<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/20/2016 1:48 PM, Ben Bucksch
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ben.bucksch@beonex.com"><ben.bucksch@beonex.com></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I don't want Thunderbird to make the same fatal mistake. Slipping
into it is one thing. Running into it consciously is just
inexcusable.</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think anyone is 'running into it', we are simply pointing
out the reality.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite">As magnus said, it's a "choice" that effectively means
abandoning the product. I hope nobody wants that for Thunderbird.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Do you not understand that that is precisely the reason that we are
discussing this?<br>
<br>
If we are unable to:<br>
<br>
a) agree on a path forward, and<br>
b) muster the man hours to accomplish the goal<br>
<br>
then we will be *forced* into a choice of *fork or die*.<br>
<br>
You say that forking Gecko would 'kill Thunderbird'.<br>
<br>
I say that, eventually, if things don't change, *not* forking Gecko
will kill Thunderbird.<br>
<br>
This will happen the day that Thunderbird refuses to build - or the
builds refuse to run - because of the loss of the critical Gecko
components (XUL/XBL/XPCOM). *This* is the day Thunderbird really,
truly and actually *dies* - well, rather, it *begins* to die.
Obviously it won't happen overnight. There is nothing preventing me
from continuing to use the last working version, and I could do so
for many years.<br>
<br>
At that point, if both options a and b above have not been achieved,
then forking Gecko, while highly undesirable, is the *only* option
available, if we want to have any more working versions of
Thunderbird past that point.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite">
Please stop posting "fork gecko" as choice. It's a straw man. It's
the "kill thunderbird" choice.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, it may be the *only* option to keep it *alive* (albeit on
life support).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite">
(And kill its users at the same time, because they'll get hacked
by worms and loose control over their computer.</blockquote>
<br>
Or we simply start disabling HTML features that said malware/worms
rely on (ie loading/executing remote content, etc), with an option
to re-enable it via <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="about:config">about:config</a> (complete with all the necessary
warnings), unless/until we get the core components rewritten.<br>
<br>
But, the bottom line is, even current versions of email clients are
vulnerable, because the primary vector are and always have been
*users*. We could even take such a bad situation and make some
lemonade - ie, start educating users about how to stay safe online.<br>
<br>
Maybe even get with the KnowBe4 people, and create a general
'Thunderbird' account with them, and let users take advantage of
their training as part of their donation/fee (maybe make it a perk
for a certain level of recurring donation or something).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite">Why am i insisting on this, you asked? We might not
have another choice, you said? <br>
<br>
I'm saying: we need to accept that fact that foregoing gecko is
not an option. Unmarrying thunderbird doesn't work either.</blockquote>
<br>
You left out the other option - rewrite the parts of Thunderbird
that rely on the deprecated Gecko components.<br>
<br>
I honestly want to know why you seem to think that would be
impossible - or even harder than writing an email client from
scratch that has reasonable UI and feature parity with current
Thunderbird.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite"> So, that leaves only one choice: Write a new client.
Yes, that will take 1-3 years.</blockquote>
<br>
Really. You believe we can have a reasonably close facsimile of
current Thunderbird, with the resources we currently have, in 3 to 5
years.<br>
<br>
Kent said it would be more like 30 man-years. He seems to have a
reasonably good grasp of what it would take, so I think it isn't
asking too much to see some reasoning to back your claim of only 1
to 3 years, because I just don't see that as being even *remotely*
possible.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F239870D-120C-4066-8FEF-157AE07291F3@beonex.com"
type="cite"> That's why we need to start now. Once gecko is not
usable by thunderbird anymore, it will be to late to start. It
will be game over. Accept that, and act accordingly. That's my
point. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I understand your point, I simply don't think it is valid.<br>
<br>
I'd like to see Kent respond to this though. His opinion here is
much more valuable than mine.<br>
</body>
</html>