3 ms·
> "A client could do that" is true. It's also unhelpful. That's a fundamental disagreement. I know some people like tightly walled gardens where there can only
by jjav 4y ago
> "A client could do that" is true. It's also unhelpful.
That's a fundamental disagreement. I know some people like tightly walled gardens where there can only be one client and you're stuck with its limitations. Personally, I despise those systems and will do everything to avoid them.
> Consistency is valuable
Consistency is not valuable in this context, it is a straightjacket. I want a client which works exactly the way I want, which is likely different from what you want. So we need probably different clients, or at least an extremely configurable one.
This is why email is so wonderful and I use it above all else. I can have my client which I love and others can have their clients which they love and I find unusable but we can all be happy.
- eropple 4y agoI completely agree--it absolutely is a fundamental disagreement! It's also why "but why won't people use IRC?" is misguided. I won't use IRC because I don't value what it does anymore. I valued it a lot more when almost everyone I talked to was as much of a computer nerd as I am--that's no longer the case and the computer-nerdy parts of my life are complementary pieces rather than core ones now, so I want different things. The idea that IRC might be better was why I clicked on this thread in the first place, before I really parsed the srht part of it, 'cause my values absolutely do not overlap with theirs. (Which is fine. Like what you like!)