TB End Users survey - do not distribute

Axel axel.grude at googlemail.com
Fri Jul 20 21:58:37 UTC 2012


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*To: *"Axel"<axel.grude at googlemail.com>
*From: *"Patrick Cloke"<clokep at gmail.com>
*CC: *"tb-planning" tb-planning at mozilla.org
*Sent: *Friday, 20/07/12 22:12:08 22:12 GMT +0100 [Week 29]
*Subject:*Re: TB End Users survey - do not distribute
> On 7/20/2012 3:57 PM, Axel wrote:
>>
>>> I was actually referring to using Outlook + Lync here though, but really my point 
>>> was just that it's useful when you receive an email to know what that person is 
>>> currently doing (can you call, IM, stop by or email them back).
>> Yesss! Thunderbird gets at least 50% more useful with that - well in a group 
>> /working /environment, that is. Thing is, I don't make a habit of firing up my chat 
>> client on my private machine (partly because I am spoiled for choice - YM? MSN? 
>> Skype?), but if it was just a switch in Tb, I would very likely have it running all 
>> day.
>>
>>> There are many features that can be supported via IM though (potentially voice, 
>>> video, white boarding, screen sharing...just to name a few).  Luckily both the IRC 
>>> and XMPP implementations in Instantbird/Thunderbird are fairly extensible.
>> double cool. Is there a plan to integrate a thin client IRC out of the box (rather 
>> than having to bolt on chatZilla)? That would be the most useful for me personally. 
>> At the moment I am using chatZilla via SM to keep my Thunderbird profile "cleanish".
> A "thin client IRC out of the box"?  XMPP and IRC are supported (and therefore, 
> Google Talk and Facebook Chat since they are XMPP).  I'm not sure of what your 
> question is then.  I guess I'm not understanding what you mean by "thin client" or 
> why you would rather use ChatZilla instead of the built-in IRC. 
Give it to me, if it works :P

Possibly because I haven't tried it yet :) Wenn I started using IRC I used kvIrc, 
which was a really scarring experience. chatZilla was a great improvement on that, but 
still not quite "there" in terms of integration.
> (And how it makes the profile "dirtyish".)
Well, the chatZilla (as IRC client) is quite a huge interface, with big settings 
screens and lots of (too many) complicated UI settings. with 331 kBytes I would call 
it quite a heavyweight... I guess by thin client I mean something more integrated, and 
little more minimal; sort of like facebook chat, just with full command line 
support... of course it needs tabs for multi-channel support.

Since I have 5 Thunderbird+ (SM,Pb and some FX) extensions that need  to be cared for 
and I have many reboots over the day I don't even know whether I could use IRC on my 
production Thunderbird, unless it would buffer conversations and re-load them between 
restarts. So I might actually have to stick with chatZilla in SM... the big advantage 
of IRC is that it is more or less designed to run permanently, unobtrusively in the 
background, and bundles many conversations into one channel.
>>> And we'll definitely encourage that for any other protocols added to chat/ (anyone 
>>> want to make a SIP/SIMPLE implementation?) :)
>> there might be some scope in papercuts here? Don't know how much work is involved. 
>> We need some interns for this kind of work!! ;)
> This is certainly more than a papercut. :)
like I said, we need interns! :)

Ax
|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20120720/bd01c2d2/attachment.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list