[ydl-gen] Re: pine: was: Re: JOB POSTING: Application Evangelist

[Eric Dunbar]

> > I'm not arguing against the UW and the way they are handling pine, just
> > pointing out the pitfalls and trying to explain the reluctance others
> > have about using it. It's almost an economic certainty that those who
> > don't have the protection of GPL will eventually get bit.
> 
> That's making a pretty big assumption. As I wrote above, pine is past
> its saleable prime. Yes, it's a damn good piece of software, but it's
> not beyond being replicated by another team (I'm sure people would
> take that dog of a software, mutt and do something good with it if
> pine were to disappear). CuSeeMe was a trailblazer at its time and

And, I think the reason noone has replicated pine yet (unlike pico vs.
nano) is that it's not *that* simple (vs. pico) to do and pine is an
excellent piece of software vs. the other OSS mailers that exist (mutt
is a dog as far as usability is concerned) (and, of course, developing
for a CLUI is not sexy).

Eric.