MozillaZine

OSDir.com Reviews Mozilla Thunderbird

Friday June 18th, 2004

OSDir.com is running an article about Mozilla Thunderbird, following on from their earlier piece about Mozilla Firefox (covered by MozillaZine last month). The review examines Thunderbird's user interface, its junk mail controls and the range of extensions available. It also runs through the standard features, including multiple account support, message filtering and the spell checker.

Update: A comment about the quality of English in the linked review has been removed from this article.


#1 Hmm...

by tseelee

Friday June 18th, 2004 9:06 PM

Reply to this message

Although I agree the standard of English in the article leaves too much to be desired, is it a good idea to be so harsh on MozillaZine on someone who's not that hostile to our cause. I know it may be a joke, but it can be taken the wrong way.

#11 Re: Hmm...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 4:57 PM

Reply to this message

"Although I agree the standard of English in the article leaves too much to be desired, is it a good idea to be so harsh on MozillaZine on someone who's not that hostile to our cause."

I really don't see how whether he's hostile or not is an issue.

Alex

#19 Re: Re: Hmm...

by tseelee

Sunday June 20th, 2004 6:56 PM

Reply to this message

Well, if he's unjustly hostile then it's easier to understand why his English would be criticized. I remember reading something about a software project should rarely attack a reviewer, and should even try to refrain from sending correcting comments if the article isn't off by too much.

#2 Terrible frontpage article

by a1pha

Saturday June 19th, 2004 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

I feel that whoever wrote the writeup above should perhaps re-read <http://www.mozilla.org/advocacy.html> and do some background reading on the author of the OSDir article.

He's not even 18, and what a wonderful start to Mozilla he's received. A blasting from a site allegedly dedicated to Mozila advocacy. Apart from the fact the writeup above isn't exactly Oscar Wilde either, the article itself says what it nees to say and isn't actually that bad.

I just felt I had to create an account here at MZ cause this actually made me very angry.

#12 Re: Terrible frontpage article

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 4:59 PM

Reply to this message

"He's not even 18, and what a wonderful start to Mozilla he's received."

I wasn't much older than that when I started administering MozillaZine. It's never stopped anyone criticising me.

"I just felt I had to create an account here at MZ cause this actually made me very angry."

That's great, it's your right to say what you want.

Alex

#3 stones, glass houses, throwing

by mlefevre

Saturday June 19th, 2004 7:52 AM

Reply to this message

Given the regularity with which MozillaZine stories are published with errors, I don't think you're in much position to criticise.

I can only actually see 2 mistakes that would be caught by a speel checker. Mostly it's grammatical stuff, and sadly Thunderbird doesn't have a grammar checker. Neither does OpenOffice for that matter. Are you using Microsoft Word to write MozillaZine? ;)

#13 Re: stones, glass houses, throwing

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 5:04 PM

Reply to this message

"Given the regularity with which MozillaZine stories are published with errors, I don't think you're in much position to criticise."

I've never seen anyone hold back from criticising our mistakes. I don't mind being criticised. If you're going to publish something, it's the least you can expect.

"Are you using Microsoft Word to write MozillaZine? ;)"

No, I type things into a textarea. I spell check occasionally.

Alex

#24 Re: Re: stones, glass houses, throwing

by jgraham

Monday June 21st, 2004 2:26 AM

Reply to this message

You should use Safari; it would highlight all the mistakes for you ;)

#4 what the fuck

by trashcan

Saturday June 19th, 2004 10:33 AM

Reply to this message

Nice to see how you treat members the community.

#14 Re: what the fuck

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 5:05 PM

Reply to this message

And with your language, it's nice to see how you do the same.

Alex

#20 Re: Re: what the fuck

by trashcan

Sunday June 20th, 2004 7:38 PM

Reply to this message

good thing i don't run an advocacy website.

nice to see you updated it, though.

#5 Remove the 'joke'

by guanxi

Saturday June 19th, 2004 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

For once, I think a 'me too' post is appropriate: I agree, remove the joke.

#6 Yup

by mqwtm

Saturday June 19th, 2004 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

That sounds like a comment I'd make - "foot, meet mouth"

#7 News items need not be editorialized

by NuclearMoose

Saturday June 19th, 2004 2:29 PM

Reply to this message

As I type this, I look up a few lines and see in the POST TALKBACK paragraph this bit of text: "Please keep your comments friendly!" Too bad the author of the review didn't receive the same courtesy.

I've been hearing how Mozilla has been viewed as becoming more and more of a place for techno-snobs. That's likely not true, but comments like what have been made in this article don't do anything to stop rumours like that, do they?

Do the right thing and edit your own comment.

#15 Re: News items need not be editorialized

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 5:07 PM

Reply to this message

"I've been hearing how Mozilla has been viewed as becoming more and more of a place for techno-snobs."

I don't like it either. I hate the way some newcomers are assaulted in the forums.

"That's likely not true, but comments like what have been made in this article don't do anything to stop rumours like that, do they?"

It wasn't techno-snobbery, it was language-snobbery. If you're going to write an article, the quality of your language is kind of a major factor.

Alex

#18 Re: Re: News items need not be editorialized

by mlefevre

Sunday June 20th, 2004 5:52 PM

Reply to this message

If you didn't like the article, you didn't have to post it. I don't see the point in covering articles and pointing out that they're crappy (thinking also of a certain person's "XUL" items, and a documentation project that was clearly rubbish).

But if you're into language-snobbery, there's plenty of scope for applying it in the forums...

#8 I hope you're right...........

by a1pha

Saturday June 19th, 2004 2:37 PM

Reply to this message

The great shame with the above news item is that it deviated off reporting facts into a personal attack on the author.

Some may claim its a joke - well jokes do not always transfer well to a text only medium, and besides - its not very good either... its not as if the review was in leet-speak or something.....

There are times when I honestly think I use Moz/Fb/Tb in spite of some factions of the community, not because of them.

#16 Re: I hope you're right...........

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 5:10 PM

Reply to this message

"The great shame with the above news item is that it deviated off reporting facts into a personal attack on the author."

In waht way was it a personal attack <http://www.nizkor.org/fea…cies/personal-attack.html>? It was a criticism of the quality of English used in an article on a professional news site, for which the author was paid.

Alex

#32 Re: Re: I hope you're right...........

by tseelee

Tuesday June 22nd, 2004 8:26 PM

Reply to this message

> In waht way was it a personal attack

Well, I've yet to see a comment supporting the inclusion of that "criticism" on MozillaZine. Maybe we're all mistaken.

Best, Tsee

#9 Thank you for removing the comment

by a1pha

Saturday June 19th, 2004 3:08 PM

Reply to this message

Sense has prevailed

#17 Re: Thank you for removing the comment

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 20th, 2004 5:10 PM

Reply to this message

It wasn't my decision.

Alex

#21 Re: Re: Thank you for removing the comment

by trashcan

Sunday June 20th, 2004 7:40 PM

Reply to this message

Well, at least someone else had the courtesy to do so.

#10 Thank you for removing the "joke"

by tseelee

Sunday June 20th, 2004 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

It's good to correct a mistake when it's pointed out. Thank you.

#22 argh

by arielb

Sunday June 20th, 2004 10:30 PM

Reply to this message

enough already-can we actually discuss the content of the article?

#38 Re: argh

by tseelee

Thursday June 24th, 2004 3:32 PM

Reply to this message

Heh, the original MozZine article certainly didn't intend to discuss the contents of that article.

#23 mmm professionalism at it's finest

by tono

Monday June 21st, 2004 1:10 AM

Reply to this message

Aside from the fact that the author of the review really likes commas a lot, I don't see anything too terrible to make a statement about his grammatical skill on the front page of a "professional" community news site. If someone did that at a newspaper they would be fired, or at the very least, severely reprimanded. Go take your childish language snobbery to the forums instead of the front page of the leading Mozilla advocacy site. I'm glad to see the remark was removed, however there should have been a sincere apology with it and maybe just a hint of remorse in any of the replies. The fact that there wasn't is sad.

#25 At risk of making an on-topic comment

by jgraham

Monday June 21st, 2004 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

The author mentions the lack of virtual folders as a shortcoming of Thunderbird. Can someone who s more familiar with virtual folders explain how different they are from the 'views' feature of thunderbird. Obviously they use folders to represent filters rather than just having a select box for each filter. I also assume (but maybe I'm wrong) that the main inbox only shows mail not in one of the virtual folders. I also assume that some tangential features make this functionality more useful e.g. the ability to assign an arbitary number of labels to a piece of mail. Is that all, or s there more?

People seem too mention this a lot, but I've never seen a clear explaination of what's missing.

#36 Re: At risk of making an on-topic comment

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 5:18 AM

Reply to this message

"Can someone who s more familiar with virtual folders explain how different they are from the 'views' feature of thunderbird."

A virtual folder is usually a folder that contains search results. For example, say you have two real folders - a Mum folder for messages from your mum and a Dad folder for messages from your dad. You could have a virtual folder called Mum Dad Visit that contains every message from either your mum or your dad with "visit" in the subject. It would really be a search along the lines of "(Message in folder Mum OR message in folder Dad) AND subject contains 'visit'."

"I also assume (but maybe I'm wrong) that the main inbox only shows mail not in one of the virtual folders."

Usually, the inbox would show everything. A virtual folder is really just a saved search that leaves the original items alone.

"I also assume that some tangential features make this functionality more useful e.g. the ability to assign an arbitary number of labels to a piece of mail."

Features like views or labels generally restrict you to working within your existing folders. Virtual folders transcend this.

Alex

#26 Re: Alex's comments to me...

by a1pha

Monday June 21st, 2004 10:16 AM

Reply to this message

Alex

It was a personal attack in that the comments had SOD ALL to do with Thunderbird and instead decided to focus on the quality of the review writers English skills. If you are unable to see why that is an issue then I must question why you are involved with advocacy.

#34 Re: Re: Alex's comments to me...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 5:06 AM

Reply to this message

"It was a personal attack in that the comments had SOD ALL to do with Thunderbird and instead decided to focus on the quality of the review writers English skills."

[NB: You can use the 'Reply to this message' link to respond directly to a post.]

That's not a personal attack. I posted a link to a definition of a personal attack <http://www.mozillazine.or…alkback.html?article=4872> earlier. Here's another:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack>

There was no use of attacks on his character in lieu of reasoned responses to his arguments. It was an isolated comment about the quality of English, mainly to fill up space. You may not agree with what I said, but please don't characterise it as something it isn't.

Alex

#27 Alex...

by a1pha

Monday June 21st, 2004 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry for sounding pissy, but be fair. The point of advocacy is to bring in all elements together - as the article stood it was at best snobbish, and at worst portrayed an element of elitism. Great as MZ is, and I do read the site regularly, the success of Mozilla and its offshoots is directly related to its users. Deliberately antagonising pro-Mozilla elements is not the way to advocate the project, and only seeks to reinforce the opinion's of those who seek to oppose Mozilla by claiming its proponents are nothing more then zealots.

Besides the issue is :- if that is how we treat our friends, why be friends with us?

#35 Re: Alex...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 5:11 AM

Reply to this message

"The point of advocacy is to bring in all elements together - as the article stood it was at best snobbish, and at worst portrayed an element of elitism."

I do understand the point you're trying to make here.

"Deliberately antagonising pro-Mozilla elements is not the way to advocate the project, and only seeks to reinforce the opinion's of those who seek to oppose Mozilla by claiming its proponents are nothing more then zealots."

It wasn't supposed to anatonise anyone, just make the write-up a little longer by referencing the quality of English in the review, which was a bit below standard for a professional article. It wasn't meant to reflect on the content of the piece.

Alex

#28 jgraham ...virtual folders

by a1pha

Monday June 21st, 2004 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

As I see it, Virtual folders can transcend "real" folders in that messages can be lumped together from various sources into one "virtual" folder,

#29 Oh, no!! Someone's feelings are hurt?

by superfly <superflysuper@netscape.net>

Monday June 21st, 2004 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

So what! Get over it!! Call a spade a spade! If his writing is worthless, tell it like it is. The author should just take it on the chin and use this criticism to better themselves. I realize there is a line, when you can be too mean, but I don't think MZ crossed it.

#33 Re: Oh, no!! Someone's feelings are hurt?

by tseelee

Tuesday June 22nd, 2004 8:30 PM

Reply to this message

Oh I see, no wonder Mozilla products contain so many typos.

That's a joke, btw.

#30 [nt] want your favorites--mozilla 1.5a and above.

by smkatz

Tuesday June 22nd, 2004 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

Gmail and Opera both have a label feature where it doesn't matter where they are in the mail store. Are virtual folders kind of like this.

Katz & Hotspur: On-Topic comments all of the time online. Offline? Don't Ask.

--Sam Katz

#31 superfly

by a1pha

Tuesday June 22nd, 2004 7:05 AM

Reply to this message

Have you ever done advocacy before... obviously not.

#37 No apology?

by mattrix

Thursday June 24th, 2004 12:38 PM

Reply to this message

If you admit that the comment was unsuitable why not put "We apologise for any offence"

#39 An apology would be inappropriate

by gmiller

Thursday June 24th, 2004 9:14 PM

Reply to this message

I don't see that there's anything for which an apology is needed. I wish more sites would point out the poor writing and editing that runs rampant on the web.

#41 Re: An apology would be inappropriate

by tseelee

Saturday June 26th, 2004 4:49 PM

Reply to this message

MozZine is a mozilla.org advocacy group; it has sod all to do with the Spelling Police. If you want to criticize the standard of English on the web, go to a Dictionary.com forum or something. If you want to antagonize a software reviewer who doesn't have an agenda against mozilla.org products, attack him on your personal website. Anything posted on MozZine will be taken as having been endorsed by the organization, and it simply isn't fair to the community.

#42 Re: Re: An apology would be inappropriate

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 26th, 2004 5:17 PM

Reply to this message

"MozZine is a mozilla.org advocacy group... Anything posted on MozZine will be taken as having been endorsed by the organization, and it simply isn't fair to the community."

MozillaZine is independent of the Mozilla Foundation.

Alex

#40 re: an apology would be inappropriate

by KmD

Saturday June 26th, 2004 3:45 AM

Reply to this message

weird to see how people who speak english tend to forget 70% of the people on this world speak another language. respect please.

#43 Re: re: an apology would be inappropriate

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 26th, 2004 5:18 PM

Reply to this message

"weird to see how people who speak english tend to forget 70% of the people on this world speak another language."

The reviewer comes from Suffolk. I'm fairly certain they speak English there.

Alex

#44 Re: Re: re: an apology would be inappropriate

by KmD

Sunday June 27th, 2004 4:24 AM

Reply to this message

my comment was meant for gmiller (but i forgot to click 'reply to this message'), sorry. still, i've been visiting MZ a long time and i try to promote Mozilla products as much as i can but honestly i wasn't really happy with your original comment either Alex ;) (and yes, i know, my english sucks too;)