Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

blog.thunderbird.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 297 posts

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#211

Post by dieortin »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #175
alberth wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is pity, that Google Mail is «good enough» and it killed development of good desktop e-mail clients. You have to remember that when Gmail was launched it was considerably better than most desktop mail clients at the time. It had auto-complete for who you wanted to email (prior you had to manually type their email address). It came with an eye watering amount of storage (1 GB). Worked from any computer (when POP…

You have to remember that when Gmail was launched it was considerably better than most desktop mail clients at the time. There was never a time when GMail was better than plain old Outlook, but this is coming from someone to whom IMAP has always seemed like a really terrible solution in search of a nonexistent problem. My email database is important to me, and worth managing locally, as this thread more than adequate…

I don’t see how IMAP would prevent you from having old emails

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#212

Post by nosioptar »

dangus wrote: post #162
nosioptar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could include a light theme. It seems pretty hypocritical that they're claiming a lack of dark mode is an accessibility problem while lacking a light mode.

Technically it’s not really hypocritical because the author never claimed that a lack of light mode is an accessibility problem. I think it’s also notable that websites being accessible isn’t really about being tied to a specific theme, it’s about being compatible with accessibility tooling and standards (screen readers as an example). There are plenty of CSS manipulation tools that can make a website look whatever w…

Then all that'd apply to sites not having a dark theme, undercutting the author's point because he could just use stylus to.make his own dark theme for sites.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#213

Post by dieortin »

encom wrote: post #181
blacklion wrote: post #132

«Manual Folder Sorting» — first, they broke 3rd party plugin for that. Next, author (not member of official Thunderbird team or employee of Mozilla) of this plugin spent more than 1 year pushing this functionality into base. Now they highlight it as big deal in new release without mention volunteer author of this BASIC feature which should be in mail client FROM VERSION 0.0.1! It is pity, that Google Mail is «good en…

>Google Mail is «good enough» I hadn't really used Gmail or Google products much, until I started at my last job, which was balls deep in the ecosystem. I loathed Gmail. One of the worst email "clients" I've used. After toggling a load of stuff in its settings it was usable, but dealing with email was a low point of my work day. New job is Microsoft based, so Outlook, and I haven't used that in 20 years, so it will b…

What was so bad about GMail? I’ve worked at some companies that use it and I liked it much more than Outlook.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#214

Post by godelski »

saurik wrote: post #168
ghosty141 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not unlikely that similar problems exist with other mail programs but since they are closed source you dont see it

People would still complain about them on forums, often ones run by the company who makes the client! I'm often reading threads of issues on Apple's public support forums. Being open or closed source has nothing to do with hearing about problems.

I was able to find complaints fairly easily. I had them listed but HN ate my comment. Search "Missing emails" instead of "delete all emails" as the latter tends to provide instructions about how to bulk delete.

  > Being open or closed source has nothing to do with hearing about problems.
Also, pay attention to observation bias and userbase bias.

If my dad faced this issue, he'd never post online. He'd call me or go to a computer repair shop. That's what your average user will do.

Open Source users tend to be a bit more tech savvy. There's that famous article about Linux gamers reporting way more bugs than average users and how it can be accidentally misinterpreted as "why develop for linux?" These frequency biases are a big part of this. Pluus, OSS tends to do better bug tracking.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#215

Post by amendegree »

tareqak wrote: post #185
amendegree wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The op is being facetious

Sometimes , treating a facetious/sarcastic request seriously helps disarm the facetiousness. Other times, it does not.

English is my first language but I don’t understand this use of “disarm”.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#216

Post by godelski »

jraph wrote: post #58
thaumasiotes wrote: post #37

Earlier 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.

  > it is almost impossible to fix a bug you can't reproduce
It's also impossible to mark a bug report as resolved if you can't reproduce it.

You could have fixed the bug (especially since a lot of TB was rewritten) but if you can't reproduce the bug you wouldn't know it was solved only that people stopped reporting it. This is actually a common occurrence with long standing bugs.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#217

Post by godelski »

redeeman wrote: post #123
Forgeties79 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to never underestimate the incompetence/lack of concern people can have when it comes to addressing major product issues, but if this has been open for 17 years and is so widely known, somebody has surely looked into it and determined it’s not so easy.

and then they simultaneously determined "yeah, we might eat your data. Lets not warn anyone about that AT ALL, lets keep the feature activated and let them users lose their data". This behavior ought to be criminal.

  > Lets not warn anyone about that AT ALL, lets keep the feature activated and let them users lose their data
How did you conclude this?

IDK why the assumption is that safety measures haven't been created. You wouldn't mark the bug as resolved if you put in safety features, right? You *ONLY MARK AS RESOLVED* after reproducing the bug and *VERIFYING* that it won't happen again. Right? Dear god I hope this is what you do, because otherwise you are prematurely closing bugs.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#218

Post by godelski »

naasking wrote: post #178
inanutshellus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you close a bug you cannot reproduce? Said another way - If they can't reproduce it, they can't close it. They may well have fixed it already, but without a way to reproduce it the only prudent behavior is to leave it open and wait for the next diagnostic file to be uploaded.

That's not the only prudent behaviour, as the OP said, the prudent behaviour is to add more diagnostics and guards against the conditions that lead up to the bug.

Okay, let's assume more diagnostics and guards were added.

Now re-answer the above questions with these assumptions.

  - How do you fix a bug you can't reproduce?
  - How do you *close* a bug report when you can't reproduce?
Being generous here, we're assuming there's 17 years worth of diagnostics and safety guards added but through that time the bug still isn't reproducible. Let's try to answer the questions under these assumptions.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#219

Post by naasking »

godelski wrote: post #218
naasking wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only prudent behaviour, as the OP said, the prudent behaviour is to add more diagnostics and guards against the conditions that lead up to the bug.

Okay, let's assume more diagnostics and guards were added. Now re-answer the above questions with these assumptions. - How do you fix a bug you can't reproduce? - How do you *close* a bug report when you can't reproduce? Being generous here, we're assuming there's 17 years worth of diagnostics and safety guards added but through that time the bug still isn't reproducible. Let's try to answer the questions under these…

If you've added guards and diagnostics, then you close it until someone else files a follow-up, then it can be re-opened. There's no sense keeping it open unless there are ongoing reports of the issue.

Re: Thunderbird 140 “Eclipse”

#220

Post by redeeman »

godelski wrote: post #217
redeeman wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and then they simultaneously determined "yeah, we might eat your data. Lets not warn anyone about that AT ALL, lets keep the feature activated and let them users lose their data". This behavior ought to be criminal.

> Lets not warn anyone about that AT ALL, lets keep the feature activated and let them users lose their data How did you conclude this? IDK why the assumption is that safety measures haven't been created. You wouldn't mark the bug as resolved if you put in safety features, right? You * ONLY MARK AS RESOLVED* after reproducing the bug and * VERIFYING* that it won't happen again. Right? Dear god I hope this is what you…

are you being for real? did you see anything as such in the bug listing? but even IF they did put safeguards in place, the fact that this is SEVENTEEN YEARS, no warning, functionality still enabled without ANY WARNING losing people data. unforgivable.

How can you possibly justify this behavior? I understand they dont owe the world any software, fine, but dont knowingly publish stuff that KILLS PEOPLES DATA without atleast a warning

Post reply on HN