The ideal mail client?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 08:15 -0700, Mike Cloaked wrote:
> 
> 
> Patrick O'Callaghan-2 wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 10:47 +0930, Tim wrote:
> >> > For instance there's little reason not to use VideoLan (VLC) as the
> >> > standard media player in Linux....
> > 
> > Does anyone in the Real World actually think of themselves as using a
> > "media player"? Perhaps they consider playing video and playing music to
> > be two different things. Now there's a thought ...
> > 
> >> I find it even slower to get started than any of the alternatives, and
> >> a
> >> bit CPU heavy.  So that's quite a nuisance when you're file managing
> >> (e.g. double click on something in a list of other things, to work out
> >> what's what, and there's an awful lot of waiting involved).  RhythmBox
> >> is also quite heavy, with all that baggage of being a library of all
> >> your files, which is quite painful when my music collection is on the
> >> file server, accessed via NFS.  And Totem is a behemoth that doesn't
> >> let
> >> you do much (few codecs included, few remote ones ever found, etc.).
> > 
> > I use Amarok for music (and have a fairly serious dislike of its new
> > look, but that's beside the point). For "click-to-play" video I use
> > Dragon, which is simple, effective and above all fast. I reserve VLC for
> > the harder cases.
> > 
> > poc
> > 
> > 
> 
> How does this link to the topic on email clients?

It doesn't. The thread went off at a tangent. Let's leave it at that.

poc