cept that like a mail client... its really hard. :-(
2009-08-07 21921, 2009
ruaok nods at LotR
2009-08-07 21928, 2009
warp
I really don't understand what's hard about mail :)
2009-08-07 21943, 2009
pronik
gmail is nice
2009-08-07 21944, 2009
LotR
warp: go read the RFCs
2009-08-07 21949, 2009
pronik
I like how the reduce the primitives
2009-08-07 21905, 2009
warp
LotR: we're not talking about MTA's, but MUA's
2009-08-07 21907, 2009
pronik
LotR: we are talking about MUA I guess
2009-08-07 21912, 2009
pronik
warp: ding!
2009-08-07 21916, 2009
warp
LotR: only needs to speak IMAP imo.
2009-08-07 21916, 2009
LotR
warp: then, go figure out how all other clients are incompatible with the RFCs and how you have to work around that
2009-08-07 21945, 2009
LotR
you still need to understand the format of a message
2009-08-07 21959, 2009
LotR
also, yay unicode
2009-08-07 21934, 2009
warp
LotR: sure, but parsing mail is Solved, there are excellent libraries for that sort of ithn.g
2009-08-07 21945, 2009
LotR
and 'only IMAP' is funny too.. good luck getting it to work nicely against every imap server
2009-08-07 21915, 2009
warp
well, _I_ don't need every :)
2009-08-07 21935, 2009
LotR
because you're not writing a client.
2009-08-07 21904, 2009
srotta
And of course, there's this thing called UI.
2009-08-07 21911, 2009
srotta
Which is pretty much impossible to get right.
2009-08-07 21933, 2009
srotta
Particularly in open source.
2009-08-07 21904, 2009
LotR
if only existing clients had better ui/logic seperation. then I could at least make the UI right *for me*
2009-08-07 21939, 2009
srotta
LotR: Doesn't Thunderbird use XUL and it's therefore Perfect?
2009-08-07 21940, 2009
warp
pronik: uzbl looks like way too much work :)
2009-08-07 21921, 2009
warp
srotta: oh, I want my mail client textmode, it doesn't need all that much UI.
2009-08-07 21910, 2009
srotta
warp: Well, Pine does IMAP, it uses text mode => mission accomplished.
2009-08-07 21935, 2009
warp
it's probably just as good as mutt
2009-08-07 21933, 2009
warp
(which is pretty bad :)
2009-08-07 21950, 2009
LotR
srotta: uh, right.
2009-08-07 21926, 2009
ruaok has quit
2009-08-07 21936, 2009
outsidecontext_ joined the channel
2009-08-07 21911, 2009
Rondom_
Rondom_ is now known as Rondom
2009-08-07 21937, 2009
pronik has quit
2009-08-07 21905, 2009
outsidecontext has quit
2009-08-07 21954, 2009
pronik joined the channel
2009-08-07 21957, 2009
brianfreud
luks: serious props... this multiple artists implementation is really nice.
2009-08-07 21951, 2009
brianfreud
There's one missing view, but I think that's just a question of our writing the right templates -> Being able to narrow down to only see those releases Foo & Bar both are on
2009-08-07 21929, 2009
luks
that's easy to add, but I'm not sure if it's that useful
2009-08-07 21917, 2009
brianfreud
well, take an artist who worked with a lot of people - Bob Marley, or Neil Young
2009-08-07 21939, 2009
brianfreud
for those, you may have a good many releases with the same collab
2009-08-07 21903, 2009
luks
arguably those should have their own artist entries
2009-08-07 21938, 2009
brianfreud
arguably, but I think, in most cases, I'd come down on those still being only collabs, not group artists in their own right
2009-08-07 21951, 2009
brianfreud
I think the dividing line would be when the collab gives themselves a name
