[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?
From: |
markus schnalke |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA? |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:36:44 +0100 |
User-agent: |
nmh 1.3 |
[2010-01-28 14:07] Earl Hood <address@hidden>
>
> I think there is a mixing of user-based perspective vs design
> perspective that should clarified. From a user-based perspective,
> things should just "work". How that is achieved under the hood
> is a design/implementation detail.
I mostly agree, but not in the word ``detail'', because I think this
is too important to be a detail.
What exactly do you mean with ``users''? If you mean people that are
no programmers, then I agree. If you mean us, then I don't.
> As a user, I should not have to jump thru hoops to achieve basic
> expected mail functionality, which includes the retrieval and
> submission of mail.
I still think that the overhead is not so large. Usually, the
packaging system should cover this.
> I, as a user, should not have to mess with downloading, installing,
> configuring some external app to get basic TLS-based SMTP submission
> of email. I, thru nmh's configuration, should be able to do it easily
> ("Simple things should be simple to do."). Now, if nmh relies on an
> external package that is bundled with nmh to achieve the functionality,
> so be it.
Now I see why we do not understand each other:
- For you, nmh is a system that provides everything for emailing.
- For me it is an MUA.
>From your POV, nmh *should* include an MTA, a fetch program, and so
forth. From my POV, it should *not*.
> You argue that package creaters should handle all the dependencies, but
> that is not always an easy tasks with the myriad of *nix-based systems
> out there, include linux ones that repackage things in varied ways.
> I've seen numerous user complaints of something not working because OS
> packagers decided to break up an OSS application into multiple RPMs,
> where not all are installed by default. Then a user complains to OSS
> developers something is not working, when the the problem is because
> a part of the app was not installed by the OS packaging system.
>
> Sometimes it easier to just incorporate the external dependencies
> into the nmh distribution itself to avoid OS package maintainers to
> get things right
So you want to solve the symptomes, but the problem remains.
You are pragmatic. (I value this.)
> Under-the-hood,
> a particular component could be developed externally to the core
> product, but it is bundled with the product. It's just a matter of
> packaging and how external components are integrated.
This matches our different views of what nmh is (mail system vs. MUA).
> A regular user should not have to know the difference.
I agree.
> Usability matters. Maybe a question that needs answering is,
> "What type of user does nmh target?" Should an nmh user
> be a Unix weenie?
I say: Write software for yourselfs, because otherwise you won't do
it well anyway.
> > Beware of the NIH syndrome. Unix is so good, because it *does* rely
> > on external software. That's what ``software leverage'' means.
>
> I do not see anyone asking we implement our own TLS/SSL library
> from scratch.
>
> Even for IMAP, the discussion tends to lean towards leveraging
> an existing IMAP implementation.
I want to motivate to forget the difference between library and
program.
Separate instead of integrate.
> I think it is a serious
> error to ignore the user's perspective.
I think it's bad to give the user's perspective a too high priority.
We're simply different in this point.
> Real-world experience has taught me that reliance on external programs
> can raise serious usability problems. Therefore, packaging and
> integration becomes critical when relying on external components,
> either they being libraries or programs.
I know what you mean. I'm very idealistic is such points. I don't want
to go for (in my sense) ``wrong'' solutions.
> The basic design philosophy of developing concise-well-defined
> components that interact with each other is a good one and most
> will agree with it. I think where the real discussion is is on the
> integration of those components.
Well said.
> Is the burden more on the the
> application developer-side or the end-user side? I tend to lean
> toward the developer-side to make end-user life easier.
Good point. Thus, I much favor good end-user howtos (this is different
to documentation). But I feel good design to be the higher goal.
meillo
- [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, (continued)
- [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, markus schnalke, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, markus schnalke, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Paul Fox, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2010/01/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Joel Reicher, 2010/01/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?,
markus schnalke <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, markus schnalke, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2010/01/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, markus schnalke, 2010/01/28
- Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA? (Was: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?), bergman, 2010/01/28
- Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA? (Was: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?), Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/28