"In this review I compare the next generation of the most popular e-mail clients... "
The problem is that the preview for the article doesn't say that the author's only reviewing Free (as in beer) email clients that only run on UNIX/Linux.
The author also doesn't mention that the review is only for Open Source UNIX clients in the introduction. You have to read down to the last statement in the last paragraph before the comparison chart to see it -- the one where the author makes excuses for why an older version of Outlook was included for comparative purposes.
The preview should have indicated if the article's target audience was only FOSS / UNIX users. Some would have ignored it, some would have read it out of curiousity, and many of the discussions here on/. as to why he included an older version of Outlook but not X would have never been submitted.
Like may others have indicated, I found the article to be less than useless since it's so full of holes and incomplete when compared to the article's preview.
The decision whether to use a piece of software that is free (as in beer), open sourced, closed source, inexpensive, costly, etc. and any combination thereof is one each of us has to make. I, for one, make that decision on the basis of cost effectiveness, which includes aspects of all of the above.
A truly good review would have covered all the "most popular e-mail clients" so everyone could make their own decision based on their own metrics.
And no, I do NOT use Outlook and will never use it unless forced to by employment circumstances, and, even then, only at work -- UNLESS it somehow becomes cost effective to use (like I should live so long).
Sorry, but I really don't think that HTML bloated email is next gen.
It's MUCH better than trying to send everything as Rich Text...
It pisses me off to waste time understanding how people are quoting emails in order to find what they actually wrote. I especially like people who quote everything and then insert replies with a supposed different color. Very convenient when I answer with mutt.
Maybe that's because in their email clients it looks properly threaded? What would you have them do -- break each thread into a separate email?
Much of the need for this can be reduce, of course, but I don't see it going away completely.
It pisses me off to fight with Mozilla Thunderbird in order to remove decorative bloat with pictures added to every mail sent by my boss.
I'm with you on this one. I had a problem for a while where Outlook-based emails with "watermarks" and pretty scrolly backgrounds and borders wouldn't properly display in Netscape's preview until you clicked off the email title in the listing. I read almost all my emails through the Preview Pane, so that was a real annoyance.
It pisses me off to removely download a 10 Mb large email through a 128Kb link just to see that it's a BMP screenshot send through outlook instead of writing text.
I haven't had that problem. What I usually get is somebody doing a screen capture of the entire desktop instead of highlighting an error message's text in an error dialog, hitting CTRL+C, and then pasting it in an email -- plain text or HTML. A 1 KB email turns into a 1 KB email with that proverbial 10 MB attachment. Painful when logging in remotely.
It pisses me off to receive mail with no subject. And then people reply to it and the subject becomes "Re: Tr: Tr: Re: Re: Tr:".
It pisses me off to receive mail that was actually a "reply to" a message that was 2 years old and that has nothing to do with the previous thread.
It pisses me off to receive mails whose content is in the subject with an empty body.
"I'm mad, too, Eddy"
It pisses me off to receive fully quoted emails, including attachments (even when it's BMP screenshots) just when the real text added by the sender is "ok".
Oh yea...like they never heard of "snipping" all of the redundant text below the last email's content?
The next generation email is probably when people will respect the netiquette again.
You'll note that I agree with much of what you've said, though not all. I agree that this, too, is something that has waned over time.
Of course, Netiquette requires no new software to become "killer"
My biggest complaint is people who never heard of spell checking before hitting "Send"...
I use Netscape (started with 4.7 and now using 7.1) as a POP mail client to access a MS Exchange mail server over VPN and have had a few minor problems with it. None that make it necessary to immediately move to another mail client, though.
In all Help Desk calls I have made about these problems I have been consistently been told to "use Outlook 2003 or Outlook Express 2003", as they "fix the reasons you're using Netscape and POP". I have also seen the mention of several alternatives here on/. and was looking forward to reading the article to help me decide whether a good alternative existed.
I was somewhat disappointed that the article only included mail clients (with the exception of Outlook XP) that would run on UNIX boxes. I'm stuck using Windows for work, no matter what my preferences may be, so wanted to see that platform covered, as well.
The article's preview didn't indicate that it was only a review of UNIX/Linux compatible mail clients. Thus I expected to see a review of *all* 'next generation' email clients -- no matter their platform. I expected the clients' platforms to be part of their review.
Or perhaps I misunderstood what the author meant by "next generation"? The term wasn't defined as to what that it meant in the article's context.
Thanks for the article -- it was quite refreshing!
I agree with the article's author in that Sun has a chance to help everyone involved.
Strangely enough, that includes Microsoft by forcing them to play honest when it comes to.NET and Java. That's what true competition is all about -- the drive for the best tools, etc., and not by stealing market share using any means they can get away with.
Re:Missed one: explain it to someone
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 1
Google is the owner of the well-known trademark and trade name GOOGLE, as well as the domain name GOOGLE.COM....
We have recently become aware of your website at http://www.booble.com (the Domain Name). This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark....
Your use of the Domain Name and corresponding web site constitutes trademark infringement and dilution of Google's trademarks and unfair competition under federal and state laws....
The case is being made that the names are "too" similar.
IMHO they can't really get them on the name, but the trade dress and logo mya be problems.
The drivers just all need to be supported across all later versions.
So that you would get: your raid driver works with kernels 2.2.18 up through 2.4.19 (or later) your sound card driver requires kernel 2.4.19 your network adapter driver works with kernels 2.2.21 up through 2.4.19 (or later)
You can't let a driver manufacturer get away with only supporting one kernel version; if they're going to support Linux, they need to support all of it -- or at least publish what they do and don't support.
Re:it still isnt gonna go mainstream
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
its been said before, and i'll say it again, until my mom and dad can run linux without calling me every day...
My parents have a new XP box and they call me constantly to help set things up for them. What's the difference?
Think Golf. This sport requires no team. Nobody gets a salary. All money earned is through tournament prizes. There's a Golf channel now that has nothing but golf 24 hours a day.
Think Horce Racing. The "team" consists of everyone involved in getting the horse on the track; after that it's all up to the jockey. Sometimes they're paid salaries, other times they're paid by prize money. Coverage is through ESPN, etc.
Think Nascar, etc. racing. Teams exist and are maintained by sponsors (think AMD, Intel, nVidia, etc. for Gaming). Prize money is distributed in many ways. Coverage includes Speed, etc. channels.
There are many other "mainstream" examples. Some have their own venues, some are covered by the "mainstream" media.
Slashdot Mirror
"In this review I compare the next generation of the most popular e-mail clients... "
The problem is that the preview for the article doesn't say that the author's only reviewing Free (as in beer) email clients that only run on UNIX/Linux.The author also doesn't mention that the review is only for Open Source UNIX clients in the introduction. You have to read down to the last statement in the last paragraph before the comparison chart to see it -- the one where the author makes excuses for why an older version of Outlook was included for comparative purposes.
The preview should have indicated if the article's target audience was only FOSS / UNIX users. Some would have ignored it, some would have read it out of curiousity, and many of the discussions here on /. as to why he included an older version of Outlook but not X would have never been submitted.
Like may others have indicated, I found the article to be less than useless since it's so full of holes and incomplete when compared to the article's preview.
The decision whether to use a piece of software that is free (as in beer), open sourced, closed source, inexpensive, costly, etc. and any combination thereof is one each of us has to make. I, for one, make that decision on the basis of cost effectiveness, which includes aspects of all of the above.
A truly good review would have covered all the "most popular e-mail clients" so everyone could make their own decision based on their own metrics.
And no, I do NOT use Outlook and will never use it unless forced to by employment circumstances, and, even then, only at work -- UNLESS it somehow becomes cost effective to use (like I should live so long).
It's MUCH better than trying to send everything as Rich Text...
It pisses me off to waste time understanding how people are quoting emails in order to find what they actually wrote. I especially like people who quote everything and then insert replies with a supposed different color. Very convenient when I answer with mutt.
Maybe that's because in their email clients it looks properly threaded? What would you have them do -- break each thread into a separate email?
Much of the need for this can be reduce, of course, but I don't see it going away completely.
It pisses me off to fight with Mozilla Thunderbird in order to remove decorative bloat with pictures added to every mail sent by my boss.
I'm with you on this one. I had a problem for a while where Outlook-based emails with "watermarks" and pretty scrolly backgrounds and borders wouldn't properly display in Netscape's preview until you clicked off the email title in the listing. I read almost all my emails through the Preview Pane, so that was a real annoyance.
It pisses me off to removely download a 10 Mb large email through a 128Kb link just to see that it's a BMP screenshot send through outlook instead of writing text.
I haven't had that problem. What I usually get is somebody doing a screen capture of the entire desktop instead of highlighting an error message's text in an error dialog, hitting CTRL+C, and then pasting it in an email -- plain text or HTML. A 1 KB email turns into a 1 KB email with that proverbial 10 MB attachment. Painful when logging in remotely.
It pisses me off to receive mail with no subject. And then people reply to it and the subject becomes "Re: Tr: Tr: Re: Re: Tr:".
It pisses me off to receive mail that was actually a "reply to" a message that was 2 years old and that has nothing to do with the previous thread.
It pisses me off to receive mails whose content is in the subject with an empty body.
"I'm mad, too, Eddy"
It pisses me off to receive fully quoted emails, including attachments (even when it's BMP screenshots) just when the real text added by the sender is "ok".
Oh yea...like they never heard of "snipping" all of the redundant text below the last email's content?
The next generation email is probably when people will respect the netiquette again.
You'll note that I agree with much of what you've said, though not all. I agree that this, too, is something that has waned over time.
Of course, Netiquette requires no new software to become "killer"
My biggest complaint is people who never heard of spell checking before hitting "Send"...
I concur.
/. and was looking forward to reading the article to help me decide whether a good alternative existed.
I use Netscape (started with 4.7 and now using 7.1) as a POP mail client to access a MS Exchange mail server over VPN and have had a few minor problems with it. None that make it necessary to immediately move to another mail client, though.
In all Help Desk calls I have made about these problems I have been consistently been told to "use Outlook 2003 or Outlook Express 2003", as they "fix the reasons you're using Netscape and POP". I have also seen the mention of several alternatives here on
I was somewhat disappointed that the article only included mail clients (with the exception of Outlook XP) that would run on UNIX boxes. I'm stuck using Windows for work, no matter what my preferences may be, so wanted to see that platform covered, as well.
The article's preview didn't indicate that it was only a review of UNIX/Linux compatible mail clients. Thus I expected to see a review of *all* 'next generation' email clients -- no matter their platform. I expected the clients' platforms to be part of their review.
Or perhaps I misunderstood what the author meant by "next generation"? The term wasn't defined as to what that it meant in the article's context.
Oh, so THAT's where he went!
Looks like he's even changed his name and job title....
Thanks for the article -- it was quite refreshing!
I agree with the article's author in that Sun has a chance to help everyone involved.
Strangely enough, that includes Microsoft by forcing them to play honest when it comes to .NET and Java. That's what true competition is all about -- the drive for the best tools, etc., and not by stealing market share using any means they can get away with.
We called ours "Bugga Bear"...
That's because they spend all of their time posting comments on slashdot!!
So now they can claim ownership of "doodle.com", "poodle.com", etc.?
How about "similar sounding" names, like "frugal", "luger", etc.?
Note that the latter is already a trademark, so google could itself hypothetically be in trouble for their mark sounding too much like the other's.
Where would you draw the line?
Google is the owner of the well-known trademark and trade name GOOGLE, as well as the domain name GOOGLE.COM....
We have recently become aware of your website at http://www.booble.com (the Domain Name). This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark....
Your use of the Domain Name and corresponding web site constitutes trademark infringement and dilution of Google's trademarks and unfair competition under federal and state laws....
The case is being made that the names are "too" similar.
IMHO they can't really get them on the name, but the trade dress and logo mya be problems.
Overkill!!
...and REAL MEN use their teeth and go naked!
Such wusses!
The ONLY way for a REAL hunter is with an entrenching tool and a ghillie suit!
Not true.
The drivers just all need to be supported across all later versions.
So that you would get:
your raid driver works with kernels 2.2.18 up through 2.4.19 (or later)
your sound card driver requires kernel 2.4.19
your network adapter driver works with kernels 2.2.21 up through 2.4.19 (or later)
You can't let a driver manufacturer get away with only supporting one kernel version; if they're going to support Linux, they need to support all of it -- or at least publish what they do and don't support.
My parents have a new XP box and they call me constantly to help set things up for them. What's the difference?
Think Golf. This sport requires no team. Nobody gets a salary. All money earned is through tournament prizes. There's a Golf channel now that has nothing but golf 24 hours a day.
Think Horce Racing. The "team" consists of everyone involved in getting the horse on the track; after that it's all up to the jockey. Sometimes they're paid salaries, other times they're paid by prize money. Coverage is through ESPN, etc.
Think Nascar, etc. racing. Teams exist and are maintained by sponsors (think AMD, Intel, nVidia, etc. for Gaming). Prize money is distributed in many ways. Coverage includes Speed, etc. channels.
There are many other "mainstream" examples. Some have their own venues, some are covered by the "mainstream" media.
I think I missed that. Could you post links?