Email is strictly client side application and therefore there is absolutely no reason to use command line tool. Of course, some of you will argue that GUI is bullshit and the only true way is the command line. In that case you are no different than these people from the begining of the century who first dismissed cars as an evil machine and then same madness hapened when first planes came out.
Can you ssh into your computer system from somewhere else (like work) and use Balsa to read the email on your home system? How about Outlook 98? Netscape Mail?
Re:Support for multiple POP3 accounts?
on
Mutt Hits 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Fetchmail can support more than one POP3 account. Or IMAP, or KPOP, or...
I have fetchmail downloading from my POP3 email account, then sort via procmail into many (13) mailboxes. I used to have three POP3 accounts -- two from different ISPs and one for my actual email account (the one I use). It worked just as well then as it does now.
The GPL is hardly readable. The little notice that points to a "COPYING" file does not count. The "COPYING" file is page after page of legal talk that boils down to "You can't use this in anything that adds any more restrictions than the GPL. The GPL applies to all derivative works of this software."
There are also snapshots downloadable at the RELENG_3 snapshot site which have the entire system compiled. Using sysinstalls "Upgrade" option, upgrading a FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE system is just as easy as installing a release.
An interesting point could have been: since Microsoft doesn't write good code, why don't they just steal code from *BSD? It's free, it's legal, and the advertising clause is gone. Probably they wouldn't because of their arrogance, and MacOS X has a head start on them for stealing from BSD.
Actually, the design of the operating systems -- FreeBSD et. al. and Windows NT -- differs far too greatly. The design differs so greatly, in fact, that simply stealing code would not work. Microsoft's articles indicate that they dispise UNIX systems because they're "old world" and are "arcane".
What bothers me is that Debian, Red Hat and others use their package management systems for their C libraries, base utilities and the kernel. The things that sold me on FreeBSD were CVSup and well-defined development branches.
Getting back to the package management issue, I believe it's much safer updating the entire system -- kernel, C library and base utils -- but that works best in integrated, full operating systems.
Definitely give it a try if you don't feel the absolute need for strong crypto and that secure out-of-the-box feeling, although you'll find much of this in the FreeBSD camp also.
FreeBSD is pretty secure out of the box. Perhaps not as encrypted as OpenBSD, but it's secure.
I'm pretty sure Ask Slashdot would accept and post interesting questions. Or you could email the questions mailing list for the BSD operating system you're using.
FreeBSD is the branch whose primary aim is robust 'popular' support for lots of hardware on the i386 processors. For some reason a number of people are also porting FreeBSD to Alpha and other architectures (I've never understood why they don't just use NetBSD, but to each his/her own, I guess)
This group of people porting FreeBSD to the DEC Alpha architecture is known as the FreeBSD Project.:)
Wow. All the people unfortunate enough to enjoy using old computers are going to love the eZ80, and write software for it that makes it feel just like the original.
Of course it's not going to happen. But as a journalist, Jon Katz writes journalistic things. Not being knowledgeable in the area of AI, are any more than half the stories in any popular magazine true?
judging by a quick glance at the release notes, this seems to be on par with a new release of Red Hat or Debian, etc. FreeBSD 3.3 seems to be the whole distribution, not just the FreeBSD kernel (is it even referred to as that?).
Nope! FreeBSD has always been a full system. The kernel is the bit that sets up the devices and helps you use them, and the rest is the part you interact with. It's a full OS -- both kernel and userland are in the same CVS repository.
(Note: I'm shocked to see a positive article so soon in a FreeBSD story.:)
I'm sure there have also been "bursts" of security problems coming from Solaris and AIX and (heh) IRIX too. Now it's FreeBSD's time.
Additionally, all of the root exploits I heard of in FreeBSD (VFS alias problem, FTP servers in the ports tree, FTS...) have been fixed, according to the freebsd-security-notifications mailing list.
Then came linux and now the *bsd users have had it and are beginning to come around. I applaud them for selling and marketing and creating hype about there product which is what they should of done 20 years ago.
Ask Linus about this. The reason we couldn't "be" is because BSD was the subject of a lawsuit. I believe Linus can be quoted as saying that if such lawsuit did not exist, neither would Linux.
Linux said that linux is made up of 30 full time and over 1,000 part time programmers who work on the kernel while freebsd has only 15 guys.
More FUD. See the core team list and the FreeBSD CVS committers list. Both of these groups of people can commit directly to the CVS repository, effecting what people use in FreeBSD directly. No permission from God (Linus) or Co-God (Alan) is necessary under FreeBSD. Additionally, many people use the send-pr facility to submit patches to repair software in FreeBSD. One of the people listed in the core team or committers will then respond, and if it is "OK", the patch supplied is committed (perhaps with modifications) to the source tree.
Also, FreeBSD consists of both userland (/bin,/sbin,/usr/bin,/usr/sbin) and kernel. Since they're all kept in one place, both are constantly and consistently updated. I find this to be very beneficial to FreeBSD.
2. FreeBSD 3.3? Yeah, right. If you're going to be a liar, at least get your version numbers right. The latest is 3.2 or 4.0. There's no 3.3.
Actually, 3.3-RC is the branch that's going to become 3.3-RELEASE in a few days; if you'll notice, it's what you get when you CVSup your 3.2-STABLE system.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the BSD section could talk about Yahoo, considering it runs FreeBSD.
Try using this sample .procmailrc. That's just a few lines of my procmailrc which sorts mail from all sorts of lists into different folders.
Fetchmail can support more than one POP3 account. Or IMAP, or KPOP, or ...
I have fetchmail downloading from my POP3 email account, then sort via procmail into many (13) mailboxes. I used to have three POP3 accounts -- two from different ISPs and one for my actual email account (the one I use). It worked just as well then as it does now.
The GPL is hardly readable. The little notice that points to a "COPYING" file does not count. The "COPYING" file is page after page of legal talk that boils down to "You can't use this in anything that adds any more restrictions than the GPL. The GPL applies to all derivative works of this software."
There are also snapshots downloadable at the RELENG_3 snapshot site which have the entire system compiled. Using sysinstalls "Upgrade" option, upgrading a FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE system is just as easy as installing a release.
What bothers me is that Debian, Red Hat and others use their package management systems for their C libraries, base utilities and the kernel. The things that sold me on FreeBSD were CVSup and well-defined development branches.
Getting back to the package management issue, I believe it's much safer updating the entire system -- kernel, C library and base utils -- but that works best in integrated, full operating systems.
FreeBSD is pretty secure out of the box. Perhaps not as encrypted as OpenBSD, but it's secure.
Linux is the one making open source operating systems the next big thing. It is the pioneer here.
I'm pretty sure Ask Slashdot would accept and post interesting questions. Or you could email the questions mailing list for the BSD operating system you're using.
When you said "a group of people", I assumed you meant some outside group.
We're doing it to run on more hardware. Why port Linux to Alpha when OSF (or DEC UNIX or whatever) runs on it? Same reasoning, right?
Aaah! I seem to have screwed up. What was in parentheses was also supposed to be indented and in .
(lets see FreeBSD claims of superior a networking stack blow up in smoke); Just because the networking stack is rewritten does not mean it is better.
Perhaps, but then you'd just get no pet instead of the ravenous death plant. Is there a problem with sheep overpopulation in the world?
It seems to be more of a bad argument. It's a lot like "Why would you bring home a puppy when you can bring home a ravenous death plant?"
Wow. All the people unfortunate enough to enjoy using old computers are going to love the eZ80, and write software for it that makes it feel just like the original.
When is Motorola supposed to release the i6800?
Of course it's not going to happen. But as a journalist, Jon Katz writes journalistic things. Not being knowledgeable in the area of AI, are any more than half the stories in any popular magazine true?
Uh-oh. Better ditch that Unix system. Chances are it uses GCC. Further chances are that it uses Apache if it's a web server.
Hey! There's always NT and IIS.
People are negative that it's not Linux. Browse any BSD story at -1 and you'll see what I mean.
Nope! FreeBSD has always been a full system. The kernel is the bit that sets up the devices and helps you use them, and the rest is the part you interact with. It's a full OS -- both kernel and userland are in the same CVS repository.
(Note: I'm shocked to see a positive article so soon in a FreeBSD story.
I'm sure there have also been "bursts" of security problems coming from Solaris and AIX and (heh) IRIX too. Now it's FreeBSD's time.
Additionally, all of the root exploits I heard of in FreeBSD (VFS alias problem, FTP servers in the ports tree, FTS...) have been fixed, according to the freebsd-security-notifications mailing list.
Ask Linus about this. The reason we couldn't "be" is because BSD was the subject of a lawsuit. I believe Linus can be quoted as saying that if such lawsuit did not exist, neither would Linux.
More FUD. See the core team list and the FreeBSD CVS committers list. Both of these groups of people can commit directly to the CVS repository, effecting what people use in FreeBSD directly. No permission from God (Linus) or Co-God (Alan) is necessary under FreeBSD. Additionally, many people use the send-pr facility to submit patches to repair software in FreeBSD. One of the people listed in the core team or committers will then respond, and if it is "OK", the patch supplied is committed (perhaps with modifications) to the source tree.
Also, FreeBSD consists of both userland (/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin) and kernel. Since they're all kept in one place, both are constantly and consistently updated. I find this to be very beneficial to FreeBSD.
Actually, 3.3-RC is the branch that's going to become 3.3-RELEASE in a few days; if you'll notice, it's what you get when you CVSup your 3.2-STABLE system.