ELI5 please, why would I use thunderbird over a web client? I have used a local email client in years but it seems everyone uses and loves thunderbird.
If you don’t have multiple email accounts, then probably a webmail is fine. If you have multiple accounts, and require some advanced email features, then a local client is often more efficient. Unfortunately, because the majority of people are fine with a webmail, those clients are not attracting much activity for development and Thunderbird itself almost died some ten years ago.
May I ask the opposite? Why use JavaScript client from the web instead of desktop ones?
Most operating systems, excluding Windows, are shipping with decent native and fast email client. They are automatically updated with the system, again excluding Windows, integrate with other apps (for ex. right-click and share with mail), can store messages offline just in case and are overall nicer to use.
The only use case I think of is when using someone’s else computer and you don’t want to remember to log out, because browsers have “incognito” mode.
Doubt it. It’s more likely that the video you’re trying to share had a weird codec or an exotic format. If you recode it in another format, you’ll be able to share it. You could try this using any video editing software.
Basically the same thing I replied to this same post shared on privacy@lemmy.ml. This 2.5 years old video proves nothing, I don’t trust Facebook nor Meta, but this is a poor quality post.
Hopefully they’ll build in support for disroot, fastmail, posteo, protonmail, tutanota, and other opensource encrypted mail agends that don’t provide a bridge.
Edit: so the summary of the video is “marketing”. Linux, KDE, and opensource projects in general need way better marketing. If Linux could rebrand itself as anything but “the geek thing”, I bet it would be much more successful.
Encrypted mail providers should require a bridge in order to be able to pull or send emails with. Protonmail has “Proton Bridge”, tutanota has nothing. I see now that disroot, fastmail and posteo have direct SMTP access 🤔 That leads me to question: what actually is encrypted? Direct SMTP and IMAP access probably means they can read your mail.
There is encryption at rest (storage encryption), transport encryption and end-to-end encryption. E.g. Posteo has transport encryption and optional storage encryption. With activated storage encryption, Posteo cannot read your mail because the encryption key on their server is only usable with your password (which they do not store). Proton Bridge adds end-to-end encryption to Protonmail
Client like thunderbird is good if you always use the same desktop/laptop machine to do your email. If you are using multiple devices like school, friend, work, library or even mobile it totally breaks down. To say nothing of system failures, breaking or losing the machine etc.
Most people who love TB have a setup that has been stable for 20 years. Good for them, it suits their needs. But the contempt with which they seem to hold the majority of the population for whom TB would be a totally unsuitable choice is rather unpleasent.
Ever notice how rarely you see someone saying “I switched to TB from webmail 2 years ago and its great”?
Too bad, as i would absolutely love to switch the floss desktop/mobile clients and have tried to do so on a few occasions. They are simply not compatible with modern communications habits.
I’m a heavy Thunderbird user and to be honest, I don’t understand what you’re saying at all? I have multiple private mail accounts and a work mail account and I use all of them on multiple machines with Thunderbird but also with different clients (e.g. FairEmail on Android) as well as webmail (at least for my work mail I use it sometimes) and I never experienced any problems. What exactly do you mean? I mean, I do have an export of my thunderbird profiles (maybe not up to date, though, tbh), but more so out of comfort than necessity. Without this export, and in the unlikely case of a system failure, I would have to go through the process of adding my mail accounts (server, password, username) by hand and that’s basically it
Sorry, I kind of forgot about lemmy or a few days. In Thunderbird, I create a new dedicated folder, use Tools --> Message Filters. I then can add the desired filter (something like must cotain at least ‘host.tld’ in sender) and make it move all filtered mails into the previously created folder. I just checked, it works (you can also specify when that filter should be executed (e.g. when getting new mails or every 10 minutes) and the folder with the filtered mails also shows up in FairMail on Android. Better description: …mozilla.org/…/organize-your-messages-using-filte…
As someone else pointed out, maybe you’re thinking of POP instead of IMAP? I basically have all my mails on the host’s servers (including folders) and just synchronize using my different clients
I use Thunderbird on several machines, and I use broadly the default config (no fancy business). I also have the same email accounts set up on my Android phone (Gmail ones on the native Gmail client app, an Outlook one on the Outlook app). When accessing my email on a machine which doesn’t have Thunderbird set up for me (such as my corporate laptop), I just use the webmail interfaces.
And it all works…fine. why wouldn’t it? Thunderbird and the Android apps just send their service calls off via IMAP and it all sorts itself out without any fuss from me. All the data lives off in the cloud anyway; it’s just a different way to interact with it other than the web interface.
I just happen to like having all my email accounts in one combined place, running in the background and throwing system notifications.
I think they’re expecting thunderbird users to use POP instead of imap, Gmail integration, OWA, or other protocol that expects the mail to stay on the server.
Leaving the mail on the server has been great in Thunderbird since the Mozilla days. I did jump to Gmail web app a long time ago though. I’m assuming Gmail support has improved in the last 15 years?
XMPP is much more popular for private messaging, so you don’t have many large public group chats like on Discord (and lesser extend Matrix). It can do it, but clients are not really optimized for that to be honest.
As for the specific questions on e2ee: OMEMO as it is currently implemented in most clients is very similar to Signal in security, but like Signal it does not encrypt metadata. There is an updated OMEMO standard that does encrypt metadata as well, but it hasn’t been adopted by any popular XMPP clients yet. However both versions are significantly more secure than Matrix’s MegOLM, which has chosen to sacrifice a lot of security for user convenience IMHO.
XMPP is actively developed, but it doesn’t have much funding for the open-source efforts, so it lacks PR and some things don’t develop as quickly as what you might be used from VC funded for-profit companies like Element/matrix.
I like the Movim webclient, but most current users seem to prefer the native clients for XMPP.
XMPP uses way less resources because it was designed to scale to billions of users for chat, instead of being some over-engineered failed experiment to use a DACS for chat, which really isn’t a good idea and never was.
There is a pre built distribution, you need to configure binary cache to get it. Refer to the “Substitute for nonguix” section: gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix
Guile and Guix is way better documented than Nix. The language have more features, so you don’t have to use a hack to load packages, can actually know what is accepted in a function instead of blindly copying what others do, and it comes with a formatter.
I think the language is harder but more powerful than Nix’s.
Imo a better manual and examples would help a lot.
I’d say one of the biggest issues is the one with proprietary drivers - you can’t really find examples and guides on how to get drivers working because it’s kept hush-hush, and to install them yourself requires knowledge on how to set things up, knowledge which beginner users don’t have ofc.
I’m a big fan of Guix and Guile but atm I couldn’t switch over due to this.
I do kinda wonder how many modern SW fans remember the hilarious Naked Gun movies. I guess this might look pretty ridiculous if not.
I hope we're not to that point yet. The spoof genre reached its apotheosis in that period from '74 to '94, with Python doing Holy Grail and Life of Brian, Mel Brooks going from Blazing Saddles to Robin Hood Men in Tights, and the ZAZ run from Airplane! to The Naked Gun and Hot Shots movies. For ZAZ, Top Secret! is even better than Airplane! or TNG, IMHO.
Their successors forgot that however thin, the underlying movie has to be watchable, or you lose something. Maybe it's just generational (always have to allow for that at my age), but I kind of think that Scary Movie et al is stuff that is not nearly as timeless.
Their successors forgot that however thin, the underlying movie has to be watchable, or you lose something. Maybe it’s just generational (always have to allow for that at my age), but I kind of think that Scary Movie et al is stuff that is not nearly as timeless.
That reminds me of one of the major keys to the success of the ZAZ movies, which was to hire a cast known for their serious, dramatic roles, a type which Nielsen epitomized. At no point could the actors indicate that the situations going on around them were funny, otherwise the illusion might be punctured.
Perhaps some of the later imitation films, like Scary Movie et al, kind of drifted away from that premise, I don’t know.
Speaking of Blazing Saddles, I recall reading that the musicians and orchestra were told that they were producing music for a classic-style western, and when they ultimately learned that the movie was an intentional farce, they were not amused.
The ZAZ movies had a very specific style that relied on that. Every single character was the "straight man" and the bonkers shit was the universe. Mel Brooks was much more side-eye and poking at the fourth wall. In either case, I wanted Nick Rivers and Lone Starr and Sheriff Bart to succeed though. It wasn't complete anarchy or loosely connected sketches, and the juxtaposition of the absurd being hung on a pretty generic narrative structure makes it funnier, I think.
Laate reply, but very interesting comments that do make a lot of sense to me, particularly about the different mechanisms used in the ZAZ and Mel Brooks’ movies.
Judging from more recent movies clearly built on the models above, I feel like in general, modern directors & producers try to broadcast more to the audience as to how and when to react. That is-- in this post-MTV age, it seems like they’re more scared of potential dead air time, and want to avoid indulging too much in the deadpan, pregnant moments common in ZAZ films. Ones that made them so delicious, of course, tending to appeal to the thoughtful person.
By comparison, King of the Hill is maybe a rare case of a cartoon comedy that wasn’t entirely concerned with whether the audience understood the full humor of the situations. Just popped in to my head anyway, so I thought I’d mention it.
youtube.com
Oldest