<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
All of those are issues that need to be kept in mind as Thunderbird
builds it's vision. Others are not nearly as forgiving as the core
group with ugly UI, quirky methods and plain ancient command line
switches to do things.Thunderbird as a product also needs to be
across as a part of our vision. <br>
<br>
As you say Magnus, <br>
"free-as-in-beer solutions rarely work at scale" Does Thunderbird?
I see folks with lots of folder (thousands) and accounts (hundreds)
in support, but they are there because they are having issues.<br>
"it's what Mozilla has chosen to use after evaluating the options"
just as they have evaluated Thunderbird. Apparently found it wanting
and pay for Google's product.<br>
<br>
Just my 2cents.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24-Feb-21 10:05 PM, Magnus Melin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:96d86f19-0d80-1448-3d0c-d793e288ef2a@iki.fi">Basically
using Zoom is a pragmatic decision: it's what Mozilla has chosen
to use after evaluating the options, so there's a company license
to use it. We know it works, and it's substantial work to ensure
competing solutions work (free-as-in-beer solutions rarely work at
scale, and if non-free-as-in-beer: contract hazzle).
<br>
<br>
By "work" I don't mean that it kind of works for a group of three.
Do competitors work reliably with larger crowds (30-40 ppl, maybe
more)? Do you have the ability to join by smartphone app? Can you
call in? I don't now, but I do know it require legwork for many
people to find out.
<br>
<br>
-Magnus
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>