovery and transfer of mail and contact data simple. Until we have one, I'm sticking with Gmail.
-Z
Here we have two mail clients, based on the same codebase but with different branding and different features, that aren't used together, that are billed as "complementary."
Hogwash.
These two can do nothing but compete. If the answer was "we're going to be merging Eudora and Thunderbird in the 3.0 release" then I might buy it. But otherwise, this is doomed to failure, and could have a substantial negative impact on both communities.
Consider the ill-fated Wordstar vs. Wordstar 2000 products, released under similar circumstances. Although not quite based on the same codebases (I believe Wordstar 2000 was actually based on a Wordstar clone that they had bought from some company), both had similar-but-not-quite-the-same user interfaces, ostensibly did the same things but-not-quite, and were released at the same time. In the end, amidst endless user confusion, features that were available in one but not the other (and vice versa) and a confused marketing strategy, everybody went and bought WordPerfect and Wordstar went straight into the shitter.
Eudora had some very innovative features for its time, certainly not seen in today's Thunderbird releases. I'm a Thunderbird user because I like the simplicity and I could never get Outlook to behave quite as I wanted to. However, let's not pretend that Thunderbird is really anything other than Netscape Mail 1.0 (circa the Communicator days) with IMAP support, a better HTML engine, and SpamBayes built in. I'd love to have more Eudorish features in my Thunderbird, but please provide them as an extension and not a wholly separate (and competing) product.
What do I win?
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
We had a Silver Light guy come to my company and give us a speech on it. Whatever.
Why do you have a problem with Javascript not being strongly typed? I tend to enjoy that feature. Test your code, make it strong. Dynamic typing is your friend, even if it slows you down.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
That's amazing then. I really thought it came out in 1988 or so. I guess it's my fault for generalizing.
That's why we hire fact checker types like you. We need someone to do the leg work.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I've used Eudora since the '90s, up until I released switched from Windows to both Linux and OS X, I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled almost a year ago and a couple of weeks ago got a new Macbook Pro. Since switching I've only used webmail, my ISP Earthlink offers users access their email by the web, Webmail. Now that the new Eudora has been released I can setup it up and import my old email. At least on my new Mac, now I just need to figure out to do it on my Linux PC.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why you'd want Thunderbird to behave more like Eudora, I don't know. I guess a lot of Eudora users (full disclosure: I used to use Eudora back when I had dialup and Windows 3.x) might like a version of Thunderbird that behaves like Eudora in terms of key bindings, toolbars, etc.
I've been using Eudora on Windows PCs since the '90s and now I want an updated version to run on my Linux PC and my Macbook Pro. What I want is one that's similar to what I'm used to and can import all my old emails.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I used Eudora back in the mid-nineties. From all I remember back then, and my recent tussle with Thunderbird - 12 years on and I would think it'd still have whipped TB's backside raw in every way.
Why on earth would you want TB if you had the Real Eudora? It's in a different league. There's no complementary functionality - it's a complete knock-out.
Maybe it's all gone backwards and they're now just trying to score some points on the name.
Sylpheed Claws (now called simply Claws Mail) is a Sylpheed fork with more features (and not available for Windows). I started with Sylpheed and later moved to Claws, which has been my e-mail client for years now. Sylpheed is very good and Claws even better! You might want to check it out.
I'm glad to see Eudora coming back.
My favorite feature of Eudora, that I miss most in Thunderbird, is the support for simultaneous multiple tasks.
In the lower left corner of the screen, was a square containing multiple progress bars for each task the program was handling at the moment. A good example would be for checking incoming mail on all of your email accounts.
Eudora would check each of them in parallel. You could monitor the progress of each server's transactions, by watching the progress bars. There was one progress bar for each server. Need to cancel a server that is acting slowly? Right-click on the progress bar and this was done, without disrupting the other servers at all.
In Thunderbird, to contrast, each server is checked one at a time. If a server has a problem, it will block all servers following in sequence. If you cancel, you lose all servers next in sequence as well. The UI of Thunderbird isn't really made to deal with multiple tasks. The best you can see is in the status bar at the very bottom of the window, and this gives no indication of progress, and often goes blank, even when more work is yet to be done.
This was really important back in the days of dialup, when everything was slow, not just email. You would frequently have to wait a long time for email to finish being received. So, having a good UI for this was important. Eudora made the wait a lot less frustrating, by keeping the user fully informed during all operations, and providing plenty of opportunity for the user to cancel a task without disrupting other tasks.
This would be very handy to extend to the newer features expected of modern email clients. Spam Bayesian sorting, filtering of email into appropriate folders, scanning for viruses, and so on, could all be handled as individual tasks using Eudora's interface.
This also becomes important when doing folder operations via IMAP. Thunderbird can get confused when a lengthy folder operation is disrupted, such as moving or copying all messages in a folder. If the user attempts to do something else during this time, the UI in Thunderbird often "forgets" the ongoing task entirely, and the folder will be left in a partial state. The user would then need to clean it up manually later. This isn't a problem with Eudora, thanks to this ability to smoothly handle multiple tasks at once, working each in the background until all tasks are cleanly finished.
I really hope they can bring this feature back, in the new Eudora! I was very disappointed when this didn't make it into Thunderbird 2.0, even though it was a fairly popular suggestion logged in the Bugzilla.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
platform independent.
I can do that now seeing as how my ISP offers webmail.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm as a hobby also programming some web apps. Nothing fancy, no AJAX, mostly database interfacing. The widgets a browser provides are limited, but do the job for that. Programming the same in Gnome would be faster for the end user and look fancier, but then it's stuck to one computer, and one operating system. My web apps run on one server, and can be accessed from anywhere. And that is cool.
Web apps are ok but I prefer to have my apps with me, and not need to be connected to access them. After not having a laptop for several years a few weeks ago I got a new Macbook Pro, and as someone who likes nature photography I want to be able to go out in the field, say hiking, shoot some photos and maybe do some preliminary edition while out. A web app won't allow me to do that. With an editor installed on my laptop I can edit away. At least while my batteries last. However I have two batteries then there are portable power supplies, like small solar panels, that can recharge a battery. These are alright if they can produce enough power to keep good batteries on hand, but otherwise I've been thinking about having something like a Sterling Engine I could take with me, just include one in the list of equipment to take. Oh, also I want to work on programming some apps for photographers as well. I can already hear people say that's too much weight to be hiking with but if I can't hike with 25, even 30, pounds when I used to hike, and run, with 50 to 100 pounds then I'm in real bad shape.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't know. I don't know the answers to a lot of questions. I'm only proposing that it entirely makes sense that applications could be moved to the web and maintain the features you enjoy about them today. A reconstruction of Web protocols, "browsers", etc could very well make this possible. I don't think it's neatly possible right now.
Some apps maybe but not all. Though you might be able not everyone is able to always remain connected, nor does everyone want to be always connected. I don't want to have to depend on having access a server, or the server itself not in my control if not in my possession.
But the benefits of having your documents, you programs, your preferences and settings available to you everywhere, on any device running any platform, is at least a little interesting.
Yea, the same access everyone else has. If you want to have your documents with you then a way to do so is by having a laptop with the apps and docs on the laptop, that and have an external hdd. Then when you get net access you can vpn into your own server.
The biggest reason I generally prefer software installed on my machines and not use web apps though is because I want to own and control them not rent them, software as a product not a service.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They stop Thunderbird and restart Eudora?
There must be something behind this.
If they wanted a better email client, why not improve Thunderbird? Is it a dead-end?
Or there is some problem between the two developer groups?
I'm utterly ignorant of the inside events, i'm just a (happy and puzzled) user of Thunderbird and Firefox who wonders why aren't these better integrated on Linux.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Bugs. Eudora does not do UTF-8 well, it creates mangled HTML, it often crashes, it has really awkward profile handling, the LDAP support sucks ass, and the built in junk filter is useless.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Here's hoping the new Eudora includes the best features and functionality of both Eudora 7.x and Thunderbird (both of which I use daily). I haven't seen anything else which matches the the filtering capabilities in Eudora, but the HTML renderer is as powerful as a gopher browser. On the other hand, I really like Thunderbird's ability to keep multiple accounts separated and and treat their settings independently.
You can setup different users with different settings in Eudora:
How do I set up multiple users on one machine? For the Mac, for Windows, Multiple Users/Mailboxes (Windows)
FalconShould there be a Law?
Eudora
Up until a month ago I did. But then my Windows PC died then. To replace it I got a Macbook Pro. When I saw TFA I downloaded Eudora and will install it. Yes, I'm comfortable with it but I also like how it filters messages. Since I've used the Windows version it shouldn't take long to become familiar with it, especially now that I am switching from Windows to both OS X and Linux and will have to learn them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I used Eudora for years, until about the time Thunderbird was gearing up for version 1. What finally kicked me over the threshold was that I do a lot of work with spam detection, and so I needed access to the original format of each message. Eudora reformats messages as they arrive, separating out the attachments, adjusting the headers, and in some cases reformatting text.
I've used Eudora for years, up until about a month ago when my Windows PC died. I then switched to OS X with a new Macbook Pro. Now that the new version of Eudora is out, I'll be installing it on my MBP. Although I don't like how it formats email, like how it affects spam, I do like it's filtering. However I don't have to think about spam anyway, my ISP offers filters. You can label something as spam and the sender's addy will be added to a filter so no mail from it will end up in your inbox. It also uses a white list so only people who are in your online address book goes to your inbox. Everything else goes into a "suspect" folder. When you check your email using webmail you can check this folder and put a message in the inbox, put it in the inbox and add the sender's addy to you address book, or delete it. I mostly use the webmail and will only fireup the email client, Eudora, to download those messages I want to keep locally.
At the time I had a ~5-year-old collection of mail in Eudora. I must have imported that corpus dozens of times, looking for things that imported incorrectly, figuring out how to identify whether a message was in plaintext, richtext, HTML, etc. so that the importer could reconstruct the appropriate MIME headers, and filing bugs. By the time 1.0 was ready, it could import my 5 years of mail.
Now that the new version is out and I have the MBP I'll have to import about 10 years worth of messages in the new version of Eudora. Of course because OS X has a different end of line or linefeed, I'll have to convert all of the messages from Windows to OS X with a text editor.
FalconShould there be a Law?
With Hotmail I used to go back through pages and pages of messages to find what I wanted, but with GMail I just search and it's there.
You can do the same in Eudora, and you don't have to be connected to do it.
I like to use webmail because I can access it anywhere. If I were downloading all my mail to my hard drive, I'd be concerned about my hard drive crashing. Either that or I'd have to bother with transferring it all when I get a new machine.
I can do the same with my ISP and Eudora. My ISP offers webmail, with a filter and white list. Any message you want can be marked as spam then you'll never see any messages from the sender again if you don't want to. The webmail has an online address book and you can filter messages so only messages from senders who are in the address book gets placed in the book are placed in the inbox. When I want to download those messages in the inbox so I can have them local, instead of having to be connected, all I do is fireup Eudora, once the messages are downloaded and sorted I quit it. If I need access to them later I have them locally. For backups, if I don't want to create backups locally my webmail allows me to setup folders online, I bet just like gmail does, and every message I download I put in one of those folders. Either way I have local access as well as can access them online.
Should there be a Law?
You can access just about any mailbox with http://mail2web.com/
I've seen the url somewhere before but didn't know what it is. Thanks, maybe I can pass it on to others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
People often bring up the need for folders, but that seems spurious. There's no reason not to treat labels/tags/flags/whatever gmail is calling them as IMAP folders.
The network's nice & your optimism's great. But many web browser and webapp devs see a need for desktop apps & see true limitations of the network which WON'T go away soon. Even more desktop devs see it this way (including visionaries such as Mark Shuttleworth).
So I wasn't alone who thought that Thunderbird - as well as its half-***** development - did sucked big time? I used it for 4(?) years. Piles of bugs which were never getting fixed with new improved GUI which took all development time to annoy with new even more weirder (or (re)moved) keyboard shortcuts, usual mail folder manipulation flops/crashes and inability to display certain messages at all.
Problem kind of went away since now I'm using more or less exclusively Web based e-mail systems. OMG, they are SO MUCH BETTER! than Tb. And often are SO MUCH FASTER!! .
And now, I see no reasons for Eudora resurrection other than some people being annoyed with how development of Tb is done and managed. Mozilla people clearly stated that Tb is to "go after Outlook Express" users. IOW, it's not for serious e-mail users. It's not something what Netscape Messenger was. And will never be. It's something you can't rely on. Nor should you in future. It's "Outlook Express" (c)ed by Mozilla with all relevant bugs copy-pasted.
Or could be any other reason in open source to introduce fork?
P.S. Thanks for news. I would give a Eudora shot. After of course it would grow a bit and stabilize a lot. ;)
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
There are web-based ssh clients. SSH can therefore work nearly every place gmail does. Since some corporate netnanny software blocks anonymous email (including gmail), I'd wager that you can actually use it in ever MORE places.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Agree 100%. You might want to check out NewIO ( http://www.newio.org/ ).
> Think outside the world of Web browsers you're in right now.
You are 100% correct. Think NewIO ( http://www.newio.org/ ).
Then I guess your mail is unimportant?
Wow, you must sweep the floors there or something.
This is really great news. I have been using Eudora since 1995, and I have virtually every e-mail message I've ever sent/received online. Eudora is a great example of a well-designed, well-written program that stands the test of time. It's not hooked into Windows so that when the OS inevitibly dies, you have to use the "jaws of life" to get your data. You can copy the subdirectory to another machine and you're back in business. To many of us, Eudora never died. It's still an integral application and I'm happy to see someone continuing to develop it.
I do not work for Zimbra nor do I know anybody who does but I've been using the open source addition of the Zimbra server on my home email server for months now and I love it. While I've not used the offline email client for Zimbra, it was created specifically for people who want the web client functionality with the ability to work while disconnected. Here is a link. http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html
Is that it is easy to migrate the program to a new (re-installed) machine. Everything is kept in one neat little folder and you can just copy the folder to a new computer, setup a shortcut to the eudora exe file and your set. Hopefully this won't change!
I think the program used for email depends on when did they start using email. I started using email on MSWin 3.1, and Eudora was a great, free client. I then moved to Solaris and Pine :), but many people who stayed on Windows kept using Eudora (why change ?).
I teach at SPSU, and many of my colleagues still use Eudora. Up until last year it was officially supported by our IT guys ! Why ? it was the best thing when they started, it works, so why change ?
i worked for real networks for about 30 seconds in 2002 ... they used eudora there... it was strange, confusing and mildly er0tic. I don't think I ever sent or recieved an email at RNWK once ... ever.
this story is completely pointless
*shrug*
1 - No working import of "Settings" on the Mac
2 - No more F-Key assignments (that's good enough for my 'bye-bye' right there)
3 - Each mail account (server/UserID) has its own In/Out/Sent/Trash, instead of the combined??? (nice one kids)
4 - Can't config the actual Mailbox window's columns (stuck with "Label", for example, forever???)
5 - HTML (gecko... so what) by default in out-going, bad scene kids, e-mail is a plain text thing, quit trying to turn everything into browser/advertising receivers, jesus, leave us alone
6 - All old Filters settings have been FUBAR'd at least to some degree
7 - All imported mailboxes are back to an "Un-read" state, and can only be cleared individually (have fun, corporate up(?)graders)
8 - No more 'Filter Reports' (which streamlined notifications, etc)
9 - Bouncing 'dock' or sound-only for notifies (hey guys, animation on the desktop is for girls, and a lot of them are way too smart to use it, too) See #8
These aren't a 'Top Ten', not even close. But, just as I feared, the Mozilla people have turned the most awesome email program ever into yet-another-Outlook, with BFD gecko rendering. Nice going. On a bright note, this played right into my predictions (which were based on the evolution of Firefox on the Macintosh, it's better in Linux, sort of). It amazes me that all these anti-Microsoft 'rebels' do nothing but emulate NT-era MS design choices in look and feel. Why not just make apologies and try to worm one's way back into the Redmond development arena?
I don't 'hate' Outlook, but, uh, guys, it already "Exists' you know what I mean? And on the Mac there's Gyaz, Mail.app, Thunderbird, et al, already, why add to it all? I'll keep it onboard, it's only the first version, after all, but if ZFirefox is any indication of what's to come, then the 'outlook' (sorry) is not good, to say the least. But, in fairness, the 'new' Eudora IS definitely the best windows/outlook wannabe on the Mac, so far. Nice going. (one hand clapping noise)
And yeah, yeah, I know, a user who learned Eudora, and dares to barf when it gets shredded by 'developers' is a troll, and again, so what... Oh yeah, I almost forgot:
10 - No more x-eudora-settings (off to Guantanamo with the lot of you)
"It doesn't fit my needs" does not translate to "should not be done".
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
We clarified that already. I was roughly pulling an era form my head. FOr some reason I thought HTTP was invented in 1988. Turns out it was 1990.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I agree with your point, totally. I was referring only to those situations where both operating systems are on a single unit, being dual-booted.
Actually for dualbooting you don't need an external hdd either, unless you want more storage space. Instead you can create three partitions, one for OS X, one for Linux, and the third for user files, the home directory. In both OSes point the home directory to the third partition then you can access the files on both OSes. Ah, after typing this I read you did partition.
With something like photography I would be thinking of a large, fast external drive for all the originals to be dumped to, by 'any' system, and then using whichever non-destructive editor, in whichever system-of-choice, for the edits. That's me, though. There must be unlimited ways of doing things, all with their own pros and cons.
I've been thinking of getting an external hdd, I'd actually need more than one, for backup purposes. If my Linux box doesn't work out as a server though and I can make money in photography what I'll do is either go ahead and get a Mac Pro filled with the biggest hdds I can get I read of one photographer with 4 terabytes on his. Or secondly get a san hdd I believe it's called which basically an external hdd system, it can hold more than one hdd. Third might be a Mac server. But none of this will happen if I'm not able to work as a photographer.
See, at one tyme I was in college majoring in Computer Engineering. However a bad accident I had left me with a disability, a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. Though I came to believe I could no longer do CE any more I went back to college when I could working on a degree in programming. That however proved to be difficult for me as well. While working on it I took a photography class as an elective, which proved to be easier for me, so I thought I'd give it a try as a field I could work in. I'd been interested in photography for years, in high school I took it then when I was in the military I kept up with photography. I was the unofficial photographer for my unit. My CO, Commanding Officer, would get film for me for when we went out training. I'd shoot it then go to a darkroom at the arts and crafts center on base to develop the film and make enlargements.
FalconShould there be a Law?
(I realize you're talking mostly about personal email, but I'll talk about business email)
To each their own, certainly. If you're at a desk most of the time, then webmail probably works for most people.
However, for anyone that travels a lot, a local email client/data_store is essential. Webmail doesn't cut it, even these days with Wi-Fi, 3G cards and cellphone tethers. Planes, cars in the middle of nowhere, network issues, etc - webmail just wouldn't work for me.
And I couldn't agree more with this comment to your post. Comprehensive keystrokes? Pg-Up/Dn? Sane screen layout regardless of display size? Nope - instead you often get nested scroll boxes like this very Slashdot comment page - Arrrgh!!!!!!
And that makes my keyboard-based life just a bit harder, every 15 minutes of every day.
And no, Gmail, although much better that 1998-era web clients, isn't the answer to every webmail complaint.
> No, I really loathe gmail as well. (And I work for Google.)
Then you may be in a position to push for IMAP support in Gmail.
Do you?
...not anymore