Thunderbird is still the only calendar software I'm aware of with a "Multiweek" view instead of the awful "Month" view all others provide. The only calendar to have caught up to 20th century technology (Apple almost gets it, but not quite).
Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
81–90 of 297 posts
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#82I've been using a fork of Thunderbird called Betterbird ( https://www.betterbird.eu/ ) on Linux, mostly because I want to be able to minimize it to a systray icon. I know there are extensions like systray-x and birdtray, but I was having issues with these on Wayland. I wonder if this new version of Thunderbird finally added systray support on Linux/Wayland.
I just switched away from it again after it got delisted from nixpkgs due to lack of development[0][1]
[0] https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=25.05&from=0&size=...
[1] Should be this one https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/351205
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, you don't understand. Fixing the bug before reproducing it would violate the process .
Well, I do think the thundebird team should investigate and fix this. But it is almost impossible to fix a bug you can't reproduce and have no clue why it might be happening.
> But it is almost impossible to fix a bug you can't reproduce and have no clue why it might be happening.
No, not at all. It's very easy.
This bug involves taking an inappropriate action under corrupted conditions. You don't need to know how those conditions arose. All you have to do is check whether they currently obtain, and - if so - refrain from taking the inappropriate action.
For this bug, that looks like this:
1. When we're executing a "move"...
2. Before deleting the original messages...
3. Check whether the copies are identical to the originals...
4. And if not, delete the copies instead of the originals.
At this point, the bug can't occur. The "root cause" bug, where your buggy logic says that you copied a bunch of messages even though you didn't, can still occur, but it can no longer delete any messages.
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#84I've been using a fork of Thunderbird called Betterbird ( https://www.betterbird.eu/ ) on Linux, mostly because I want to be able to minimize it to a systray icon. I know there are extensions like systray-x and birdtray, but I was having issues with these on Wayland. I wonder if this new version of Thunderbird finally added systray support on Linux/Wayland.
I won’t switch to BetterBird because the person behind it seems off.
Feels a bit like switching to TempleOS.
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for linking that. I've tried Thunderbird a couple of times in the past and quite liked it, but that thread has put me off using it forever. Even if the bug is fiendishly hard to track down and reproduce, you'd think there would be some additional safety checks they could add that would at least let it fail with an error message instead of actual data loss.
See, you don't understand. Fixing the bug before reproducing it would violate the process .
How do you fix a bug you can't reproduce?
It's a genuine question because I'm puzzled here.
A very small number of users have this bug (and tbf, it's a really bad bug), and are unable to consistently reproduce it and it seems none of the developers have been able to (the seemingly random nature of the bug occurring is not helping). How is it supposed to be fixed?
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitpick: not all bugs have to be reproducible to be taken seriously. Defensive programming, and adding extra logging could be a mitigation to avoid future problems, or to help fixing them in the future.
Yeah, parent comment is deeply unserious. Imagine you're writing trading software, you have an algo go haywire and it machine guns the whole order book, and then you refuse to put a "max order size" outside of the algo to stop it from happening again because you can't figure out why it happened in the first place. Try telling a regulator or your boss that was your reasoning.
How many one-off band aids do you think should be applied for rare, never reproduced problems before you slap a “100% safe” label on it and ship it with the confidence of a bloated, cruft-ridden job well done?
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#87I wanted to love Thunderbird, used it for years then a bug [0] literally deleted all my emails. I regularly see updates of people understandably raging on the ticket :( It's a bug that literally deletes user data from both the server and the client without warning. It's been open and confirmed for 17 years straight. It could happen to you. How is it not top 1 priority to fix it? [0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_…
I do hope that Thunderbird really fixes this issue really.
It really is just bad rep and like the severity of this is pretty bad.
Email is a really critical protocol so even if this is happening to only some people, it should still be fixed asap.
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it has to be reproducible. Help make it reproducible and show that to the developers.
Nitpick: not all bugs have to be reproducible to be taken seriously. Defensive programming, and adding extra logging could be a mitigation to avoid future problems, or to help fixing them in the future.
How do you fix a bug you can't reproduce?
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#89There is no mention of sync functionality. I regularly use 3 different PCs and I cannot sync settings easily. It means I've give up using Thunderbird on all but one of the PCs. They've also made the usability worse in recent versions and are copying the insanely annoying context menus in Windows 11, which cannot be reverted.
Also gave up Thunderbird years ago because of the same reason. Just wanted something stable and chose Spark. Works on every device, not a problem for years.
No Linux client.
Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, you don't understand. Fixing the bug before reproducing it would violate the process .
How do you fix a bug you can't reproduce? It's a genuine question because I'm puzzled here. A very small number of users have this bug (and tbf, it's a really bad bug), and are unable to consistently reproduce it and it seems none of the developers have been able to (the seemingly random nature of the bug occurring is not helping). How is it supposed to be fixed?
You add more and more diagnostics (e.g. logging) in that area till you manage to track down the bug. Over several years this should be possible.
At that point you can either fix the bug directly or do it properly by first reproducing the bug (in a test) and then fixing it.