Anyone use KMail? Any benefits in using it versus Mozilla''s mail client (which I currently use)?

I use KMail, it''s a good mail client. I don''t really know how it compares to the latest version in Mozilla. I mainly use it because it''s integrated into KDE (that would be its biggest benefit), so clicking on a mailto: link somewhere in KDE works perfectly.

cu,
Prefect

I used to use KMail, back before Mozilla was released and when I actually ran Linux day-to-day (right now I don''t have a computer, so technically I don''t run anything). Anyway, at the time KMail was the smoothest Linux email client, though I''ve tried tons - Balsa, Magellan and others whose names I''ve forgotten. Mozilla Mail doesn''t impress me much.

quote: Original post by Prefect
I mainly use it because it''s integrated into KDE (that would be its biggest benefit), so clicking on a mailto: link somewhere in KDE works perfectly.

That''s something I would love to see end, but it''ll require either more beefing up of the FreeDesktop project and compatibility or the insertion of a "base services" layer between xlib and your WM of choice. It''d be nice, though, because then you''d be able to choose software based on what suits you best rather than compatibility vs incompatibility.

Back to lurking...

I use KMail, though I am a super Linux n00b and don''t get much mail often, I''m not sure I''ve set it up properly. Don''t suggest emailing myself, because that''s depressing

quote:
That''s something I would love to see end, but it''ll require either more beefing up of the FreeDesktop project and compatibility or the insertion of a "base services" layer between xlib and your WM of choice. It''d be nice, though, because then you''d be able to choose software based on what suits you best rather than compatibility vs incompatibility.

That is so true! Well, one can dream...

cu,
Prefect

quote: Original post by Prefect
That is so true! Well, one can dream...

One can also work. The beauty of Open Source isn''t merely that you freely benefit from the work of others, but that others (and yourself, of course) can benefit from your own. I''m dissatisfied with the disjoint window manager situation, and would like to see improved configuration facilities for Linux. Window managers rely on X Windows, and some have been agitating for a successor to X that uses a more lightweight network protocol. Seeking to address those two concerns, I could write 2 application layers for X, the first to sit between X server/client and the system sockets and marshall X protocol communications into something more compact. Both client and server would need to have this layer installed (implicit for single workstations, but an issue for network-transparent operation across multiple workstations). I don''t upset too much of the existing system, but I improve the way things work. Over time the layer might even be absorbed into the next X iteration.

The second layer would sit between Xlib and WMs, though the WMs would need to be rewritten to use it. It would essentially be a set of base services for X WMs. Oh, wait, there''s already a library that does that. Open Source? Check. So beef it up and agitate WM authors to use it properly *ahem* KDE *ahem*.

Moving on to address the configuration issue (which is the fact that each application uses its own configuration file format and lingo), I could write a configurations manager that stores all data in XML format (XML because of its metadata properties, not because it''s the "cool thing to do right now") and maintains settings and filters to generate traditional config files for each application when started first time or when config is changed. The advantage? All my config is done using the same GUI - adaptable to the application''s requirements because of the aforementioned metadata, which tells the GUI what kinds of controls and options to display - and stored in an easily determined place, yet I don''t lose the flexibility of each application nor the robustness of storing configuration data in several locations.

Even if I lack the skills to do all this, I can suggest it to people who do, comment on design and functionality and offer to beta test, document, make announcements/advertisements, lobby people to use (distribution packagers in particular), etc. And that''s what makes Open Source so great!