EDIT: I failed to notice the date stamp, you can ignore this.
Jeeze. Linus writes like C++ killed his dog or something.
There's plenty of great C++ 'wins' over C that make just doing everyday programming tasks so much easier and simpler for no cost.
You don't need to write so abstract and in the clouds that it becomes impossible to maintain - I certainly don't.
And frankly, you can shoot yourself in the foot just as easily with C, just in different ways.
To be clear: I'm not saying the kernel needs C++, I'm not qualified to write on that specifically. But I am saying C++ is not nearly as bad as he makes it out to be.
made it out to be. That post is over 15 years old at this point, which goes to the very point of the posted article - C++ has (subjective opinion here) improved a lot in that time.
No idea what his current opinion on C++ is. Personally I'd rather there was no C++ or Rust in the Linux kernel. IMHO it would be significantly less of a cognitive burden to convert the entire kernel gradually to C++ than Rust.
But I would necessarily hold a man to opinions he held 15 years ago when the landscape has changed so much in that time. Rust was only born the previous year (2006) and not championed by Mozilla until 2009. Yet here we are and there is support in the official kernel for it anyway, whereas C++? Not so much.
Note the year. While I used C++ long before that and certainly didn't agree with him, the C++ Linus took issue with was a lot worse than the C++ of today.
Yes, set up with Luke Smith's excellent mutt Wizard [0].
Contrary to the other point, having a local copy of my emails gives me a sense of security and I can set up scripts using normal scripting tools to move stuff around. `notmuch` is good, but actually I can meet most of my searching needs with a 'limit' filter.
FWIW, Luke Smith has some problematic political views (as in far right/alt-right). You do you but I personally avoid sharing/using any of his content for that reason.
Yeah, he also did some excellent YouTube videos and tutorials which helped me get into i3 and mutt, but I find it hard to recommend them now because they're mixed in on his channel with some weird ranty videos that, at best, don't have much to do with tech.
I still recommend mutt Wizard though because it makes it so much easier to get everything set up. I feel like it should be absorbed into neomutt or similar because it feels like such a basic thing to get right.
I use Mutt with gmail. For a while I hooked it up to read off the internet, but eventually I switched to OfflineIMAP, then to isync. For sending I us msmtp. Both are pretty straightforward to configure, especially compared to mutt itself. I'd definitely recommend using notmuch if you do decide to keep that local copy of your mail, the search is pretty incredible.
Last time I tried it, and I heard that's still the case, offlineimap had some sporadic instabilities that have not been fixed for years. I don't remember the exact details, but it just stops working in some situations and you have to restart it.
isync/mbsync are rock-solid on the other hand and were really easy to set up.
Definitely worth it. Two reasons: first, you can use it using your muscle memory (think vim), and second: it's fast. Many people nowadays are used to this (usually) slight lag in whatever you do via the web interfaces, but using something that reacts immediately is much nicer, at least to me.
> Does anyone use Mutt with gmail or alikes today? Is it worth it?
I use mutt with gmail account (and with everything else, although primarily I use my self-hosted email server). Works fine with gmail.
> But gave it up for Gmail web interface.
The web interface is so inferior, I can't imagine using it by choice (I'm forced by $EMPLOYER to use the gmail web interface, so I suffer through that pain daily).
It's almost unthinkable to me that you consider/ed gmail to be better. mutt was miles ahead of gmail already back then, and the difference just grew with the various gmail redesigns.
I'd like to know why you gave it up for gmail.
Is it because of the way terminal programs look?
I know it's all opinion but I find I quite like using html mail and not having to worry about configuring a bunch of stuff on Gmail to get done what I want to do. As far as search it has always been sufficient and the speed is okay for what I do, I rarely get more than 10-20 emails a day.
Mutt and Gmail work fine together. I always find myself opening up the web UI when I need to search, though. I’ve taken a a few steps down the notmuch path a few times but it feels like such a big Thing to have to set up a whole local mail system just for search.
I'm considering it now that my nostalgia is flaring up.
One thing that was a pain point in the past was offline use. If your mail provider is IMAP only then you need to hack stuff together to use offline. As a paranoid freak I prefer to have offline copies of everything.
> I'm considering it now that my nostalgia is flaring up.
That's one valid reason but it's unfortunate IMO to see it that way.
Mutt (and similar, although I use mutt) are just so much inherently better than any web interface can ever be. The configurability and access to pipe content to other processes cannot be matched.
It's pretty easy to set up OfflineIMAP or isync or similar to sync a local copy of your mail (in fact, this is a great way to back up your IMAP mailboxes whether you use mutt or not!).
Then you just point mutt at the local copy instead of the IMAP server and it doesn't matter if you're online or offline.
I don't remember if OfflineIMAP was the tool I tried or not, but at the time it was quite challenging. I always suspected that rate limiting on the mail server was blowing up the download tool, but I couldn't figure it out. This was a fair number of years ago though, so things are hopefully better now.
I use these tools for email: Getmail -> sortmail -> mutt
Getmail just gets the email (pop or imap). sortmail is an MDA I wrote to replace procmail. It basically just filters emails into maildir folders. Mutt to read and respond to the emails.
