6 ms·

If this was an open source "project", rather than a "foundation" whose mission is to build a better web for its users, I'd say it was their call and that's the

by oneJob 11y ago

If this was an open source "project", rather than a "foundation" whose mission is to build a better web for its users, I'd say it was their call and that's the beauty of OSS. This is not that. This is another decision in a long string of decisions which are either not in their users' interest, questionable, or poorly communicated and implemented. If I were to give the benefit of the doubt here over the question of whose interest this is in (Mozilla or its users) it is still being horribly communicated (otherwise one might better understand why it's in one's interest) and horribly implemented, to the point which I'm beginning to question whether Mozilla, as an organization, is up to the task of building a better web for its users. Why not more discussion around Pocket, the new tab page, Thunderbird support, etc. Why pop these decisions, fully made, on their user base? And why not, in the case of XUL, incrementally replace features or develop in parallel until a drop-in, validated solution exists. To me, one of two things is going on. Either Mozilla is not acting in the best interest of its users or this is amateur hour. Both scenarios suck.

mhurron 11y ago
How is focusing on Firefox not inline with a mission statement of 'building a better web for it's users?'
- oneJob 11y ago
  It might be. But what about the discussion? Is focusing on a native mail application not inline with their mission statement, given all the privacy issues of late? And your point doesn't address the issue of implementation. Firefox is one initiative out of many initiatives in Mozilla's portfolio. And the web is not the browser. So I, personally, would say no, focusing on a browser to the exclusion of all other aspects of the Internet is not inline with that mission. But, I'm one of many users, and without open dialogue, it's impossible to say whether other Mozilla users agree with me.
  - mhurron 11y ago
    Why do they have a public discussion to justify their actions. If they choose to, fine but I do not see why they have too. > the web is not the browser Actually yes, the web is the browser, or more correctly the browser is your interface to the web. HTTP/HTTPS is the web, everything else is the Internet. Mozilla is focusing on providing a web experience, a SMTP client is not the web experience and they no longer wish to expend resources on it.
  - Certhas 11y ago
    Do you realize that this discussion is going on right now, in the open, on the appropriate mailing list? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/kAyVlhfEcXg/Eqyx1X62BQAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/kAy... Take Andrew Sutherlands email for example, that directly, out in the open, discusses the very points you raise: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/kAyVlhfEcXg/vGTwtsXpBQAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/kAyVlhfEc... "The problem with Thunderbird is not that it is a mail user agent or that user agency in messaging is unimportant. The problem is that Thunderbird has had a serious technical debt problem since the day its code-base transitioned from Netscape. Its low-level integration with Gecko has been a maintenance burden for Thunderbird developers and non-Thunderbird developers alike. The Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation put serious financial resources into trying to address both of these problems with the creation of Mozilla Messaging. The idea, as I understand it, was to attempt to alleviate the burden on Firefox development by separating Thunderbird development while simultaneously providing Thunderbird with people and resources to attempt to address this technical debt." "An important question that falls out from all of this is and your original question is: which is more important? Mail user agency or Thunderbird the product, especially if there are serious opportunity costs related to Thunderbird? Within the funded efforts of the Mozilla Corporation[2], mail user agency has not been abandoned and continues to be advanced as part of an open development process."
    - oneJob 11y ago
      I agree a discussion of a kind is occurring. My reply was specific to the comment it addressed, in that, the comment did not fully engage with my initial comment and instead cherry picked one part of it. A more fully formed response, much like yours, wouldn't have elicited my above response. Context.
- debacle 11y ago
  Showing me sponsored ads on the new tab page is not building a better web for users. Switching search engines from Google to Yahoo instead of giving users a choice at install is not building a better web for users.
  - zobzu 11y ago
    Both make money. Yahoo pays more than google.
    - debacle 11y ago
      Not enough money to support Thunderbird apparently...
Certhas 11y ago
Uhhh... the final point in the mailing list message is this: --- > 12. This message is about the future and there’s a lot to work out. It’s explicitly not to announce changes in daily activities at this point. People using Thunderbird will not see any change in the product they use. We have started this conversation early because Mozilla works best when our community is engaged. This is how we gather the people who are interested, and enable those folks to engage productively --- So this is exactly not a case of confronting people with made decisions, but discussing long term strategic considerations in the open. Bakers message is actually remarkably explicit about this, discussing various pros and cons explicitly out in the open. --- > 10. The fact that the Foundation is facilitating these discussions does not necessarily mean that the Foundation is or is not the best legal and financial home for Thunderbird. The intent is not to make technical decisions about support of Thunderbird by Mozilla employees, or merging repositories, etc. Point 6 above is the shared organizing principle for both of us. --- So Mozilla is actually not talking about no longer supporting Thunderbird, they are talking about decoupling the projects, possibly within Mozilla. When did it become hip to just randomly hate on Mozilla for everything? I use Firefox daily, and some random Pocket icon appeared there. I don't know what it is, it took me one right click and one left click to remove it from my toolbar, done.
- oneJob 11y ago
  When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? One of my biggest, if not my biggest, complaint about the OSS community it the lack of sympathy toward non technical users. If I was a point-and-click, non-technical user do you think I'd have any clue what you meant by 'mailing list'? Not likely. And if I was that user what are the chances that I understand that the Pocket application was a third-party application and that my data was not staying with Mozilla? Would I understand that removing the icon did not remove the code for my install? Bigger picture here, and the point I was trying to convey in my original comment, is that this is another instance in a string of instances that, when each taken on its own might not be a huge deal, together paint a picture. The writing is on the wall, as they say. I'm not a Mozilla hater. But before I am a Mozilla user, I'm a citizen of the Internet. So when a participant of the Internet begins to lose their way, I figure I should do what good partners do, which is to plainly speak my mind in a manner that is respectful and open to listening. I think Mozilla is great, and I think they'd value others being constructively honest with them.
bzbarsky 11y ago
There's scenario 3: a news site took a mail on a project mailing list, and wrote a misleading article with a clickbaity headline. So far so common. To their credit, they did include the full text of the mail, and it simply doesn't support the "Mozilla about to stop Thunderbird maintenance" subject this is being titled with. And the title here on HN looks nothing like the title of the actual article either (though that might have been edited later, of course).
codelitt 11y ago
As I mentioned in another comment, Mozilla stopped developing updates back in 2012 and passed it to the community. I imagine the maintenance will move likewise. If you're upset about decisions that have been made with Thunderbird, submit a pull request. Here's the code: https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central
zobzu 11y ago
Mozilla is pretty much a regular for profit as this point, it just doesnt have share holders. Still is for profit. Mainly benefits the people at the helm instead.
cbhl 11y ago
I think this is just a reaction to Firefox's rapidly declining market share. We've been through this cycle before, when MSIE and Windows were the dominant browser platform and Netscape Communicator hit a local maxima. It took a few years, but they came back, with Firefox. Before we did a big transition from Desktop to Web; now a lot of people are shifting their focus from Web to Mobile. The Desktop never went away, and the Web won't either, but development there will likely stagnate. But unless Mozilla and Firefox reinvents itself for mobile, it will become mostly irrelevant, like DOS and Netscape and Opera.
- gtk40 11y ago
  For me though, Firefox is already the best browser on mobile though.

by oneJob 11y ago

mhurron 11y ago

How is focusing on Firefox not inline with a mission statement of 'building a better web for it's users?'

oneJob 11y ago
It might be. But what about the discussion? Is focusing on a native mail application not inline with their mission statement, given all the privacy issues of late? And your point doesn't address the issue of implementation. Firefox is one initiative out of many initiatives in Mozilla's portfolio. And the web is not the browser. So I, personally, would say no, focusing on a browser to the exclusion of all other aspects of the Internet is not inline with that mission. But, I'm one of many users, and without open dialogue, it's impossible to say whether other Mozilla users agree with me.
- mhurron 11y ago
  Why do they have a public discussion to justify their actions. If they choose to, fine but I do not see why they have too. > the web is not the browser Actually yes, the web is the browser, or more correctly the browser is your interface to the web. HTTP/HTTPS is the web, everything else is the Internet. Mozilla is focusing on providing a web experience, a SMTP client is not the web experience and they no longer wish to expend resources on it.
- Certhas 11y ago
  Do you realize that this discussion is going on right now, in the open, on the appropriate mailing list? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/kAyVlhfEcXg/Eqyx1X62BQAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/kAy... Take Andrew Sutherlands email for example, that directly, out in the open, discusses the very points you raise: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/kAyVlhfEcXg/vGTwtsXpBQAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/kAyVlhfEc... "The problem with Thunderbird is not that it is a mail user agent or that user agency in messaging is unimportant. The problem is that Thunderbird has had a serious technical debt problem since the day its code-base transitioned from Netscape. Its low-level integration with Gecko has been a maintenance burden for Thunderbird developers and non-Thunderbird developers alike. The Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation put serious financial resources into trying to address both of these problems with the creation of Mozilla Messaging. The idea, as I understand it, was to attempt to alleviate the burden on Firefox development by separating Thunderbird development while simultaneously providing Thunderbird with people and resources to attempt to address this technical debt." "An important question that falls out from all of this is and your original question is: which is more important? Mail user agency or Thunderbird the product, especially if there are serious opportunity costs related to Thunderbird? Within the funded efforts of the Mozilla Corporation[2], mail user agency has not been abandoned and continues to be advanced as part of an open development process."
  - oneJob 11y ago
    I agree a discussion of a kind is occurring. My reply was specific to the comment it addressed, in that, the comment did not fully engage with my initial comment and instead cherry picked one part of it. A more fully formed response, much like yours, wouldn't have elicited my above response. Context.
debacle 11y ago
Showing me sponsored ads on the new tab page is not building a better web for users. Switching search engines from Google to Yahoo instead of giving users a choice at install is not building a better web for users.
- zobzu 11y ago
  Both make money. Yahoo pays more than google.
  - debacle 11y ago
    Not enough money to support Thunderbird apparently...

Certhas 11y ago

Uhhh... the final point in the mailing list message is this: --- > 12. This message is about the future and there’s a lot to work out. It’s explicitly not to announce changes in daily activities at this point. People using Thunderbird will not see any change in the product they use. We have started this conversation early because Mozilla works best when our community is engaged. This is how we gather the people who are interested, and enable those folks to engage productively --- So this is exactly not a case of confronting people with made decisions, but discussing long term strategic considerations in the open. Bakers message is actually remarkably explicit about this, discussing various pros and cons explicitly out in the open. --- > 10. The fact that the Foundation is facilitating these discussions does not necessarily mean that the Foundation is or is not the best legal and financial home for Thunderbird. The intent is not to make technical decisions about support of Thunderbird by Mozilla employees, or merging repositories, etc. Point 6 above is the shared organizing principle for both of us. --- So Mozilla is actually not talking about no longer supporting Thunderbird, they are talking about decoupling the projects, possibly within Mozilla. When did it become hip to just randomly hate on Mozilla for everything? I use Firefox daily, and some random Pocket icon appeared there. I don't know what it is, it took me one right click and one left click to remove it from my toolbar, done.

oneJob 11y ago
When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? One of my biggest, if not my biggest, complaint about the OSS community it the lack of sympathy toward non technical users. If I was a point-and-click, non-technical user do you think I'd have any clue what you meant by 'mailing list'? Not likely. And if I was that user what are the chances that I understand that the Pocket application was a third-party application and that my data was not staying with Mozilla? Would I understand that removing the icon did not remove the code for my install? Bigger picture here, and the point I was trying to convey in my original comment, is that this is another instance in a string of instances that, when each taken on its own might not be a huge deal, together paint a picture. The writing is on the wall, as they say. I'm not a Mozilla hater. But before I am a Mozilla user, I'm a citizen of the Internet. So when a participant of the Internet begins to lose their way, I figure I should do what good partners do, which is to plainly speak my mind in a manner that is respectful and open to listening. I think Mozilla is great, and I think they'd value others being constructively honest with them.

bzbarsky 11y ago

There's scenario 3: a news site took a mail on a project mailing list, and wrote a misleading article with a clickbaity headline. So far so common. To their credit, they did include the full text of the mail, and it simply doesn't support the "Mozilla about to stop Thunderbird maintenance" subject this is being titled with. And the title here on HN looks nothing like the title of the actual article either (though that might have been edited later, of course).

codelitt 11y ago

As I mentioned in another comment, Mozilla stopped developing updates back in 2012 and passed it to the community. I imagine the maintenance will move likewise. If you're upset about decisions that have been made with Thunderbird, submit a pull request. Here's the code: https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central

zobzu 11y ago

Mozilla is pretty much a regular for profit as this point, it just doesnt have share holders. Still is for profit. Mainly benefits the people at the helm instead.

cbhl 11y ago

I think this is just a reaction to Firefox's rapidly declining market share. We've been through this cycle before, when MSIE and Windows were the dominant browser platform and Netscape Communicator hit a local maxima. It took a few years, but they came back, with Firefox. Before we did a big transition from Desktop to Web; now a lot of people are shifting their focus from Web to Mobile. The Desktop never went away, and the Web won't either, but development there will likely stagnate. But unless Mozilla and Firefox reinvents itself for mobile, it will become mostly irrelevant, like DOS and Netscape and Opera.

gtk40 11y ago
For me though, Firefox is already the best browser on mobile though.