Growl extension for Thunderbird

[Mitar]

I made an extension which adds Growl support to Thunderbird through growlnotify command line utility:

https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/3448/

[The_Tick]

Apparently the 2 folks who commented on it can't get it to work.

[visiondr]

Apparently the 2 folks who commented on it can't get it to work.

Ditto.

It didn't work for me either.
Too bad.
It would be great to have legitimate Growl notification compatability with Thunderbird.

Ron

[Mitar]

It works as I see from the feedback. Please read some comments on the page for some guidelines how to install all requirements.

[autumnmist]

The YAMB+growlnotify script never quite worked for me (unreliable about popping up the Growl bubble). But, your extension worked beautifully (and the added plus of Thunderbird being recognized as its own application).

Thanks!

[The_Tick]

It works as I see from the feedback. Please read some comments on the page for some guidelines how to install all requirements.

That's kinda a gross way to distribute software though. You should at least warn them if they have the plugin and none of the other requirements by popping open a window or something to tell them.

[Mitar]

That's kinda a gross way to distribute software though. You should at least warn them if they have the plugin and none of the other requirements by popping open a window or something to tell them.

Or maybe they could read requirements. :-)

[The_Tick]

That's kinda a gross way to distribute software though. You should at least warn them if they have the plugin and none of the other requirements by popping open a window or something to tell them.

Or maybe they could read requirements. :-)

This is silly. You're the person writing the code, the least you could do is make it easy to use. What you're doing now is just a cop-out. It's aggravating that some people have this mentality that they can ship half-done software and force their users to read the documentation in order to at least get a working install.

No wonder people think it's broken, 9/10 of mac software just works, they get this software requiring reading, and then they delete it thinking it didn't work. Then they get a bad perception of not only your plugin, but Growl and Thunderbird as well.

And then they tell their friends. There's an old adage that says that if you piss off one customer, they'll tell 100 friends. And that was before the internets.

So what's so difficult about popping up a window saying "you're missing these things, go install them"?

[Owlboy]

That's kinda a gross way to distribute software though. You should at least warn them if they have the plugin and none of the other requirements by popping open a window or something to tell them.

Or maybe they could read requirements. :-)

This is silly. You're the person writing the code, the least you could do is make it easy to use. What you're doing now is just a cop-out. It's aggravating that some people have this mentality that they can ship half-done software and force their users to read the documentation in order to at least get a working install.

No wonder people think it's broken, 9/10 of mac software just works, they get this software requiring reading, and then they delete it thinking it didn't work. Then they get a bad perception of not only your plugin, but Growl and Thunderbird as well.

And then they tell their friends. There's an old adage that says that if you piss off one customer, they'll tell 100 friends. And that was before the internets.

So what's so difficult about popping up a window saying "you're missing these things, go install them"?

agreed!

-Owl

[bgannin]

Or use a package, a custom installer, or some other mechanism

[Mitar]

You're the person writing the code, the least you could do is make it easy to use.

Why reading this line makes me feel that I am doing something wrong when I am writing the code and the least I can do to make it right is to make it easy to use?

I think the correct line is: I am writing the code voluntary, the least users could do is read the instructions.

It's aggravating that some people have this mentality that they can ship half-done software and force their users to read the documentation in order to at least get a working install.

Maybe because I am not shipping anything? I made a simple extension for myself and it worked. Than I decided to put it online if anyone else wants it. And that is all there is.

It is in public domain and if anybody thinks that it could use more features it is welcomed to contribute.

Sorry, but I really do not think that it is too much that I ask from users to skim through the page and check the requirements list.

No wonder people think it's broken, 9/10 of mac software just works, they get this software requiring reading, and then they delete it thinking it didn't work.

Maybe "it just works" is good for marketing but for proper computer use is not really a good idea. What happens when it does not work? Users thinks it is application's fault, they delete it and blame the developer for everything, as you said. And you say that this is something we want to strive for? Or would we want that the user checks why it does not work? And that this would be the normal and common response?

I am really not willing to live coding checks for all possible nondestructive invalid inputs in my programs when I can make guides about correct inputs and leave checks to users.

Even furniture comes with guides how to assemble and use it. And that is normal there. Why should be computer industry any different?

I believe that it is better to write in some time period 5 programs which work when you read instructions and fail nondestructively than 1 program which works in all possible situations. And not just because the latter is impossible.

Then they get a bad perception of not only your plugin, but Growl and Thunderbird as well.

Yes, I agree with that. This would be sad. Because they are great products. And this is one reason more to try to change users' behavior when they are confronted with nonworking application so they check within themselves if they really did everything they could and not just leave everything to the developer.

Would it be normal that the customer returned the car because it did not work without oil? And would it be normal that he/she would be spreading all around how bad the car was?

So what's so difficult about popping up a window saying "you're missing these things, go install them"?

Nothing, it is trivial. I only believe that it is a bad idea. I added it if this is really what you want.

[bgannin]

In all honesty though, do you really believe it is easier and more effective to try and change the behaviors of users to meet your criteria than to provide a more defined workflow?

Note: You see a distinction in that you 'put the software up' and that it 'only for your use.' Those non-technical folks who download said software will not have such a distinction - you made something they use, thus it makes you the producer and distributor of the item, [at least in their eyes] you are responsible.

[The_Tick]

Maybe "it just works" is good for marketing but for proper computer use is not really a good idea.

It's not a marketing campaign, it's how to make software that works in a way that is easy to use.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. Ya, fine, make your users read the documentation. But is your documentation in every single language that OS X is even localized in?

Because if it's not, then your argument flies out the window.

[Mitar]

In all honesty though, do you really believe it is easier and more effective to try and change the behaviors of users to meet your criteria than to provide a more defined workflow?

I do not really get you here. I think that the problem could be only that I overdefine the workflow so you have to read the documentation not to deviate to much.

And I am not saying that it is easy to change the behavior of the users but that it is better in the long run to do that. And that it should be done.

Note: You see a distinction in that you 'put the software up' and that it 'only for your use.' Those non-technical folks who download said software will not have such a distinction - you made something they use, thus it makes you the producer and distributor of the item, [at least in their eyes] you are responsible.

That is true. But the practical implication is that (as I do not have time to really support the software) it is better to never release it? Probably not. So I release it. And if anybody wants to contribute it can. I think this is the point. Everyone do its little part and things get big.

I agree that this extension is rather small so it is not really a problem to change it a little, but it still takes time.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. Ya, fine, make your users read the documentation. But is your documentation in every single language that OS X is even localized in?

Because if it's not, then your argument flies out the window.

As I wrote few lines up. Somebody could translate the documentation into its language.

And this argument could be used also for the user friendly GUI. What is the point of displaying the message about missing requirements if the message is in a language the user does not know.

[naros]

I installed the add-on without any problem but I am receiving notices twice for each email. I am using the latest release of Thunderbird with IMAP. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks!

[Mitar]

I installed the add-on without any problem but I am receiving notices twice for each email. I am using the latest release of Thunderbird with IMAP. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks!

This is strange. Do you use filters?

Can you send me some debug info? You can enable it with setting "extensions.growlnotify.debug" configuration to 1 (to dump to console) or to 2 (to see it as alerts). I recommend you use 1 and then check the output with Console application.

You should get something like:

Code: Select all

growlnotify: message added to the "Inbox" folder
growlnotify: "mail.check_all_imap_folders_for_new": false
growlnotify: folder flag MSG_FOLDER_FLAG_TRASH: false
growlnotify: folder flag MSG_FOLDER_FLAG_JUNK: false
growlnotify: folder flag MSG_FOLDER_FLAG_SENTMAIL: false
growlnotify: folder flag MSG_FOLDER_FLAG_IMAP_NOSELECT: false
growlnotify: folder flag MSG_FOLDER_FLAG_CHECK_NEW: false
growlnotify: folder flag MSG_FOLDER_FLAG_INBOX: true
growlnotify: message flag MSG_FLAG_NEW: true
growlnotify: decided to show notification
growlnotify: growlnotifyNotify called
growlnotify: initializing growlnotify process
growlnotify: growlnotify process ran

[The_Tick]

Do you have a forum where this guy can ask you about this directly?

[The_Tick]

Would it be normal that the customer returned the car because it did not work without oil? And would it be normal that he/she would be spreading all around how bad the car was?

If I bought a car brand new, and it didn't have oil, I would not only return it, but would tell everyone I knew about it.

[Mitar]

Do you have a forum where this guy can ask you about this directly?

No, sorry.

If I bought a car brand new, and it didn't have oil, I would not only return it, but would tell everyone I knew about it.

I am talking about oil as gasoline, benzine. It would be normal to go to a gas station if you are short on it, wouldn't it?

[The_Tick]

If I bought a car brand new, and it didn't have oil, I would not only return it, but would tell everyone I knew about it.

I am talking about oil as gasoline, benzine. It would be normal to go to a gas station if you are short on it, wouldn't it?

If I bought a new car, and it didn't have a full tank in it, I would return it.

If I bought a used car, I would expect to need to put gas into the tank.

So is your app a new car or a used car?