Subject: Re: Suggestions

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:54:48 -0800 (PST)

Andrew, Barry, Jack, Michael, Mike, John, et al:

Here are a few reactions and comments from one of the culprits...

> We wanted to have something that was simple to use, required no user
> configuration...

And it's still true that Pine *requires* no user configuration.  Erase
your .pinerc (and maybe even your pine.conf) and you can verify this for
yourself.  In fact, you'll see a Pine that looks remarkably similar to the
very earliest versions, except that it has more consistency across
screens. 

Even PC-Pine users never need edit their PINERC if they want a minimalist
Pine (or, as suggested, "pinelet").  That's because the first time they
run it, PC-Pine will prompt them for the configuration essentials (name,
imap server, smtp server). 

One of the reasons we have not made the "Pine Configuration" screen our
highest priority is that it has always been our view that the config
options were there primarily for those who were not intimidated by them.  

> Now creeping featurism threatens to swallow Pine whole.
> Pine is now complicated.

Note that some of you want the options to be *less* accessible, if not go
away altoghether, while others actually want them to be *more* accessible
(easier to configure.)  We won't talk about those of you who want lots 
*more* options, but you know who you are! :)

Remember, these creeping features that have swallowed Pine are indeed
*options*; those who do not explicitly turn them on, do not suffer any
added complexity. (Exception:  if the system admin turns them on in the
pine.conf, well... that's a local policy decision.  Also, the new status
indicators in the Index, + and A, are not configurable.)

> How about a menu-driven configuration built into pine with documentation
> to explain what the various options mean.

Planned.  But I suppose we need to make its presence configurable, in 
order to keep both the "no features" and "easier features" camps happy :)

> In order to satisfy both "normal" users and power users I would prefer
> to have a "User Level" command with options "beginner" and "advanced" 

Old timers will recall that we used to do just that:  there was a 
normal/basic mode and an "old-growth"/advanced mode.  However, we found 
that many options are a question of personal taste, and did not relate to 
experience level, so this model broke down.  There is still a novice 
mode, of course: it's what you get if you don't turn on any options!

> User support gets harder as more arcane features/options are added. 
> Instead of having 20 advisors who know all about Pine 3.0x, we're unlikely
> to have more than 5 who'll get to grips with all of Pine 3.8x. 

Could we get those 5 to help us with pine-bugs support? :)  

Mike's point is valid, of course, but on the other hand each site needs to
define it's own base configuration and level of support.  

Suppose that there was a "pinelet"... a base version that had no options. 
A user asks "How can I do xxx in Pinelet?"  The support staff says "Sorry,
it can't be done in Pinelet."  whereas the corresponding answer for
regular Pine might be: "Sorry, that feature is not available in the Pine
configuration supported at this site".  (Or they could say "RTFM"...)

But if folks really want a "pinelet", you can have it right now!  Just
have "pinelet" be an alias for "pine -p /usr/local/dummy.pinerc" and
presto. no personal pinerc and no user-settable options!  Just good-old,
simple Pine :)  (PC users wanting a "pinelet" must simply use some 
self-discipline and *pretend* they don't have a PINERC...)

> ... and which (one of early Pine's proud boasts) didn't need
> paper documentation because it was so small. 

Well, with Pine option configuration disabled as above, that's probably
still true, too!  (At least as true as it ever was...  documentation is a
funny thing.  Some people will use online but not hard-copy, some are just
the opposite, and the vast majority refuse to use either! :)

-teg