* Shawn Walker (swalker at opensolaris.org) wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Glenn Lagasse <Glenn.Lagasse at sun.com> > wrote: > > * Shawn Walker (swalker at opensolaris.org) wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Mark Phalan <mbp at opensolaris.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:16 +0000, Calum Benson wrote: > > > > > We're starting to document what the default desktop configuration > > for > > > > > the Indiana 1.0 release should be, and naturally we'd like your > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/desktop/uispecs/indiana-uispec/ > > > > > > > > > > Right now it only covers panel and menu layout; more sections will > > be > > > > > added over the next couple of days. However, I'm sure there's > > plenty > > > > > for you to get your teeth into already, e.g.: > > > > > > > > > > - One panel or two? > > > > > - Launch menu or Apps/Places/System menu? > > > > > - What applets/launchers on panels by default? > > > > > > > > This may have been brought up before... > > > > > > > > Why is thunderbird given higher visibility (by being in the panel) > > over > > > > evolution - the default gnome mail app? > > > > > > > > Why do we ship two mail clients which cover basically the same > > > > functionality? I'd draw the parallel here between epiphany - the > > default > > > > gnome web browser and firefox. > > > > > > That has always flabbergasted me as well. > > > > > > Most users are going to be more familiar with Evolution (since it is > > > "like MS Outlook") than Thunderbird. > > > > Except: > > > > a) Thunderbird is more widely available on other platforms (windows/OS > > X) and so I would say it's got a far greater following. > > > b) Evolution isn't the most solid of applications (in both my experience > > and anecdotal evidence gained from many a weblog). > > Please don't take this as directed at you:
No worries :-) Just to be clear, I was offering my 'opinion'. I was not/am not involved in these decisions for Indiana. > Bugs should never be a reason to excuse promoting an application. The > point is that GNOME as a platform has chosen Evolution. Right, and we as system integrators get to pick and chose what parts of that platform we want to ship. Just like every other distribution does. Just because a choice is made to use a platform doesn't mean one *has* to use that platform as designed/delivered. I agree that it's a very good idea to do so as much as possible, but I don't believe it has to be an all or nothing affair. Case in point, show me some top 5 (or top 10) linux distributions that use Gnome as their base platform and highlights epiphany versus firefox. I can think of only one (Debian) and it's been a while since I verified if that's still the case. > I have used Evolution for years; since the early days when Ximian > GNOME was popular. As did I (when I was bored with how well Mutt worked for me). > To me, this is about the platform. > > If you choose the GNOME platform, you get everything that is part of it. > > If part of the platform is deficient, either ship it, or don't. > > I remember all too well the stability problems that Mozilla and > Thunderbird had for a long time, but that never stopped folks from > shipping it. Yep, agreed. > Either way, the current choice is something that might be considered > offensive to many developers that contribute to Evolution and is > contrary, in my view, to embracing a platform of choice. I see nothing offensive about it. And to be fair, we aren't the only ones that do this sort of thing (take bits and pieces from a particular platform). And I disagree that in doing so we aren't embracing our platform of choice. But that's my personal belief. > Evolution has many advantages beyond a mail client due to its data > server and integration with the entire platform. I don't really disagree. My experience with evolution was that it was slow, bloated and lacking in features. It also seemed prone to crashes which resulted in data corruption. But again, this is just my personal experience when I've tried to use it. > Pushing users towards Thunderbird is pushing them towards an inferior > experience integration-wise. I'm not advocating pushing users toward anything (just to be clear). And we are in fact giving users choice by offering both thunderbird *and* evolution. I know of at least one other (and could probably find more if I were so inclined to go digging) unix-like distribution (Ubuntu) that has a quick launch link to thunderbird instead of to evolution for what it's worth. I seem to recall we had a discussion about thunderbird and evolution back when we were trying to figure out what to include on the livecd for preview 1. I *think* the evidence at the time was that thunderbird was in far greater use than evolution amongst whatever sample was used. Whether or not that played into the decision to give it a quick launch link over evolution I don't know but it makes sense to my mind at least. Anyway, to me I'm all in favor of giving as much choice as we can. We include Evolution and Thunderbird and thus we appeal to both sets of users. Just like Ubuntu (I believe they include both in their liveCD) so there's some synergy there as well. Cheers, -- Glenn
