Re: [Evolution-hackers] PIM application suite

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 05:03, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
> > the mailer will always depend on the addressbook and
> > calendar, so
> > whether you load them into the window or not is
> > irrelevant.
> > 
> > in fact, I don't see why you wouldn't just load them
> > into the main shell
> > window anyway, they're loaded!
> > 
> > no sense making the user run 3 apps having each
> > component loaded into
> > each of them. it just wastes more resources.
> > 
> 
> the GUI wastes far more resources than a command line,
> yet the GUI is far more usable.  resources are
> irrelevant here, especially when 128 megs of ram or
> more these days for a simple PIM suite.  they should
> be split up because they are different functions. not
> because they aren't related. you simply aren't
> understanding this. mail != contacts != calendar. yes
> they are all INTERDEPENDENT. they are even related.
> but they are not the same function, it's just that
> simple.  if you try and cram too much functionality
> into one interface it's incohesive to the average
> user.

doesn't seem to bother the average user, if it did... there wouldn't be
Outlook or GroupWise or Lotus Notes or... a zillion other groupware
suites.

in fact, you seem to be the only one (or, at best, one of a handful)
bothered by this.

>  it's a linear function. the more options a user
> has to choose, the more chance of failure to find the
> option they want and the increased time to find said
> option.

how hard is it, really, to say "I want to make an appointment. I need to
switch to calendar because obviously mail doesn't do that"

you're saying the average user can't handle that, yet you want to split
the applications which forces these users to have to know which
application does what? it's the same bloody decision.


>  it makes interfaces scary and bloated.

ah, bloated. the most overused and least understood word used when
describing software.

>   i'm
> not sure why you can't understand this.

I'm not sure why *you* can't understand this.

>   the key to a
> good application is focus.

there is focus. where is there not focus? how is there not focus?

>   there's something to be
> said about an app that does ONE thing well, and
> strives only to do that one thing.

ah, the good ol' "do one thing, and do it well" argument. the most
widely used and yet least understood statement used by non software
developers when trying to argue something.

for a loose definition of "ONE", everything does ONE thing well and
strives to only do one thing.

if we split out the mailer, for example, would it really only be doing
"ONE" thing? depends on how you define "ONE", obviously. It replies to
mail, it composes mail, it forwards mail, it filters mail, it fetches
mail, it sends mail, it displays mail, as well as numerous other things.
That's not one thing... so I guess by your definition each of these
functions should be a separate application too? :-)

>   this doesn't mean
> this independent app can't fully integrate with other
> related applications (like a calendar or contacts
> program integrating with a mail app).

if you completely split them, then yes, it would mean that.

> 
> > evolution --component=contacts
> then this should be the default

no, I disagree.

> , and there should be
> several evolution-pim scripts installed by default as
> evolution-contacts, evolution-calendar, and
> evolution-mail.

no, if a distributor wanted this, then they could make separate menu
entries - one to launch each of the components. that would be the proper
way to do it, not writing shell scripts. average users don't use the
command-line.

Jeff