Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KMail Now Supports A Unified Inbox While KDE Keeps Getting Polished

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • KMail Now Supports A Unified Inbox While KDE Keeps Getting Polished

    Phoronix: KMail Now Supports A Unified Inbox While KDE Keeps Getting Polished

    Come KDE Applications 18.12 in time for the holidays, the KMail KDE email client will finally offer a unified inbox...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-Unified-Inbox

  • #2
    One would hope they have fixed the stability and email eating bugs now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Wikipedia lists 26 linux email clients (there are more).
      Resources are limited, needs are not.
      Open source is made to fight that bullshit duplication of efforts, it is made so Claws Mail team can work together with Thunderbird team, improving their performance if that is their goal, or make a new theme if looks is the point. Are th
      ere key differences? Discuss them, and eventually fork with that VERY LITTLE thing, sharing as much code as possible. You want to remove the bloat? Make the program display a form on startup to help discuss given issue.
      There always is a better way than starting a new SHIT. No email client is good, I like mutt the best, but it is crazy bad, as some other people decided to make their own clients instead of working on it.
      "Hey, but mutt is CLI, and KMail is not!" - so what? make a library that manages core stuff and just write as many interfaces as you want.. while prefering new themes over new toolkits. Make sense people. You probably start a new project
      because someone over some mailing list has hurt your feelings or is not of your faith.

      Why does every 'desktop environment' thinks it needs its own set of programs? I like Plasma (but dwm beats the crap out of it), OK desktop environments are a bit harder to collaborate, but they still can do so, and should
      They just display some widgets, manage keybindings etc.
      It is better to improve theming, so programs look better across other desktop environments than to make a new program for the environment, while trying not to make so many environments in the first place, and just tweaking some 'settings'
      of existing one. Look, Ubuntu did that! They dumped Unity, and switched over to GNOME, hey, it IS possible, oh boy!

      Going lower and lower the software stack it becomes harder and harder to follow these rules (Kernel = very hard; Language = hard; DE = medium; Some program = FUCKING EASY)

      Maybe your software company doesn't allow you to do so? (e.g. Red Hat probably won't allow you to work on Plasma instead of GNOME) OK, that is the situation where you have no power, but then don't allow that company to claim it is open-so
      urce. Boycot it.

      Interestingly, where it is the hardest to do, the more people are likely to do so (look how many people collaborate on e.g. LINUX KERNEL) as going their usual way is mostly useless, and they notice it, but they don't when the effort to ma
      ke a new one is lower (but higher than collab) and they are capable of 'succeeding' in their fake worldview.

      Look now, there are so many distros, but we need to tweak every single one of them. Boot process is SHIT on them (multitude of config files to correct that, and some problems still persist, because noone will noce them as they build their
      own set of problems). Installing new software outside of "repo"? BTW. have you noticed that every apt or pacman or yum downloads lots of data just to show you there are new packages? Is this present on android? Yum has deltas, but why do
      esn't apt? What do they do so differntly so they need to implement half baked new one?(yum is slow)

      Code can be a burden, but it can be an asset.

      Tell me what don't you understand?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tichun View Post
        Wikipedia lists 26 linux email clients (there are more).
        Resources are limited, needs are not.
        Open source is made to fight that bullshit duplication of efforts, it is made so Claws Mail team can work together with Thunderbird team, improving their performance if that is their goal, or make a new theme if looks is the point. Are th
        ere key differences? Discuss them, and eventually fork with that VERY LITTLE thing, sharing as much code as possible. You want to remove the bloat? Make the program display a form on startup to help discuss given issue.
        There always is a better way than starting a new SHIT. No email client is good, I like mutt the best, but it is crazy bad, as some other people decided to make their own clients instead of working on it.
        "Hey, but mutt is CLI, and KMail is not!" - so what? make a library that manages core stuff and just write as many interfaces as you want.. while prefering new themes over new toolkits. Make sense people. You probably start a new project
        because someone over some mailing list has hurt your feelings or is not of your faith.

        Why does every 'desktop environment' thinks it needs its own set of programs? I like Plasma (but dwm beats the crap out of it), OK desktop environments are a bit harder to collaborate, but they still can do so, and should
        They just display some widgets, manage keybindings etc.
        It is better to improve theming, so programs look better across other desktop environments than to make a new program for the environment, while trying not to make so many environments in the first place, and just tweaking some 'settings'
        of existing one. Look, Ubuntu did that! They dumped Unity, and switched over to GNOME, hey, it IS possible, oh boy!

        Going lower and lower the software stack it becomes harder and harder to follow these rules (Kernel = very hard; Language = hard; DE = medium; Some program = FUCKING EASY)

        Maybe your software company doesn't allow you to do so? (e.g. Red Hat probably won't allow you to work on Plasma instead of GNOME) OK, that is the situation where you have no power, but then don't allow that company to claim it is open-so
        urce. Boycot it.

        Interestingly, where it is the hardest to do, the more people are likely to do so (look how many people collaborate on e.g. LINUX KERNEL) as going their usual way is mostly useless, and they notice it, but they don't when the effort to ma
        ke a new one is lower (but higher than collab) and they are capable of 'succeeding' in their fake worldview.

        Look now, there are so many distros, but we need to tweak every single one of them. Boot process is SHIT on them (multitude of config files to correct that, and some problems still persist, because noone will noce them as they build their
        own set of problems). Installing new software outside of "repo"? BTW. have you noticed that every apt or pacman or yum downloads lots of data just to show you there are new packages? Is this present on android? Yum has deltas, but why do
        esn't apt? What do they do so differntly so they need to implement half baked new one?(yum is slow)

        Code can be a burden, but it can be an asset.

        Tell me what don't you understand?
        So - Rant time?

        1) There is nothing wrong with competition. Linux has a bunch of friendly competition between the DE's - they also have a whole bunch of collaboration.

        2) The great thing about forking? you can work in your own universe and then, if you choose, you can issue a PR!

        what you see as "duplicated effort" is often people scratching their own itches. Nothing wrong with that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Competition is for closed source.
          Collaboration is for open source.

          I have yet to see as they compete - all I see is implementing same things over and over again, as even the same DE's break their own stuff!

          Have you read what I've written? I said forking isn't to be shunned, just used when there is a real need, and I prefer forking that starting from ground-up unless there is something very wrong with curent implementation, like what google is doing with Fuchsia.

          Comment


          • #6
            Another example:
            There was a news a few days ago that Nano text editor improved performance by 70%. Well.. There is also VIM and Emacs. They should be using same core libs just different user interface and keybindings (wouldn't it be nicer the more they shared?).

            Have you noticed that some BSD is adding Linux DRM code? Would they do it if they could avoid that? No. They are doing that just now out of necessity. Seems like people prefer to fight each other than to collab.

            Valve once said something like that "it's best when everyone is on the same level", that is the case.
            Last edited by tichun; 09-16-2018, 10:19 AM. Reason: valve

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tichun View Post
              BTW. have you noticed that every apt or pacman or yum downloads lots of data just to show you there are new packages? Is this present on android? Yum has deltas, but why do
              esn't apt? What do they do so differntly so they need to implement half baked new one?(yum is slow)

              Code can be a burden, but it can be an asset.

              Tell me what don't you understand?
              Well, Linux is based around package management while Android is not. The content in the Play Store gets loaded and pushed from Google's servers because they have the server capacity. On Linux, even if we disregard the package management, not even the most popular Linux has the same server capacity to do that.
              Last edited by Vistaus; 09-16-2018, 11:47 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tichun View Post
                Another example:
                There was a news a few days ago that Nano text editor improved performance by 70%. Well.. There is also VIM and Emacs. They should be using same core libs just different user interface and keybindings (wouldn't it be nicer the more they shared?).
                I disagree, but aside from that: if you want text editors to use the same core libs, then please only include Nano and Vim. Emacs is waaaay more than just a text editor, so it's not even in the same ballpark as Nano and Vim.

                Originally posted by tichun View Post
                Valve once said something like that "it's best when everyone is on the same level", that is the case.
                That's kind of what Unix developers used to say: "Make each program do one thing well."
                Last edited by Vistaus; 09-16-2018, 11:49 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  While i don't agree with everything tichun wrote, he has a point. There is oftentimes wasteful duplication of effort in the open source world.

                  Still, most apps reuse a ton of common libraries so it is not like they keep reinventing the wheel. For example all email programs use the same openssl library... Also, most of the "hard" code has already been done on the toolkit side. The code that differs typically is the code that would differ even if the code was just a fork and you wanted a different appearence and a couple of different features etc.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tichun View Post
                    *a bunch of stupid shit -- SNIP*
                    Open Source is a pure meritocratic anarchy. Because this is the case people are going to do whatever the hell they want. Which means that they're going to create duplicate projects if they want to regardless of your or anyone else's wishes that everyone would just work on a single project. This is a good thing. If things were done your way we'd always be stuck with the legacy of old garbage, utterly incapable of innovating or changing with the times. There would be no Wayland, no LLVM, no Rust.

                    People like you love to spend your time acting like we're so terribly off because of this, but are we really? The answer is a hard no. LLVM is doing so well as a duplicate competing project to GCC and for that matter Microsoft's own MSVC that LLVM built binaries are becoming quite common even on Windows. Now consider the DE's you people love to whine about, Has KDE or GNOME ever really been that much worse off than the Microsoft Windows version it was competing with? The honest answer is no. They have always had their rough edges, but their rough edges have really been no worse than their proprietary competitor at the time.

                    In so far as Linux has had technical issues "preventing adoption" (rather than the real factors of missing software people want to run and OEMs not installing it by default on anything) it's been on a level where there is no real duplication in the sense you're complaining about, and that would be with its drivers. This has been the one area that Linux has been historically worse than Windows on with a lot of pain around wifi and graphics in particular. Do note, I'm not saying OSS doesn't/hasn't suck(ed), but that the proprietary competitors that do work like you want Open Source to have done no better in the grand scheme of things.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X