The tone and level of entitlement of some comments is astonishing. Thunderbird is a free and open source tool, used by many (including me). The least we can do is to be a little nicer.
I love thunderbird but I don't understand their update schedules.
I just now got an update (thought it would be to 115) but it's to 102 [1].
In the release notes of 102 it says it was made public only 5 days ago (and they say 115 is coming soon). And seemingly it can't update to 115? Am I missing something here?
The janky versioning is because Thunderbird releases are tied to ESR (extended-support release) versions of Firefox.
- "Thunderbird Project version numbers for releases match to Mozilla Firefox ESR numbers. Thunderbird also provides consecutive betas between the ESR numbers, for example 92-101, which match to Firefox (non-ESR) beta numbers. Future Thunderbird (ESR) releases upcoming are 115, 127, etc."
That threw me for a loop. I went to download 115 and got 102.
I've mostly stuck with webmail (Fastmail for personal, Gmail for work) but would love to get back to a local client. So I'm willing to give the new Thunderbird a shot, but it's perplexing when they advertise 115 and give me 102 and it's really unclear how to get the nifty stuff they're advertising.
As the maintainer of CoreJS (Denis Pushkarev) said:
Maintainers are the unsung heroes of the software world, pouring their hearts into creating vast amounts of value that often goes unappreciated. These unsung heroes perform critical work that enables all of modern technology to function – this is not an exaggeration. These tireless individuals dedicate themselves to writing new features, fixing bugs, answering user inquiries, improving documentation, and developing innovative new software, yet they receive almost no recognition for their efforts.
I think it's reasonable to criticize a piece of open source software, especially one backed by a non-profit, but not to be entitled or mean-spirited about it.
They spent 1000 credits on an iDevice with basic, inflexible, proprietary software that "looks good" and expect flexible, powerful, portable, free and open source software to look the same too.
I agree in the abstract. But as I have seen lately, devs (or dev advocates) are pretty snowflakey.
Probably because I think the "average" open source dev has more or less "lost the plot?" A whole lot of trying to beat Steve Jobs at his own game and far less "lets make solid software that works well for people all the time."
