<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<link href="chrome://translator/skin/floatingPanel.css"
type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/11/2012 7:08 AM, Eric Moore
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite">I've
been trying to follow the discussion about SwanFox and I didn't
get the arguments why adding enterprise support and support for
other types of accounts is critical.</blockquote>
<br>
Non integration of a calendar and the absence of EMAPI support are
both things that Thunderbird needs. Are the critical? No. Are they
needed? Yes and badly.<br>
<br>
I seriously doubt having features you don't use is really an
issue. You get the odd person who gets all steamed up about some
feature (the current favourite is chat) but seriously Microsoft word
users mostly use about 10% of the products features. I really doubt
my own Thunderbird usage is much more. I certainly don't care if it
gets a facebook timeline view. I simply would not use it.<br>
<br>
Your "ordinary user" does not use an email client. The web
interface provided by their host or chosen free provider meets their
needs, and avoids the added complication of having mail on a
computer when they really want it on their phone and iPad. What is
left is a lot of refugees from Microsoft Products (the absence of an
Outlook client licence in Microsoft Office helps) and people running
businesses. From what I see in support, many are very small one or
two person businesses, operated by individuals with little or no
technical skills, doing everything on the cheap. <br>
<br>
Others would be more than prepared to pay for support, if it was
timely and for the US based at least "came with a phone number".
There are also many technically challenged that really do need
remote desktop support. I have no intention of offering it, but if
SwanFox wanted to, I certainly would welcome the move. I would like
to see a professional organisation to whom we could refer these
people.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite"> I
get a really uneasy feeling when somebody suggests "Partner
certification" and "integrating paid support options provided by
SwanFox".
<br>
</blockquote>
Why? The door has always been open for people to offer paid
"whatever your fancy is" contracts to develop and support
Thunderbird for the enterprise. The fact is that I can pay a very
dubious Thunderbird support technician from "answers.com" $AU46 or
go over to the official support channel and get help for free. That
is now, not at some future time.<br>
<br>
What is wrong with some people who actually contribute to the
project making some money from the process if they can? (I don't see
that big cheque from Answers.com sharing their profits from the
exercise in the Mozilla financials), at least the SwanFox discussion
is talking about supporting the project.)<br>
<br>
"Partner certification" is that really anything more than badges on
steroids? Mozilla certifies the knowledge of the individual for the
badge, there is nothing to stop them certifying a business entity,
based on the badges it's employees hold.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite">
<br>
Nobody seemed to want to talk about whether anybody who would
continue to contribute a significant amount of time providing free
support or bug fixes for Thunderbird would feel like they're a
sucker.</blockquote>
As people are already making money from Thunderbird, in my example
support, I really fail to see the merit of this view. So someone
else starts up, so what?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite"> It
would also seem to marginalize user communities such as GeckoZone
and MozillaZine.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
GekoZone is dead, as I read it. I have always failed to understand
the continuing purpose of MozillaZine as a support provider or as a
knowledge base. Mozilla provide official support and official
knowledge base channels, but instead of the community working
together, we now have two of everything, the only one that suffers
is the user, as to get the best support they need to go to both
places, and ask their question twice. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite">My
impression was that in the past the needs of ordinary users were
explicitly chosen over the needs of the enterprise, due to
potential conflicts of interest and limited development resources.
Swanfox seems to be either saying that logic doesn't apply
anymore, or that while ordinary users would get the short end of
the stick they'd still be better off than the alternatives.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Given that there is no sharing of Mozilla development resources,
there is nothing here. If XYZ company is prepared to develop and
supply a patch to deliver their niche thing, it is simply a matter
for the module owners to ensure it does not adversely affect your
"ordinary user" by screwing up their experience.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite">
<br>
I always got the impression that one of the problems with
Thunderbird was that the project was essentially herding cats. You
accepted the fact that caused some puzzling features to be added
or other new features never to be finished. It seems it would be
even worse (for ordinary users) if what gets fixed or what new
features are added is driven by the needs of specific enterprises.
<br>
</blockquote>
I really fail to understand your logic. There is little that the
enterprise would use that is not relevant to the "ordinary user"
Many seek support to connect to "work" mail servers. Others want to
get their "work calendar" this is far from unusual, it is fast
becoming the norm.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite">
<br>
Then I read:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">"dedicated to enhancing Mozilla
Thunderbird" is not how I would describe
<br>
the core mission of Swanfox. Rather, Swanfox is a community that
is
<br>
dedicated to providing income to its members, using means that
are
<br>
consistent with Mozilla values, and working within the general
area of
<br>
internet communications clients beginning with the Mozilla
codebase.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
and
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I like the way that you expressed this
question, Gerv - "does Swanfox
<br>
have a privileged relationship with Mozilla"? The short answer
is
<br>
ideally yes.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
None of the Thunderbird forks (PostBox, Spicebird etc.) seem to be
a success. Giving SwanFix a privileged relationship with Mozilla
might significantly harm Thunderbird's future, and all for
nothing. I'd like to hear why that risk is worthwhile.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I read this discussion, this "swanfox" is a commercial enterprise
trying to make money off Thunderbird, it is directly contributing to
the Thunderbird code base and as such would have a privileged
position. Postbox et al are hardly making any open source
contributions are they so there position is far from privileged.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A40137.1090501@fastmail.fm" type="cite">
<br>
I had assumed that SwanFox was basically a way of funding
improvements for Thunderbird by providing some paid services,
mainly for the enterprise. Now it appears that is not its main
goal. Will SwanFix be free to ordinary users?
<br>
</blockquote>
See my comment above. I don't see this discussion as a Fork, so as
there will be no "SwanFox email program" the question is moot.<br>
<br>
Matt
<div style="bottom: auto; left: 561px; right: auto; top: 123px;
display: none;" class="translator-theme-default"
id="translator-floating-panel">
<div title="Click to translate"
id="translator-floating-panel-button"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>