clipka wrote:
> While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid 
> from the usability point of view,

Perhaps not too stupid from the thunderbird developer's perspective. Why 
would you want them to go thru the process of reverse-engineering 
potentially many internal formats that you can only generate if you already 
own Outlook, when instead they can just invoke Outlook?

It's a cost/benefit thing.

> Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to 
> read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid 
> would *that* be? :-P

Except that people don't mail around .pst files or outlook address books.

Plus, the people who wrote Thunderbird weren't competing with Outlook. The 
people who OOo were competing with Office. Again, another cost/benefit decision.


> Outlook really sucked at that.)

Still does. ;-)

> essentially links living in a special directory, so no proprietary 
> format involved.

Well, one easy proprietary format. :-) Plus, that one's build into the OS 
rather than a third-party program.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message