When I heard that there was to be an big revision on TB, I was excited.
However when it actually was installed I was very disappointed in what
was missing or what did not work properly.

Having used TB for many years through many updates and revisions, I did
not want to give up on TB, as it had been a good reliable news and email
system for all of those years.

I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now after
six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird that I
have grown to love. PLUS there are improvement that I like that were
made in TB 115.

I am glad I stuck with them.

Keith

Am 09.01.24 um 20:00 schrieb knuttle:
> When I heard that there was to be an big revision on TB, I was excited.
> However when it actually was installed I was very disappointed in what
> was missing or what did not work properly.
>
> Having used TB for many years through many updates and revisions, I did
> not want to give up on TB, as it had been a good reliable news and email
> system for all of those years.
>
> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now after
> six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird that I
> have grown to love. PLUS there are improvement that I like that were
> made in TB 115.

+1

> I am glad I stuck with them.

Indeed!

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 1/9/24 13:29, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 09.01.24 um 20:00 schrieb knuttle:
>> When I heard that there was to be an big revision on TB, I was excited.
>> However when it actually was installed I was very disappointed in what
>> was missing or what did not work properly.
>>
>> Having used TB for many years through many updates and revisions, I did
>> not want to give up on TB, as it had been a good reliable news and email
>> system for all of those years.
>>
>> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now after
>> six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird that I
>> have grown to love.   PLUS there are improvement that I like that were
>> made in TB 115.
>
> +1
>
>> I am glad I stuck with them.
>
> Indeed!
>

I second that.

I am on to thunderbird-115.6.0-1.fc39.x86_64 and things
are slowly settling down. It still does no reliably
recreate my tabs on start up.

I refer to the 115 are the "What were they thinking
edition?"

I sometimes have to work on Outlook. What a mess. It
drives me nuts. One big grab bag database file.
But some people love it (probably the first thing
they learned and can't learn anything new). M$ at
its finest.

There is nothing out there that even approaches Thunderbird.
And you can report bugs on it and the developers are
responsive to them. So it gets better. Although what
were they thinking with 115 by testing it so poorly
before releasing it?

knuttle wrote:
> When I heard that there was to be an big revision on TB, I was excited.
> However when it actually was installed I was very disappointed in what
> was missing or what did not work properly.
>
> Having used TB for many years through many updates and revisions, I did
> not want to give up on TB, as it had been a good reliable news and email
> system for all of those years.
>
> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now after
> six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird that I
> have grown to love.   PLUS there are improvement that I like that were
> made in TB 115.
>
> I am glad I stuck with them.
>
> Keith
But it's still got that vast message header, making it ugly and cumbersome.
Until they fix that I'm staying with Betterbird.
Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> knuttle wrote:
>
>> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now
>> after six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird
>> that I have grown to love.   PLUS there are improvement that I like
>> that were made in TB 115.
>
> But it's still got that vast message header, making it ugly and cumbersome.
> Until they fix that I'm staying with Betterbird.
I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
"vast" on my thunderbird?
<http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>

Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 13:19:

> Ed Cryer wrote:
>
>> knuttle wrote:
>>
>>> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now
>>> after six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird
>>> that I have grown to love.   PLUS there are improvement that I like
>>> that were made in TB 115.
>>
>> But it's still got that vast message header, making it ugly and cumbersome.
>> Until they fix that I'm staying with Betterbird.
>
> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>
> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>

AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
controls this?

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>
>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>
> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
> controls this?

Using the Compact Headers add-on (which used to be very widely used,
wasn't immediately updated to compatible with v115, but is now).

<http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-compactheaders.png>

Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 16:55:

> Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>>
>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>>
>> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
>> controls this?
>
> Using the Compact Headers add-on (which used to be very widely used,
> wasn't immediately updated to compatible with v115, but is now).
>
> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-compactheaders.png>

Ok, but then the original claim is correct: TB 115 has a vast header by
default which can only be modified using an AddOn.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 10.01.24 16:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 13:19:
>
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>
>>> knuttle wrote:
>>>
>>>> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now
>>>> after six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird
>>>> that I have grown to love.   PLUS there are improvement that I like
>>>> that were made in TB 115.
>>>
>>> But it's still got that vast message header, making it ugly and cumbersome.
>>> Until they fix that I'm staying with Betterbird.
>>
>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>
>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>
> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
> controls this?

A legacy 102 profile.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 10.01.24 16:55, Andy Burns wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>>
>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>>
>> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
>> controls this?
>
> Using the Compact Headers add-on (which used to be very widely used,
> wasn't immediately updated to compatible with v115, but is now).
>
> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-compactheaders.png>

That has nothing to do with the Compact Header extension:

https://up.picr.de/46915361co.png

I use that too. It is because you are using most probably a legacy
profile from the version 102.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

Arno Welzel wrote:
> Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 16:55:
>
>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>>>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>>>
>>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>>>
>>> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
>>> controls this?
>>
>> Using the Compact Headers add-on (which used to be very widely used,
>> wasn't immediately updated to compatible with v115, but is now).
>>
>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-compactheaders.png>
>
> Ok, but then the original claim is correct: TB 115 has a vast header by
> default which can only be modified using an AddOn.
>
>

Whereas Betterbird includes a superb self-adjusting, hard-coded routine.
That is what switched me, and it still keeps me with BB.

Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 16:55:
>>
>>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>>>>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
>>>> controls this?
>>>
>>> Using the Compact Headers add-on (which used to be very widely used,
>>> wasn't immediately updated to compatible with v115, but is now).
>>>
>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-compactheaders.png>
>>
>> Ok, but then the original claim is correct: TB 115 has a vast header by
>> default which can only be modified using an AddOn.
>>
>>
>
> Whereas Betterbird includes a superb self-adjusting, hard-coded routine.
> That is what switched me, and it still keeps me with BB.
>
> Ed

In fact, a broader question occurs to me.
What improvement in TB has sparked this TB-hugging euphoria?
All I can see is that the old text format has been restored.

Ed

On 1/10/2024 1:49 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Andy Burns, 2024-01-10 16:55:
>>>
>>>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but what do you consider
>>>>>> "vast" on my thunderbird?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-window.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK the message header is not this way by default. Which setting
>>>>> controls this?
>>>>
>>>> Using the Compact Headers add-on (which used to be very widely used,
>>>> wasn't immediately updated to compatible with v115, but is now).
>>>>
>>>> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/tb115-compactheaders.png>
>>>
>>> Ok, but then the original claim is correct: TB 115 has a vast header by
>>> default which can only be modified using an AddOn.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whereas Betterbird includes a superb self-adjusting, hard-coded routine.
>> That is what switched me, and it still keeps me with BB.
>>
>> Ed
>
> In fact, a broader question occurs to me.
> What improvement in TB has sparked this TB-hugging euphoria?
> All I can see is that the old text format has been restored.
>
> Ed

Well, progress has been made. Your "posting in BASE64" seems to
have stopped. If you have done something on purpose to
fix this, you should mention for the audience, what you've
done, so we can pass it on to other BASE64 people.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <== used to be BASE64

Paul

On 10.01.24 19:49, Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Whereas Betterbird includes a superb self-adjusting, hard-coded routine.
>> That is what switched me, and it still keeps me with BB.
>>
>> Ed
>
> In fact, a broader question occurs to me.
> What improvement in TB has sparked this TB-hugging euphoria?

Instead of one second think two seconds about it. *SCNR*
What do you think how long a one man show can compete?

I use both programs: In the meantime the differences are negligible. On
Macs BB is a nightmare. On Linux it works as intended.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

It used to take one press of the Tab or Shift+Tab key to navigate from the
folder-list to the message-list or the reverse. This allowed using only the
keyboard for much message browsing, deleting, filtering, etc. Now it takes four
such keystrokes to switch from the one pane to the other, which is unacceptable.

What config can I add to skip tab-stopping on UI elements which are *rarely* used?

On 01/12/2024 12:58 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 10.01.24 19:49, Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> Whereas Betterbird includes a superb self-adjusting, hard-coded routine.
>>> That is what switched me, and it still keeps me with BB.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> In fact, a broader question occurs to me.
>> What improvement in TB has sparked this TB-hugging euphoria?
>
> Instead of one second think two seconds about it. *SCNR*
> What do you think how long a one man show can compete?
>
> I use both programs: In the meantime the differences are negligible. On
> Macs BB is a nightmare. On Linux it works as intended.
>
As I understand, version 115 has a new basic undercarriage. The
previous version was a system that was 20? years old, and was becoming
difficult to maintain with the current Computer operating technology, ie
Windows 11, Links, etc.
The beauty of TB 115 is what the programmers have done: give us what
appears to be the old TB, on a new under carriage that will be able to
keep up with technology for the next 20 years.
Sort of like putting a 57 Chevy body with a Tesla engine and frame.
This is far better than keeping the old undercarriage and seeing TB
disappear when it can no long be bade to run on the then current computers.

On 12.01.24 20:12, Frankie NinetyEight wrote:
> It used to take one press of the Tab or Shift+Tab key to navigate from the
> folder-list to the message-list or the reverse. This allowed using only the
> keyboard for much message browsing, deleting, filtering, etc. Now it takes four
> such keystrokes to switch from the one pane to the other, which is unacceptable.
>
> What config can I add to skip tab-stopping on UI elements which are *rarely* used?

Learn to do subject-changes correctly.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-01-12 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 12.01.24 20:12, Frankie NinetyEight wrote:
>> It used to take one press of the Tab or Shift+Tab key to navigate from the
>> folder-list to the message-list or the reverse. This allowed using only the
>> keyboard for much message browsing, deleting, filtering, etc. Now it takes four
>> such keystrokes to switch from the one pane to the other, which is unacceptable.
>>
>> What config can I add to skip tab-stopping on UI elements which are *rarely* used?

Is there something that can be added to say userChrome.css to make the these
elements non-tabstops:

in the message-list pane caption <Folder-name> <message-count> [Quick Filter]:
- button [Quick Filter] "Toggle the QuickFilter Bar"
- button [<icon> ] "Message list display options"

in the message-list column headers:
- button [<icon> ] "Sort by attachments"

On 13.01.24 00:35, Frankie NinetyEight wrote:
> On 2024-01-12 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 12.01.24 20:12, Frankie NinetyEight wrote:
>>> It used to take one press of the Tab or Shift+Tab key to navigate from the
>>> folder-list to the message-list or the reverse. This allowed using only the
>>> keyboard for much message browsing, deleting, filtering, etc. Now it takes four
>>> such keystrokes to switch from the one pane to the other, which is unacceptable.
>>>
>>> What config can I add to skip tab-stopping on UI elements which are *rarely* used?
>
> Is there something that can be added to say userChrome.css to make the these
> elements non-tabstops:
>
> in the message-list pane caption <Folder-name> <message-count> [Quick Filter]:
> - button [Quick Filter] "Toggle the QuickFilter Bar"
> - button [<icon> ] "Message list display options"
>
> in the message-list column headers:
> - button [<icon> ] "Sort by attachments"

*PLONK*

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-01-09, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When I heard that there was to be an big revision on TB, I was excited.
> However when it actually was installed I was very disappointed in what
> was missing or what did not work properly.
>
> Having used TB for many years through many updates and revisions, I did
> not want to give up on TB, as it had been a good reliable news and email
> system for all of those years.
>
> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now after
> six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird that I
> have grown to love. PLUS there are improvement that I like that were
> made in TB 115.
>
> I am glad I stuck with them.
>
For some background about Thunderbird from a developer (Alessandro
Castellani)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoLb6aHakno

It makes interesting and worthwhile viewing.

On 13.01.24 07:46, Gordon wrote:
> On 2024-01-09, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> When I heard that there was to be an big revision on TB, I was excited.
>> However when it actually was installed I was very disappointed in what
>> was missing or what did not work properly.
>>
>> Having used TB for many years through many updates and revisions, I did
>> not want to give up on TB, as it had been a good reliable news and email
>> system for all of those years.
>>
>> I patiently watched as they fix what was wrong in TB 115, and now after
>> six revision, it is back to the same old reliable Thunderbird that I
>> have grown to love. PLUS there are improvement that I like that were
>> made in TB 115.
>>
>> I am glad I stuck with them.
>>
> For some background about Thunderbird from a developer (Alessandro
> Castellani)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoLb6aHakno
>
> It makes interesting and worthwhile viewing.

More than a year old. A lot of bla bla and addresses in no way current
issues.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 12 Jan 2024 20:50, knuttle wrote:
> As I understand, version 115 has a new basic undercarriage.

No. The backend ("undercarriage") is the same, and they re-wrote the
frontend. That's why there is so much UI breakage in 115.

--
Viele Grüße, Jörg
Sent with Betterbird. Simply better.
www.betterbird.eu - www.betterbird.eu/#featuretable
Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich: Kaum macht man's richtig, schon
funktioniert's!

On 12 Jan 2024 18:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On Macs BB is a nightmare.

Could you please stop extrapolating your personal experience to all
users of the platform. We have about 1000 users on Mac, and based on
non-existent complaints, your problem seems to be special. We've
encouraged you on various occasions to troubleshoot it, but you insist
that TB and BB must behave identically and refuse all collaboration.

Besides, the TB binary is compiled for your M1/M2 Mac whereas BB, being
compiled for x64 is running in emulation mode on the M1/M2 Mac.

--
Viele Grüße, Jörg
Sent with Betterbird. Simply better.
www.betterbird.eu - www.betterbird.eu/#featuretable
Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich: Kaum macht man's richtig, schon
funktioniert's!

On 12 Jan 2024 18:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> I use both programs: In the meantime the differences are negligible.

What are you trying to achieve? Deny that BB has a lot more functions
and quite a few less bugs?

If you don't use any of the functions from
www.betterbird.eu/#featuretable, then yes, for you personally, the
differences will be small.

--
Viele Grüße, Jörg
Sent with Betterbird. Simply better.
www.betterbird.eu - www.betterbird.eu/#featuretable
Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich: Kaum macht man's richtig, schon
funktioniert's!

On 13.01.24 11:48, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2024 18:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On Macs BB is a nightmare.
>
> Could you please stop extrapolating your personal experience to all
> users of the platform. We have about 1000 users on Mac, and based on
> non-existent complaints, your problem seems to be special. We've

On several Macs? From a T2 to M2pro? Not very probable.

--
"Manus manum lavat."