Re: Debunking Emacs merits over GUI - Re: package for Email

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Bob Newell <bobnewell@bobnewell.net> [2023-01-20 00:13]:
> > >Doug Engelbart invented mouse device for people to speed up with
> > >work. Using mouse is just fine.
> 
> Certainly it is.  But remember it is a matter of choice and user
> preference.  I find having to reach for the mouse and remove hands
> from keyboard very disruptive.

That is why makers of Thinkpad placed that red dot button somewhere in
the middle of the keyboard.

> Not to say Thunderbird isn't good.  I actually think it's a very good
> client.  It is just not what I prefer as I like to stay within
> Emacs.

Me too, I stay in `mutt' within or outside Emacs, though can't
recommed that to anybody, I recommed to people who do not know about
terminal applications, only graphicsl Kmail, Evolution or Thunderbird.

> > >It is way too exaggerated and generalized statement. The "powerful
> > >way" in any software comes with experience. To learn what you think is
> > >powerful requires maybe decades.
> 
> This is something I've stressed before.  Serious tools for craftsmen
> require serious effort.  No one starts out as a master craftsman.
> Everyone starts as a novice.  Does that mean that the tools of the
> master are inferior because the novice is not yet skilled with them?
> Hardly.

> I will again say something I've said before.  Emacs is not for
> everyone, and I don't mean that in an elitist sense.  For many of us
> it is an indispensible tool, which we've spent a long while learning
> how to use to best advantage.  For others it may just be a big bother
> when simpler and easier tools may work just fine for their needs.
> 
> I am not out there telling people "learn Emacs" without first knowing
> what their interests and inclinations may be.  That indeed could be
> unproductive.  I think people who can make use of Emacs find their way
> to it eventually.

That is very right.

I think that it is exaggeration with masters and novices, and we
exaggerate with Emacs features, because we love it. But that does not
give realistic picture to people.

Though better be objective towards those users who search for better
e-mail client.

Objectively, Emacs is not an option as e-mail client for anybody.

To understand that reality, simply prepare Emacs with whatever e-mail
client of your choice and bring it to any organization, tell them to
try it out, and then to tell you if they wish to replace  their
ordinary use of e-mail with that one of Emacs. 

Then repeat that with other 2 organizations, then we know what is real
to people.

It is matter of many coincidences and interests and work over periods
of time that somebody becomes "Master in Emacs", and that alone, while
pleasure for those masters, may be pain and impairment for those
considered "novices".

In general people who already use computer are not novices, unless
maybe novices in Emacs. 

Drawing them into that world by saying that Emacs handles better
e-mail is IMHO less productive for their life.

When user starts maintaining e-mail server, of course that user may
start learning about IMAP, about `procmail', or `sieve' and maybe some
users maintain multiple servers, for that type of users is alright to
engage into complexities as they can handle it. It does not mean they
are "masters" just because they maintain web servers, there are many
GUI interfaces for web servers, mail servers and similar. 

When user handles e-mails with family and business, then graphical
programs like Thunderbird may be appropriate.

So we always better start from human, from people, instead from
a program (Emacs vs Thunderbird).

Human is the reason for program. Programs are made with purpose to
assist human.

Not other way around.

Emacs, Thunderbird itself is not reason in itself for human to use
them. People should not use programs because their underlying power is
demonstratable, but because programs will help them handling their
life.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/