Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able

On 28.12.2024 20:26, James Kuyper wrote:

On 12/27/24 18:44, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 28.12.2024 00:22, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
>

Compiling Thunderbird should be very easy indeed
when we use Linux distro's package management.

>
You expect _users_ of tools to use a _development_
environment to fix *inherent* shortcomings of a tool?
(Shortcomings that should not be there in the first
place!)

 
IIRC, this is in reference to my difficulty when Thunderbird changed the
Reply button to mean "Reply" rather than "Followup", and instead added a
new button that is labelled "Followup". I have never complained about
that change - it was an entirely sensible one. I'm just having trouble
re-training myself to use the newer, more sensible interface in a few
years after spending a couple of decades using the older, less sensible
one. And I fully appreciate other people's irritation at my difficulty
with re-training.
I wouldn't mind if they reinstated the ability, which existed in older
versions of Thunderbird, to rearrange the list of buttons that are
displayed. I do complain about the removal of that customization
ability. I don't want to go back to those older versions because that
would mean undoing other improvements. I'm especially worried about
undoing security bug fixes.

The post didn't contain a reference to your case (but I also had it
still in mind). My reply was based mainly on own experiences with
TB (and with experience in software development, software ergonomy,
and system environments in principle).

I do understand the "re-training" aspect. - Been there. It was so
annoying (to me) that I was desperately seeking a way to fix it on
the user-interface level (and finally [somehow] succeeded in some
[non-obvious] way).

A feature to rearrange buttons (as being present in some former TB
releases) is not something that I'd consider to be a sensible user
interface for application software for several reasons.[*] - Here
we might be disagreeing on what should be part of a user interface
and what should be defined in a sensible way in a predefined form
that matches the application case, and not polluting the interface.

I understand well that you don't want to go back to older versions.
Myself I also don't want to go forward if that means that I have to
buy some change that results in inferior software behavior; but it
happens, sadly.[**]

 
I don't like the idea of creating my own personal version of Thunderbird
by modifying their source code, because it means I would have to re-do
the build every time they put out a new version. I want quick and easy
upgrades to newer versions, especially security bug fixes, and that
desire conflicts with the desire for customization.

Exactly, that's one reason; against a system-wide replacement.[***]

Janis

[*] Given that I meanwhile see tons of followups on this thread and
the [in this NG] well known effect that even small "BTW-statements"
are leading to bandworm-threads with much heat and little substance
I'll not extend on that here; with minimum software experience and
an open-minded thinking it should be obvious anyway.

[**] That's why I was amused by the other posters "[...] modern ages
where things have been made quite convenient for us."

[***] You could of course create a separate version in /usr/local and
define your PATH appropriately, but you still would have to keep track
of newer changes, e.g. those security fixes that you are concerned
about.