5 ms·

Honestly, depending on what you're comparing to, i consider mutt a step forward in terms of usability. How long does your search for a specific email take usin

Honestly, depending on what you're comparing to, i consider mutt a step forward in terms of usability. How long does your search for a specific email take using the Gmail interface? I bet it's longer than using an indexing backend like notmuch or mu locally :)

deong 11y ago
I generally agree with you (I use a text-based mua myself), but your specific example isn't great. Gmail -- probably rather predictably -- does search as well as or better than anyone in the world, including your local installation of mu. In Gmail specifically, it's instant.
- toothbrush 11y ago
  I find the Gmail interface slows down dramatically when i'm in the train without an internet connection. Mu, on the other hand, keeps on trucking. /s :)
mrits 11y ago
If anyone wants to compare, I just searched my gmail for a project I did back in 2008. It took ~400 ms retrieve and render the search results.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I just tried a search in Gmail. Took a fraction of a second. I tried one in Claws email client which pulls local copies of the emails. Happened instantly as you predicted. Caching speeds up search indeed. Now, what does a fraction of a second improvement on search have to do with security and usability of email? That would have very little impact on my choice of email client.
- toothbrush 11y ago
  You're right about it being irrelevant to security. Somewhere else in this thread i pointed out that this isn't a motivation for me, so i agree with you there. The only reason i bring up search speed is to rebut the assertion elsewhere in the thread that my email client is a step backwards in usability/features. For me, the advantages are: works all over (e.g., i can find out my buddy's apartment address from an email in 2008 even if i'm nowhere near wifi), it's snappy, keyboard-driven (like, really -- Google Mail with their cute mnemonics or Thunderbird with shortcuts don't count), text-only (because i'm a nerd, and perhaps you could argue vague hand-wavey security stuff here), and because i can Elisp my way out of sticky situations. Especially the Elisp. On that last point, you might well contend that if i used an email client to your liking i wouldn't need to Elisp my way out of anything, but i think that's beside the point. For the first time in years (i've been using mu4e for a year now, and before that mutt, starting 2006) i've actually been able to make my client do exactly what i want using a real programming language -- certain formatting hacks, PGP to certain people in certain circumstances, email address completion the way i want it, etc. But anyway, it's probably not for everyone :). There's also no such thing as a "best" email client, probably -- i'm just partial to the create-your-own-MUA kit that i've found in mu4e :). This is waaaay off-topic though, i'm not even talking about mutt any more. Sorry, i got a little carried away :).
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Oh, it's OK: it was an interesting comment and relevant to why people still use things like this. Keyboard-driven, works in low bandwidth, and hackable are definite advantages. I could see geeks (even me) enjoying something like that. I also agree that the "best" client is relative to the needs of the user.

deong 11y ago

I generally agree with you (I use a text-based mua myself), but your specific example isn't great. Gmail -- probably rather predictably -- does search as well as or better than anyone in the world, including your local installation of mu. In Gmail specifically, it's instant.

toothbrush 11y ago
I find the Gmail interface slows down dramatically when i'm in the train without an internet connection. Mu, on the other hand, keeps on trucking. /s :)

mrits 11y ago

If anyone wants to compare, I just searched my gmail for a project I did back in 2008. It took ~400 ms retrieve and render the search results.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I just tried a search in Gmail. Took a fraction of a second. I tried one in Claws email client which pulls local copies of the emails. Happened instantly as you predicted. Caching speeds up search indeed. Now, what does a fraction of a second improvement on search have to do with security and usability of email? That would have very little impact on my choice of email client.

toothbrush 11y ago
You're right about it being irrelevant to security. Somewhere else in this thread i pointed out that this isn't a motivation for me, so i agree with you there. The only reason i bring up search speed is to rebut the assertion elsewhere in the thread that my email client is a step backwards in usability/features. For me, the advantages are: works all over (e.g., i can find out my buddy's apartment address from an email in 2008 even if i'm nowhere near wifi), it's snappy, keyboard-driven (like, really -- Google Mail with their cute mnemonics or Thunderbird with shortcuts don't count), text-only (because i'm a nerd, and perhaps you could argue vague hand-wavey security stuff here), and because i can Elisp my way out of sticky situations. Especially the Elisp. On that last point, you might well contend that if i used an email client to your liking i wouldn't need to Elisp my way out of anything, but i think that's beside the point. For the first time in years (i've been using mu4e for a year now, and before that mutt, starting 2006) i've actually been able to make my client do exactly what i want using a real programming language -- certain formatting hacks, PGP to certain people in certain circumstances, email address completion the way i want it, etc. But anyway, it's probably not for everyone :). There's also no such thing as a "best" email client, probably -- i'm just partial to the create-your-own-MUA kit that i've found in mu4e :). This is waaaay off-topic though, i'm not even talking about mutt any more. Sorry, i got a little carried away :).
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Oh, it's OK: it was an interesting comment and relevant to why people still use things like this. Keyboard-driven, works in low bandwidth, and hackable are definite advantages. I could see geeks (even me) enjoying something like that. I also agree that the "best" client is relative to the needs of the user.