Slashdot Mirror
Email Client Thunderbird To Stay With The Mozilla Foundation, Sort Of (mozilla.org)
Philipp Kewisch, writing for Mozilla: The investigations on Thunderbird's future home have concluded. The Mozilla Foundation has agreed to serve as the legal and fiscal home for the Thunderbird project, but Thunderbird will migrate off Mozilla Corporation infrastructure, separating the operational aspects of the project. [...] The Mozilla Foundation has agreed to continue as Thunderbird's legal, fiscal and cultural home, with the following provisos:
1. The Thunderbird Council (see footnote) and the Mozilla Foundation executive team maintain a good working relationship and make decisions in a timely manner.
2. The Thunderbird Council and the team make meaningful progress in short order on operational and technical independence from Mozilla Corporation.
3. Either side may give the other six months notice if they wish to discontinue the Mozilla Foundation's role as the legal and fiscal host of the Thunderbird project. In a conversation with Slashdot, a spokesperson of Mozilla acknowledged that the general sentiment is "Thunderbird code needs to be modernized and the dependencies on the Mozilla code framework need to be reduced. This may include re-implementing or migrating features to make better use of web technologies."
(Footnote: Back in 2012, Mozilla announced that it would reallocate most of the paid project members to other projects, handing off the responsibility for the project to the volunteer community that had formed around Thunderbird. This group met in Toronto in 2014 to discuss the future of Thunderbird and formed the Thunderbird Council, a group of individuals that has the power to make business decisions going forward.)
1. The Thunderbird Council (see footnote) and the Mozilla Foundation executive team maintain a good working relationship and make decisions in a timely manner.
2. The Thunderbird Council and the team make meaningful progress in short order on operational and technical independence from Mozilla Corporation.
3. Either side may give the other six months notice if they wish to discontinue the Mozilla Foundation's role as the legal and fiscal host of the Thunderbird project. In a conversation with Slashdot, a spokesperson of Mozilla acknowledged that the general sentiment is "Thunderbird code needs to be modernized and the dependencies on the Mozilla code framework need to be reduced. This may include re-implementing or migrating features to make better use of web technologies."
(Footnote: Back in 2012, Mozilla announced that it would reallocate most of the paid project members to other projects, handing off the responsibility for the project to the volunteer community that had formed around Thunderbird. This group met in Toronto in 2014 to discuss the future of Thunderbird and formed the Thunderbird Council, a group of individuals that has the power to make business decisions going forward.)
...re-implementing or migrating features to make better use of web technologies
This has started alarm bells ringing in my head...
The "problem" with Thunderbird is that it's a very mature product. It has quirks, yes, but it is very near the pinnacle of what an email client should be. It handles loads of messages (I've seen hundreds of thousands in a single folder) and accounts very well. It is easy to migrate from one machine to another. It is a cross-platform program in the sense that the exact same code base is used for all major platforms and behaves almost identically. It has calendaring and can integrate with Google services at no cost. It makes Outlook look like a piece of shit (hint: Outlook really is a piece of shit) and if there were some way to attach an Exchange account to it then Outlook would probably start to slowly die off.
Security fixes and minor updates to keep it from crashing as systems evolve are all Thunderbird ever needs. Thunderbird was a mature product a very long time ago (in software development terms) and the main reason it keeps getting updated is because it shares a lot of code with Firefox and Mozilla is an organization that simply cannot resist fucking with things for the sake of fuckery and little else. The absolutely retarded "Correspondents" column introduction is a prime example of Mozilla just not being a good company anymore. Mozilla has become the Lennart Poettering of Web software: stupid decisions are "features" and closed with WONTFIX or NOTABUG. I stopped using their feedback system because they don't ever listen, so why bother? The one good thing about Thunderbird is that Mozilla has largely ignored it and that's exactly what Thunderbird users want, especially after the Chromification of the UI. Chrome's UI and options panel are both utter shit. Luckily you can turn the menu bar back on in Thunderbird and get the full options and functionality back.
Someone above referred to how lame it is that there's no Thunderbird for Android. Check out K-9 Mail; it's a lot better than the stupid mail apps that come with phones and if Thunderbird ever made it to Android it wouldn't be far off from what K-9 is. Also K-9 lets you import/export your mail settings so you can migrate it to a new phone easily.
The lack of "improvement" is what keeps Thunderbird good. Could you imagine if it had been "improved" in the same way that Firefox has. The user interface would be a train wreck, it would have all sorts of wonderful plugins like Pocket, they'd be planning on breaking all extensions by the end of the year and every new release would remove features.
No, I'm very happy that Mozilla have left Thunderbird well alone. Sure, there are a few bugs that could be fixed, but compared to the alternative of Mozilla continuing developing, I'd rather keep the bugs.
It is true that FF has the best privacy plugins TODAY. But that is no longer going to be true once they change to Chrome's plugin architecture.. It will be on equivalent terms to other browsers then and a lot of low level customization potential is going to be lost.
Face it, mass surveillance is winning on the web. Once all the major browsers restrict what you can do with plugins, and require all plugins be signed so there is top-down control of the whole ecosystem, you may as well give up.
Exactly. I don't really understand the need of everyone to continuously vary UI design, add/remove non-core "features," and turn a piece of familiar software into an unfamiliar one every year or two.
Well, I understand the profit motive for proprietary software. But for something like Thunderbird? It's mature. It has had basically all the core email functions the vast majority of people want for many years. Why mess with it?
Core software is often used as a TOOL. People want their tools to keep working the same way they always have, once a reasonably good tool design is achieved.
Could you imagine if the software design folks did the same crap to actual real-world tools? How about Hammer 2.0?
Designer: Welcome to the unveiling of our new carpenter's line, for the modern carpenter! Have a look at our new Hammer 2.0, designed for sleekness and portability.
Carpenter: Uh, where's the claw?
Designer: We decided to focus on the "core functionality" of the hammer in our new design. Most people use the claw less than the striking surface, so we installed a retractable claw that you access by swiping the base of the head and then pushing this button.
Carpenter: [tries button] Woah! Okay. I guess that's cool. But wait, when I let go of the button, the claw retracts again. What if I want to pull a bunch of nails? I don't want to have to swipe and press the button every time. Holding it down is awkward.
Designer: We installed an enhanced "safety" mode on all our hammers, to avoid accidents. You never know when you might fall on the claw of a hammer and hurt yourself!
Carpenter: But, that basically never happens. I mean, sure it can, but there are loads of other accidents that happen around much worse tools. I just want a hammer that does what my old one did. I mean, what if I want to use the hammer to pry up something or maybe even beat the back of it into some old drywall to tear it down. You're telling me I need to hold down a darn button the whole time?
Designer: Well, we have other tools that might be more appropriate for such a task. And our test users found Hammer 2.0 to be excellent for common tasks like hanging pictures and assembling Ikea furniture.
Carpenter: Uh, I'm a carpenter. I use a hammer for a lot more than that. And it was just a simple device that could do a bunch of things. Why can't I just have a non-retractable claw??
Designer: Oh, well, if you really insist, we sell a Legacy Claw Dongle for $19.95 that will allow you to leave the claw facing out without holding the button.
Carpenter: That seems pretty pricey for what used to be a standard feature. Okay, well, I guess at least I'll try it. But wait, this thing is way too light. What's it made out of?
Designer: It's a blend of components made of proprietary metallic features and some heavy plastic components.
Carpenter: But I need a heavier hammer!
Designer: Our testing scenarios indicated that people preferred a lighter and more portable product when doing common tasks like hanging pictures.
Carpenter: Again with the "hanging pictures"... see, real people actually use hammers to do WORK. Like hammering nails into hard wood or even metal. Even if this material holds up to that sort of stress, I need a certain weight to the hammer to drive nails in efficiently!
Designer: Sir, I think if you just try our Hammer 2.0, you'll realize its superiority!
Carpenter: Okay, fine. I'll give it a shot. [Attempts to hammer nail; the hammer flies out of his hand and across the room.] WOAH! What the heck?!
Designer: Oh, we forgot to mention -- you need to wear our special Handyman Glove 2.0 accessory or else you won't be able to grip the slick surface of the hammer properly, which we made out of new space-age materials.
Carpenter: WHAA?! I can't use my normal work gloves or maybe just my bare hands?