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

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Bob Newell <bobnewell@bobnewell.net> [2023-01-21 03:08]:
> > Objectively, Emacs is not an option as e-mail client for anybody.
> 
> I must differ as I think "anybody" is too broad.  There are
> thousands of Gnus users, myself included.  Gnus enables me to
> do things--- things important to my work and pursuits--- that
> would be much more laborious or maybe not even possible with
> other clients.

You are right, it is generalization, which I did not intend. I have
expressed me in the way how I did not want. I am myself using Emacs to
start composing e-mails, and to manage e-mails in combination with
various tools, and sometimes I use Emacs e-mail package.

I wanted to say that objectively when somebody is looking for e-mail
client, it is not good to recommend Emacs in first place.

Any e-mail client enable people to do important tasks. So it is `mail'
too! 

I bet you do not use `mail' on command line. And me too, I do not use
it often on command line, but I may use it sometimes, and I use it
hundreds of thousands of times from within Emacs! 

However, that I use `mail' in that particular way is very specific to
me. We make thousands and thousands of dollars by using `mail' and the
packge 

Emacs Lisp: rcd-mail.el package as bindings to GNU Mailutils "mail" program:
https://hyperscope.link/3/8/3/0/3/rcd-mail-el-GNU-Mailutils-mail-program.html

My personal use is related to integration with other packages in
Emacs, for example, I don't like composing e-mails, and I prefer to
simply write e-mail, while everything else is handled for me: 

- e-mail subject, to be automatically handled (or customized when
  necessary)

- greetings, to be automatically handled,

- my identity towards recipient, to be automatically handled,

- my signature to be automatically handled

All of the messages are where? In the table `messages'. I can easily
find any message sent in that automated manner. And messages have
their types:

 1          E-mail
 2          SMS
 3          XMPP
 4          Call
 5          Talk

Now imagine a list of communication lines, like e-mail, SMS, XMPP:

Bob, e-mail, bob@example.com
Bob, SMS, +1234567890
bob, XMPP, bob@xmpp.example

I don't think of e-mails, I think of "Bob" and that I have to tell him
something, so I mark those above three lines, and write single
message. 

Single message is then sent to all of those communication lines,
alerting person on what we have to talk about.

Why think of invoking XMPP client?
Why think of getting phone in my hand and type?
Why think of invoking e-mail client?

What I think of is that what I have to communicate to person.

So in my environment I find myself efficient as I keep working on
integration of functions for human need.

It is very easy to teach staff member to:
-----------------------------------------

- find person among many people in Emacs or other tool (because there
  is universally accessible database in background)

- click on "l c" for "List Communication Lines"

- mark communication lines

- send message or prepared document


Instead of teaching people:
---------------------------

- to use Thunderbird, Emacs mail client, etc. too much of software and
  hand work

- to teach people how to use Gajim, Pidgin, Dino, Conversations, you
  name it, hand work

- to teach them how to enter one person's contacts in each of the
  above software as they do not have integrated access to contacts
  database 

- to teach them how to attach documents, upload files, etc. way too
  much

- then to give them task to send information to those people, all one
  by one.

I find that approach efficient.

Am I ever going to recommend it to acquaintance or person on mailing
list as the way of handling e-mails? Rather no, because that is not
the environment and need or demand by that person.

IMHO, Emacs is last environment I would recommend average person.

When person is let us say in GNU/Linux environment, than it becomes
closer to recommendation.

My staff members learned `mutt' and were using it properly. They have
installed Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre by following my advise on a
Thinkpad computer. They however, were compelled into it. And they used
it fine, because they took little time to learn basic functions.

However, to recommend people to start with tools I am personally
using, I say rather no, as that would waste their time.

When person is willing to learn and wish to become efficient in some
specific areas of life, I would again try to find what is the best
fitting or best matching computing solution for that person. 

I am aware that my habits, experiences, skills, efficiency is all
personal. 

It is not universal and applicable to everybody.

> But that doesn't mean that some people find Gnus etc. to be a
> very powerful productivity tool.

Yes, I understand, sure. Me too, I was using it back in time, I don't
remember when, maybe before 20 years, who knows. I was reading `news'
with it.

> I would like to generalize "human" to "requirements" based on
> the job at hand, the capabilities and desires of the user, and
> so on, to create a wholistic solution.  Choosing software
> prior to understanding what is needed is folly.  Yet it is
> done very often.  (Queue entry of salespeople wearing suits
> who talk only to corporate executives and never to end-users
> about their multi-million dollar product.  Said conversations
> to take place on a private golf course.)

That is right.

Thanks for exchanging!

-- 
Jean

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

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