<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<b>What specific qualities do you like about Thunderbird?</b><br>
<br>
As I have been a user of Netscape Communicator in the old days, I am
using Thunderbird since its very beginnings - and I never wanted to
switch to another browser.<br>
I like about Thunderbird that everything is kept local on my
computer, that it is fast, reliable, secure – I think many have
elaborated on that here before..<br>
<br>
<b>Where do you see Thunderbird in 10 years?</b><br>
<br>
I wouldn’t mind if Thunderbird did not acquire new functionality
such as ‘Whatsapp’ functionality, etc. - this could be crucial for
attracting a larger user base, though.<br>
<br>
But having read most of the recent posts here, it seems quite
obvious to me that continuing with XUL and XPCOM and the Gecko
codebase will probably work for some years, but ultimately will lead
to TB being bound to die – given that in the long run, the effort to
maintain Gecko is not manegeable for a very small number of
programmers – not included the technical debt in the TB code that
needs to be taken care of (by the way: if people think this path
should be continued against all odds: why not cooperate with
projects like Waterfox and Pale Moon – they continue to use XUL and
XPCOM and Gecko, at least as far as I know).<br>
<br>
Otherwise, I found the remarks of Ben B. here most convincing – I
would side with him and think the only way into a possible bright
future of TB would be the rewrite. I understand that probably many
of the contributors that have dedicated a lot of time to this code,
only to see this code abandoned in the near future, are very
reluctant to this. But the challenge to attract new developers to
work on a codebase which is (as I understand) poorly documented and
full of other technical debt is probably one that will ultimately
fail. As far as I am concerned, and concluding from myself on other
longtime users: I would probable continue to use TB until it is not
longer reasonable to use it, even if the codebase hardly kept up
with time and declined more and more. But: it would be out of the
question to attract any new users if this was the case. <br>
<br>
Also, I would definitely like that add-ons that I use are available
in such a rewrite - I currently use 10 add-ons, the single most
important of those to me is "ImportExportTools". I think that for
such a rewrite, the TB project also should give extensive
instructions to the add-on developers as to how an existing add-on
can be adapted to the new API.<br>
<br>
I would also side with Ben B. in that this rewrite has to be done
from scratch – otherwise this would mean an effort several times as
big - given that if not, you would need to keep ‘front end’ and
‘back end’ always 100% functional, I mean by this that in the
rewritten code, at each time the compatibility to the remaining part
of the code must be respected (which should be a pain in the ass by
itself, as you would probably also have to copy all the workarounds
in there, and add new ones), and after each significant part that is
completed, a roll out to the user has to be done which again has to
be 100% functional. This seems to me like a complete rebuild of a
house while the inhabitant people are still living in it. <br>
<br>
I do think that there is a risk that a work of - say - 2 full time
devs over 2 years might be lost because this new codebase never
makes it to the user – much more so since the TB project obviously
doesn’t have the means to “throw money at the problem”, i.e. hire
some more workforce if necessary. But it could still be well worth
to take this risk.<br>
<br>
I say all this as someone without practical coding experience – but
I would consider myself as a very interested and knowledgeable
outsider.<br>
<br>
Also, it seems to me that idly standing by while people who support
this rewrite are leaving the council might be reason for regret at a
later time. I would like to call on the council to give the rewrite
from scratch a try – you probable have no better option in the long
run.<br>
<br>
Harry<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.02.2018 um 21:27 schrieb Philipp
Kewisch:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5d8a657c-5a5e-ce00-31ee-0aad64848b7c@thunderbird.net">
<pre wrap="">Hi Folks,
thank you for all the valuable input so far, I think this has been a
helpful exercise. We've gone pretty deep into discussing some of the
opinions that have come up. Doing so has its value, and all of what I've
read contains discussion points that I think need to be talked about.
Still, I think we need to start with a more high level approach for now.
What I would like to make sure is that we get a diverse set of answers
to the following original questions that Ben brought up:
What specific qualities do you like about Thunderbird?
Where do you see Thunderbird in 10 years?
If you haven't yet answered these, please do reply. We're looking
forward to hearing your input. Please also respond if you feel someone
else has already answered, this helps see how popular an opinion is.
Philipp
_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>