According to the press reports, you are tasked with improving the market share of the Thunderbird mail client. There are three things I think are missing from Thunderbird which will be a barrier to adoption.

1) Lack of support for MS Exchange. I see that Evolution is using OWA as a bridge for this support. Perhaps, a similar approach can be used in Thunderbird.

2) Lack of support for importing Outlook PST data files. Most of my clients are amenable to changing mail clients, but they want to move old mail to the new client. Right now, it is just too hard to migrate data from Outlook to Thunderbird.

3) Lack of calendaring functions. Users want to manage calendars and share them like they do in Outlook. I don’t see Thunderbird getting user to move from Outlook if this is not available.

There are other general usability issues I could point out. For example, using the Junk Mail filters is a bit tedious. However, the three items above are in my view the biggest barriers I have faced.

Thanks.

According to the press reports, you are tasked with improving the market share of the Thunderbird mail client. There are three things I think are missing from Thunderbird which will be a barrier to adoption.

1) Lack of support for MS Exchange. I see that Evolution is using OWA as a bridge for this support. Perhaps, a similar approach can be used in Thunderbird.

2) Lack of support for importing Outlook PST data files. Most of my clients are amenable to changing mail clients, but they want to move old mail to the new client. Right now, it is just too hard to migrate data from Outlook to Thunderbird.

3) Lack of calendaring functions. Users want to manage calendars and share them like they do in Outlook. I don’t see Thunderbird getting user to move from Outlook if this is not available.

There are other general usability issues I could point out. For example, using the Junk Mail filters is a bit tedious. However, the three items above are in my view the biggest barriers I have faced.

Thanks.

—-
I find your article interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I feel, however, that you’re attitude is rather typically capitalistic and potentially small minded. In an age where Corporations for the most part–and ever increasingly so–rule/dominate the world, and where there are so many cases of businesses with ethically minded approaches to business being completely undermined and thwarted in that regard due to “going public” and the fact that public corporations have a legal obligation to put profits above all else… well, need I say more.

I honour and commend John Lilly and Co. for the stance they are taking and I wish them all the support they require to stick with it.

As the commented above me said, this is an issue of “public trust”. Quite literally the “public” has entrusted their time and energy into a project that had certain very clear motives and ethical drivers behind it. Therefore the result (a browser called Firefox) is a product of “public trust”. Sure profits are being made. I have no idea where those profits are being directed, and the idealist in me would hope they are being put to good use for the public in some way. Of course Mozilla is under no obligation to do that, and I am happy to simply know there is a great free publicly driven browser on hand.

Regards,
Jonathan
—————-
I wish you all the best.

Jonathan

—-
I find your article interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I feel, however, that you’re attitude is rather typically capitalistic and potentially small minded. In an age where Corporations for the most part–and ever increasingly so–rule/dominate the world, and where there are so many cases of businesses with ethically minded approaches to business being completely undermined and thwarted in that regard due to “going public” and the fact that public corporations have a legal obligation to put profits above all else… well, need I say more.

I honour and commend John Lilly and Co. for the stance they are taking and I wish them all the support they require to stick with it.

As the commented above me said, this is an issue of “public trust”. Quite literally the “public” has entrusted their time and energy into a project that had certain very clear motives and ethical drivers behind it. Therefore the result (a browser called Firefox) is a product of “public trust”. Sure profits are being made. I have no idea where those profits are being directed, and the idealist in me would hope they are being put to good use for the public in some way. Of course Mozilla is under no obligation to do that, and I am happy to simply know there is a great free publicly driven browser on hand.

Regards,
Jonathan
—————-
I wish you all the best.

Jonathan

I have long believed that Mozilla in itself is a bit recursive. By that, I mean that Mozilla is a member of it’s own community. As long as this remains true, I will be a Mozilla user and contributor.

There are some details we should clear up in a further post (some of the mechanics are a little mis-stated in Blodget’s postings), but I want to focus on the intent. First, there’s no presumption that for-profit (or, more properly, non-tax-…

Venture Dudes: Google is some sugar daddy. Mozilla’s got a sweet deal. Would make a great investment.

Mozilla: We’re not out to make money. Just better the internet. The money made helps us achieve that goal by hiring developers and funding projects.

Venture Dudes: No, it’s a corporation, they make money.

Mozilla: Don’t care about money Venture Dudes. The corporation was setup as a legal maneuver to help fund our mission.

Venture Dudes: It’s software, WTF is with the “greater good” stuff?

Mozilla: We have a manifesto. It’s all outlined in there. You didn’t even bother reading the manifesto did you?

Venture Dudes: We prefer intuition rather than reading. We could all be rich if you would shut up about the “mission” and “manifesto”.

Venture Dudes: Not fair, I want a piece of the pie.

Mozilla: No IPO for you.

Venture Dudes: So when is the IPO?

Mozilla: No IPO!

Venture Dudes: What a waste.

Mozilla: Enjoy the internet.

Venture Dudes: Bastards.

[momentary pause]

Venture Dudes: Apache has what percentage of the http server marketshare? What’s their stock price? [pause] No IPO either? **** Me. [passes out].

As if the C|Net reverse acquimerger posts were not goading us enough, how we have posts arguing in favor of a Mozilla-Firefox IPO on Silicon Alley Insider. Forgetting the valuation question (because an ethical/moral argument should trump a financial on…

I have long believed that Mozilla in itself is a bit recursive. By that, I mean that Mozilla is a member of it’s own community. As long as this remains true, I will be a Mozilla user and contributor.

There are some details we should clear up in a further post (some of the mechanics are a little mis-stated in Blodget’s postings), but I want to focus on the intent. First, there’s no presumption that for-profit (or, more properly, non-tax-…

Venture Dudes: Google is some sugar daddy. Mozilla’s got a sweet deal. Would make a great investment.

Mozilla: We’re not out to make money. Just better the internet. The money made helps us achieve that goal by hiring developers and funding projects.

Venture Dudes: No, it’s a corporation, they make money.

Mozilla: Don’t care about money Venture Dudes. The corporation was setup as a legal maneuver to help fund our mission.

Venture Dudes: It’s software, WTF is with the “greater good” stuff?

Mozilla: We have a manifesto. It’s all outlined in there. You didn’t even bother reading the manifesto did you?

Venture Dudes: We prefer intuition rather than reading. We could all be rich if you would shut up about the “mission” and “manifesto”.

Venture Dudes: Not fair, I want a piece of the pie.

Mozilla: No IPO for you.

Venture Dudes: So when is the IPO?

Mozilla: No IPO!

Venture Dudes: What a waste.

Mozilla: Enjoy the internet.

Venture Dudes: Bastards.

[momentary pause]

Venture Dudes: Apache has what percentage of the http server marketshare? What’s their stock price? [pause] No IPO either? **** Me. [passes out].

As if the C|Net reverse acquimerger posts were not goading us enough, how we have posts arguing in favor of a Mozilla-Firefox IPO on Silicon Alley Insider. Forgetting the valuation question (because an ethical/moral argument should trump a financial on…