Thunderbird 91 Is Flying Soon As First Major Mail Client Update In A Year

[OneTimeShot]

These days, there are two versions of software: the current one, and the out of date version that will auto update the next time you start it.

Version numbers are an artefact of when software shipped on CDs

[skeevy420]

No, not anyone. I explained why anyone is not applicable here. It's only Firefox/Thunderbird end-users. I think you're really overcomplicating this and overthinking it.

I disagree because I think you're underthinking it. Version based versioning is relevant enough of an issue that GNOME 40 and GTK 4 are things as well as we still have versioning discussions around Qt, Plasma, KDE Frameworks, and random KDE programs (fustercluck of version based version and date with semantics mixed in). Something, something Window 10 and Slackware 7.

It's also not sustainable. We jumped from 78 to 91? So what's gonna happen in a few years, what version we gonna be at? 285? 420? 1400?

Why not? It works for AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA hardware

AMD is reusing version numbers on their GPUs as we speak

Joking aside, you keep missing the point. Quoting myself from before:

That reason makes sense to me. I think it's a fucking stupid reason, but it makes sense nonetheless.

So if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd realize that we're actually in agreement about the FF/TB version based versioning being stupid. I just didn't go into the details why. I don't know why you keep attacking me in that regard because we're on the same page.

You don't see an issue here? It doesn't scale. Semantic versionining on the other hand, you could go from 1.0 to 8.0 in 80 years time. Yeah, contrived example, but it's true.

When they come up with versioning schemes, they put thought into it. Not like the bogus versioning scheme Google and Chrome invented and FIrefox imitated.

Since you said please: You might want to quit reading at this point. I'm switching from arguments based in logic and reason to arguments based in a philosophical nature with a tinge of reason and logic mixed in.

Please don't respond anymore with your original argument. I'm not interested.

Thinking it's a stupid idea doesn't change that the reason they're doing their versioning makes sense to me and other people. The concept clearly makes sense to you because you're able to take it apart with logical reasons as to why (you think, we think) it's bad. Thinking a thing is stupid and thinking that same thing makes sense aren't mutually exclusive.

I totally get why Firefox/Thunderbird are versioned why they are while simultaneously thinking it's a stupid way to version something.

What's so hard to get about that? Is it the duality of making sense of stupidity? Putting logic and order to chaos and ignorance?

I feel the same way about Semantic Versioning as I do Version Based Versioning. It might make sense and be based in logic but I still think it's a dumb way to version everything.

[arQon]

I feel the same way about Semantic Versioning as I do Version Based Versioning. It might make sense and be based in logic but I still think it's a dumb way to version everything.

When you're shipping a *library*, semantic versioning not only makes sense, but is also pretty much a *requirement*.
When you're shipping a *program*, date-based versioning is by far my preferred option, and has definite real benefits, but "arbitrary numbers" does work fine for most cases.

Chrome / Mozilla / GNOME versioning is absolutely just "insecurity versioning", where a higher number means you're more attractive / intelligent / whatever than the lower-number plebs, agreed.

[smitty3268]

So, what exactly happened to semantic versioning (https://semver.org) and why did we move away from it again?

It's not clear to me what semantic versioning even means in regards to a browser. It's not typically used as a library - although i guess you could argue that's sort of what Thunderbird is doing.

Would it be based off the html it accepts? The api it provides plugins? That's typically always meant to be backwards compatible.

So then you'd end up with Firefox 1.172.0 instead of 172.0.0. I'm not sure that's particularly better - you're just ignoring the 1st number now instead of the 2nd one.

[krzyzowiec]

These days, there are two versions of software: the current one, and the out of date version that will auto update the next time you start it.

Version numbers are an artefact of when software shipped on CDs

Actually they are an artifact of breaking changes. The minor stuff like security fixes is documentation of when you might want to update for your own good, but major versions are about being able to target a known revision of the software and have your own software work with it.

If you are thinking as an end user, then you care about versioning much less. A software developer cares because if he doesn’t then his software no longer functions.

There is an argument to be made for not making breaking changes at all, but that would require renaming, and good names are unfortunately rare and difficult to come up with. So we’re stuck with semver, and maybe thinking about software more ahead of time so that you don’t need to break things as often.

[cen1]

Still can't properly accept calendar invites with multiple email accounts present, the bug is open for 15 years now.

[k1e0x]

So I've been using 91 beta, and man I'm impressed. I think I'm going to start using Thunderbird, dagnammit.

I was able to easily enter my Fastmail username and password (have to use app password for proper syncing and encryption, fyi), and it fetched all the necessary imap details and I was up and running.

I also set up the Chat feature and got irc working (though I still use BitchX with SSL and irssi, cause I'm a real one).

But yeah, this is good stuff. I'm gonna start using it.

edit: Also, this is apt from Hacker News: Why I wrote PGP (a must read).

I thought Chat was going to be moved over from IRC to COI Protocol?

Well good job Thunderbird team!

[curfew]

The public or end-users should not be concerned with internal technicalities. If that's the reason, I think it's terrible. That should be in the changelog and only of concern to developers.

...and then there are those Phoronix reader -type of know-it-alls who look at their Firefox being at version 197 and Thunderbird being stuck at 91.33.5 and start bombing Mozilla for why they won't upgrade Thunderbird already.

[kn00tcn]

Why doesn't Thunderbird when composing (Write) email allow the font size to be chosen by points/pixels, instead of incremental sizes (tiny, small. medium, large, extra large, huge)? I have notice I have to adjust the size pretty big when composing, and when I get a response is even way larger. It is kind of a nuisance I feel like. Somebody correct me here if I am missing something, but been a complaint of mine for a while.

you shouldnt be the one changing font size of a text email, that's up to the person reading it on their own client with their own visual needs or monitor resolutions

it's a lot more complex with html email, similar to html web pages, the common practice being 14 or 16px for paragraphs (for ~96dpi monitors aka 100% scaling on a 22-24" 1080p monitor, that's also why most laptops come with 125% or more OS scaling enabled by default since that original 14-16px is borderline too small on a 15-17" monitor)

that also means the way you see the compose screen is different from the way someone else sees it unless you have identical monitor sizes + resolutions + OS scaling settings

i've forgotten what options TB has, if you could just manually write in your own css or deprecated html font size attributes as 'code'

email is like a forum post, dont touch the font settings or disable rich text unless necessary