Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

standard_staples t1_j85alx1 wrote

If they're not going to bring Thunderbird up to modern performance standards, what's the point of putting a shiny new UI on it?

EDIT: Well, the Ars Technica article really seems to miss the big picture here:

> With this year’s release of Thunderbird 115 “Supernova,” we’re doing much more than just another yearly release. It’s a modernized overhaul of the software, both visually and technically. Thunderbird is undergoing a massive rework from the ground up to get rid of all the technical and interface debt accumulated over the past 10 years.

> This is not an easy task, but it’s necessary to guarantee the sustainability of the project for the next 20 years.

> Simply “adding stuff on top” of a crumbling architecture is not sustainable, and we can’t keep ignoring it.

> Throughout the next 3 years, the Thunderbird project is aiming at these primary objectives:

> * Make the code base leaner and more reliable, rewrite ancient code, remove technical debt.

> * Rebuild the interface from scratch to create a consistent design system, as well as developing and maintaining an adaptable and extremely customizable user interface.

> * Switch to a monthly release schedule.

https://blog.thunderbird.net/2023/02/the-future-of-thunderbird-why-were-rebuilding-from-the-ground-up/

91

Discoveryellow t1_j85bhw8 wrote

Because people who didn't use Lotus Notes and Outlook Express don't understand how to use Thunderbird and where to click.

31

BJWTech t1_j85g4y3 wrote

Notes gets a ton of hate, but I miss it.

11

MpVpRb t1_j85ji5s wrote

I had to troubleshoot it when I worked in IT. It sucked mightily

7

procabiak t1_j88ng9m wrote

I just want the UI of Notes' email app, but without the Domino server architecture, and I'd be happy.

2

BJWTech t1_j892llo wrote

I never had to admin it. But as a user, I liked it.

2

gk99 t1_j865nry wrote

I didn't use either of those but tbh Thunderbird was pretty easy to understand right up until I realized I had no reason to use it. Transferred from my ISP-provided email to Gmail and most of my email is phone-convenient, anything that needs to be done on desktop I can get to by just typing "gmail" into my browser and clicking the first link.

9

jagenauso t1_j888qqc wrote

While this is true, you then have all your emails in Google’s hands. Some people want to avoid that. Some people also expect more from an email client than sending and receiving emails. E.g. signing and encrypting emails, storing emails offline, custom filters, auto-reply settings, just to name a few. Thunderbird is a good choice if you like all of those.

5

adams01pl t1_j85cs2u wrote

Is it running slow on your machine?

4

[deleted] t1_j866re3 wrote

[deleted]

17

aztracker1 t1_j87mh2t wrote

I'm not sure of the point. It is absolutely using a full browser engine, the same one as Firefox. Which is pretty much how electron apps work, but with chrome as the engine.

6

mindlesstourist3 t1_j87mdjg wrote

> it's not based on Electron.

They say in the blog that it's based on Mozilla Firefox. So instead of a chromium web sandbox (Electron) you get the app based on another browser's web sandbox. I don't really see how that's too different (though I've never used Thunderbird nor Electron-based email clients).

4

GrixM t1_j89w64k wrote

It's based on Firefox in that there is code overlap, and the same web engine is used to render emails, but this doesn't make it slow. It just means that the performance is similar to Firefox, which is plenty fast since you need some web engine to render the emails anyway.

With electron-based programs though, it goes one layer deeper. The whole program, not just the email content, is basically running inside another separate program that is the electron javascript engine. That's why it's slower. It would be like if Thunderbird was a website that ran inside Firefox.

1