Live data from Hacker News

Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

mail.mozilla.org

91–100 of 243 posts

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#92

I'm just gonna say I oppose this proposal because I'm really tired of seeing developers shy away from utilizing or learning C/C++ only to admit much later in a project's life cycle that those languages and their associated libraries are the best for the job. I'm all ears on utilizing JS for front end to even a desktop application but if the entire thing gets written to be ran on Servo or whatever browser engine they…

Why do you oppose things being run on something like Servo categorically?

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#93

Does anyone actually have any problems with Thunderbird? I feel like it is "done" software. It works, perfectly, for all my needs. It's fast. It has great UI. It lets me read and write email.

The search is unusable -- wedding finds 'weds'. There is no way to do exact searching. I reported this 5 years ago, lots of other people have complained about the stemming, there has been no fix.

There is no support for outlook/exchange. Not saying it's trivial, but it's useful in the modern era.

IMAP folder support is very flakey, I reported some bugs but nothing got fixed.

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#94
post #92

I'm just gonna say I oppose this proposal because I'm really tired of seeing developers shy away from utilizing or learning C/C++ only to admit much later in a project's life cycle that those languages and their associated libraries are the best for the job. I'm all ears on utilizing JS for front end to even a desktop application but if the entire thing gets written to be ran on Servo or whatever browser engine they…

Why do you oppose things being run on something like Servo categorically?

Because there's existing libraries which solve many of the same problems which they inevitably run into and then re-implement them in JS. The "not invented here" mentality has to stop. Unless there's a significant reason to not utilize a library then it shouldn't be avoided. There's no good reason to replicate that functionality.

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#95

Does anyone actually have any problems with Thunderbird? I feel like it is "done" software. It works, perfectly, for all my needs. It's fast. It has great UI. It lets me read and write email.

Hum, it would be interesting to know how you use it (with respect, I'd suggest you have very basic email needs). For me Thunderbird is badly broken. This is not the place to list bugs, issues, limitations etc. in any detail but there are very many indeed (so I'll only provide a skeletal outline of them here).

Frankly, on occasions, I find Thunderbird is unusable for some jobs and I end up using either an ancient copy of Eudora Mail, or Outlook or other packages to get the job done (it's just about the most idiosyncratic software package I know).

Briefly, the key issues for me are:

1. The editor sucks, big time, to call it a HTML editor at all is stretching the truth beyond reasonable recognition it is so broken. (a) It's bug-ridden in the extreme (long emails with formatting are better edited outside TB and then cut-and-pasted back in when finished but this is only a partial solution for the obvious reason that the underlying editor will then screw up perfectly good HTML). (b) Bugs develop/manifest over time whilst actually editing a single email/email reply (seems to have memory leaks). The formatting is very limited—superscripts etc., etc. require add-ons, to be implemented. Today, HTML formatting is a trivial matter (or it ought to be) so why after decades hasn't Mozilla implemented such basic formatting within Thunderbird by default. (Moreover, heaven help us when we need to add proper math formulae to the mix—just forget the notion!) (c) Global typeface change(s) is so broken it's better to save one's work before attempting them, alternatively one has to cut them into a plaintext editor (notepad etc.) to all kill formatting and start again preferably in another decent HTML editor such as BlueGriffon (which, incidentally is also based on Firefox). (d) Text size and text spacing is likewise hopeless and also has to be edited outside Thunderbird then cut-and-pasted back in. (e) There is no Format Painter! (f) Nor is there an Add/Remove quotes level facility (AND THUNDERBIRD ACTUALLY CALLS ITSELF AN EMAIL CLIENT?)—not having proper quotes handling is like buying a vehicle without wheels! It's sheer crazy stuff.

I could keep going on about editor problems and mention the issues with inserting images etc. but that's enough for here.

Finally, summarizing the matter of the Thunderbird editor issues, I again mention the BlueGriffon HTML editor by comparison, specifically because it is based on the same Firefox code as TB is. This proves that the limitations within the Thunderbird editor ARE NOT in any way limited by the underlying Firefox code. It seems to me that as BlueGriffon is open-source, the simplest immediate correction Mozilla could do to Thunderbird to fix its horrible editor would be use this BlueGriffon code as is, as it actually works!

2. The Thunderbird UI is confusing for both new and older users alike. The issue of the UI is too involved to discuss here in any detailed way except to say TB's designers should look at one of the all-time great classic email client designs for guidance: Eudora Email. (Many of us would still be using Eudora in preference to Thunderbird if Qualcomm hadn't killed it off over a decade ago—even then, many still do use it). Why reinvent the wheel if you're going to break it in the process? For starters, you cannot even dock the windows in Thunderbird. Why on earth not? (One wonders whatever went on in the minds of the original TB developers.)

3. Thunderbird's implementation of MBOX mail format is severely broken (it is dead easy to lose mail permanently from crashed indexes, compacting mail etc. The fact that Thunderbird's MBOXes are essentially incompatible with other email packages that also use MBOX is a serious issue when it comes to large site usage, maintenance etc. The MBOX problem is one of the main reasons why Outlook is often preferred to Thunderbird in corporate environments (Microsoft may be proprietary but every man and his dog either knows about its PST mail files or has a utility to maintain or fix them—not so with Thunderbird MBOXes. Moreover, Thunderbird MBOX mail files almost invariably crash when they reach the 4GB size threshold (it's a very risky business and you'd better have a decent backup strategy if you want to risk it).

4. Thunderbird even [still] has bugs in the mail addressing department (the text goes red for some reason if one does editing on the email entry). This alarms users. Furthermore, even the method of entry of CCs, BCCs is unnecessarily different to other email clients. Why unnecessarily confuse users with a redesign just for the sake of it (for heaven's sake, it seems to me the only way this could ever have happened is that TB's original developer's had never used an email package before starting on the project). Talk about this as being peculiar is a gross understatement, unfortunately such inane thinking underpins much of the basic design (Thunderbird is a quintessential, truly wonderful, example of Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson design principles!)

5. At various times, I have tried to fix Thunderbird's limitations by applying various add-ons, and after installing sometimes up to about 35 I've just given up. Some things were fixed, others not, and there were inevitable interactions between these various add-ons. I could write a lengthy article about what is (still) not fixable with any number of add-ons; essentially though, the underlying code is so broken and haphazard that no add-on is able to fix some problems. ONE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON ADD-ONS JUST TO OVERCOME FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN LIMITATIONS.

6. Thunderbird is slow in almost every aspect of its operation—truly unbelievably slow when compared to other packages of similar design.

From what I've read in this Thunderbird Mozilla post, I have little faith that the end product will ever satisfy serious email users (especially if lesser used features are dropped) which seems to be the proposal. Likely we'll end up with another mishmash similar to the confounded MS Office ribbon (that'll alienate most of its traditional user base—after all, Mozilla has been a past master at incompatibility for many years (every new version of Firefox has at least broken some my favourite add-ons, then there's the horrid Australis interface, and so on). Unfortunately, at Mozilla, developer culture has always taken precedent over user requirements; it would be foolhardy to think current Mozilla culture will change with a new Thunderbird design (corporate culture is always too ingrained to change that quickly).

Finally, it seems to me, that if Thunderbird's developers are actually serious about producing a better design for the majority of users (other than their own pet design) then they should open a web site to that effect and allow ordinary users to discuss and thrash out exactly what features they want within the new design. Perhaps they should include existing forks in such discussions, FossaMail for instance.

In the meantime, I reckon developers of other email clients have very little to worry about.

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compose is C-n, and the "Write" button in the default toolbar. Not sure what priority/promo is, but Thunderbird certainly can sort by any field by default. It sounds like you want a client that is tightly coupled with Gmail's features, and you're not going to get that with a non-Google client. Note that some customizations, like Firefox, require accessing about:config. Also, as with Firefox, most Thunderbird users wi…

I don't have time right now to explain myself better, it's the minimalism and some features like snoozing emails, quickly marking them as done/low-priority and similar things, which is definitely not something that is connected to Google technology. > It sounds like you want a client that is tightly coupled with Gmail's features I actually don't like Gmail that much. > you're not going to get that with a non-Google c…

There's a toolbar with 100 buttons of the same size: "Write, Chat, Reply, Reply all, Archive, Address book, Get email, Tag, Quick filter".

My main Thunderbird toolbar has get mail, write new message and quick filtering. It took me perhaps 10 seconds back when I first installed it on this computer to hide a couple of other buttons like chat that I don't use myself.

The second toolbar when I have a message open has just 5 buttons (reply, reply all, forward, mark as junk, delete) and I use all of them frequently.

I agree with your general point that clean UIs that prioritise more important features tend to be nicer to use, but I think you're dramatically overstating the problem here.

Why can't they just show suggestions when I'm in the compose window and I type the first few letters of the person's name or email?

That's exactly what it does, and has for as long as I can remember.

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#97

Does anyone actually have any problems with Thunderbird? I feel like it is "done" software. It works, perfectly, for all my needs. It's fast. It has great UI. It lets me read and write email.

Haven't used it in years. Some questions:

1. Can I tag messages? If not, it is unusable for me. Once you get used to notmuch/sup type workflows, everything else sucks.

2. How good are its searches? Can I say I want all messages after a certain date, with a certain word, with no attachments (or with attachments > 100 KB, or with attachments whose name includes "xxxx")?

3. Does it support virtual folders, which essentially are saved searches?

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#98
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Firefox that far from Chrome? I thought it was ahead in some ways.

Maybe with web standards (maybe, I'm not sure), but not the rest. Just the fact that the address bar font is the same size as the rest of the UI gives me the impression that they didn't think it through. Downloading files has the same problem, it's relegated in a small button, while it's one of the main features. The whole interface is one of the most unintuitive things I've ever used, considering how simple a browse…

>Chrome had search integrated in the address bar from version 1, every time I opened Firefox year after year and I saw that little separate input for searching I felt like using grandma's browser.

As did Firefox, kinda, and they keep flip flopping on it. It used to be that if you type any string, it does a "I'm Feeling Lucky" search. Now, on my FF, it does a Google search. So it still works...

>From a technological point of view, it took them years to implement sandboxing, and they're still not done. If a tab misbehaves in Firefox it can take down the whole thing. Chrome had it right away.

I keep hearing this. Yet, Chrome still crashes for me. And at this point, FF is very stable.

I know every time I looked, FF + extensions still had much that I could not do in Chrome (including extensions). But it's been a few years - I wonder if Chrome has caught up in functionality?

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#99
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely feasible but it's not our product focus right now. Most of the features that help differentiate Nylas Mail require some cloud component. (snoozing, send later, reminders, open tracking, etc.) We totally encourage folks to fork the project and take it in whatever direction they want. If you want to chat with other devs in the community, you should join our Slack room: http://slack-invite.nylas.com/ (I work…

> (snoozing, send later, reminders, open tracking, etc.) None of that has any appeal to me, I'd much rather a mail system which doesn't require using someone else's server. Maybe this isn't a priority for other people, but just putting it out there. This is what's making me not use Nylas today.

He's already given you a good alternative – fork and collaborate with other devs on a version that doesn't touch their server.

Seems sufficient.

Re: Proposal to start a new implementation of Thunderbird based on web technologies

#100

Hmm, I thought Mozilla had pulled financial support from Thunderbird? This would be an exciting new chapter for the product, but the article doesn't address whether it makes financial sense for Mozilla to invest this much in Thunderbird's future. For most of the last three years I've worked on Nylas Mail ( https://github.com/Nylas/Nylas-mail ), and it hit 2.0 yesterday with Mac/Win/Linux support. It's entirely open s…

Honestly when I was reading this post, I was thinking "Why don't they just use Nylas? Nylas has already done this" – it just seems like a perfect case of not-invented-here.

I really don't see the point of Thunderbird reinventing the wheel to essentially build another Nylas.

Post reply on HN