Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies
unicorn.consulting at gmail.com
Wed Apr 5 09:52:40 UTC 2017
On 4/5/17 6:17 PM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Magnus Melin wrote on 4/5/17 9:14 AM:
>> On 5.4.2017 03:09, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>>> How did you develop JSMime? You first developed it as a standalone
>>> component, then integrated it in Thunderbird, didn't you? What I
>>> propose here would be doing the same thing. How is that a multiplier?
>> Implementing different features as components with modern design is
>> all good. What's not so good is that you seem to say actually
>> integrating those components into Thunderbird for real usage is a
>> secondary priority. It needs to be *the* priority, because that's the
>> only way you could get enough real world feedback.
> I want to build a new desktop email client, based on web tech with a
> modern code design, which imitates Thunderbird and eventually has
> feature parity.
We have a mature product and a lot of mature users. You do not
seriously believe that launching a "new" product that is not at feature
parity will fly with the users do you?. You will probably satisfy some
users, but a significant number of them would be happy if you just
updated outlook express to run properly on Windows 10. They are very
unlikely to be those putting their money or time where their mouth is.
They like free as in beer and will just move on to the next free as in
beer product with more features.
I would suggest anyone on this list thinking a modular approach is a
good idea should try using the Lithium version of SUMO. That is a
perfect example of a modular building process that simply does not work
well. Lithium is well funded and has lots of staff, Mozilla have been
throwing people at it and it simply is not flying. I see it, and read
this thread and can not help drawing comparisons. New, shiny,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tb-planning