 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Eudora / October 2006Eudora 6.2.4 out -- and open source?
http://www.eudora.com/download/ and more importantly: http://eudora.com/faq/ (!) - Steve > http://www.eudora.com/download/ > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Steve This isn't a free download for the paid version, is it? I currently have 6.2.3 in paid mode and don't really know whether it would be worth $20 to upgrade such a minor "number".  SignatureSandy my ISP is earthlink.net -- put sfoster1(at) in front http://home.earthlink.net/~sfoster1 > > http://www.eudora.com/download/ > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 6.2.3 in paid mode and don't really know whether it would be worth $20 > to upgrade such a minor "number". If it's within a year since you paid, it's free. In article <D.P.C.Sankey-62AF78.17433611102006@no-reverse-defined.ja.net>, > If it's within a year since you paid, it's free. I paid for 6 several years ago and just recently installed 6.2.3. It works as a paid version without any problems. > In article > <D.P.C.Sankey-62AF78.17433611102006@no-reverse-defined.ja.net>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I paid for 6 several years ago and just recently installed 6.2.3. It > works as a paid version without any problems. Here, too! Good news is, that the spam-filter is now updated and first impression is, that it _works_! :-) (6.2.3 couldn't be said to do that any longer) So alone for that feat, I recommend to download it (if you're not running sponsored-mode)! Best regards Esben ;-) Mail adress not working > http://www.eudora.com/download/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (!) (!) is right! Who saw this one coming? It's funny that the faq doesn't say anything about Mozilla or Thunderbird, but see the slashdot announcement: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/10/11/1456217.shtml and the page at mozilla.org: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Penelope (this is going to be known as the Penelope project). I've got lots of questions: Wouldn't it be easier for Qualcomm just to release Eudora's current code base as free open source? I imagine it's going to be a lot of work to get Eudora's features integrated with Mozilla. And I also find it surprising (although I am not complaining) that Qualcomm is "being kind enough to donate the time" of long-term Eudora programmers (including Steve Dorner) to the Penelope project. And of course, I have the question that no one probably knows the answer to: what will this open source Eudora be like? I'm a paid user of 6.0.2; I never found the later upgrades compelling enough for me to pay for them (although I no longer remember what the improvements that I am missing are). Maybe I should grab 6.2.4 while I can? And then, I find the faq confusing on this score -- you can pay your $20 now, or, if you can suffer through ads for about 6 months, eventually they will stop running the ads? So, in the future, 6.2.4 will be the same whether you are "Paid" or "Sponsored"? Thoughts, anyone? Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In article <111020061037478511%maser@umich.edu>, > I've got lots of questions: Wouldn't it be easier for Qualcomm just to > release Eudora's current code base as free open source? I imagine it's > going to be a lot of work to get Eudora's features integrated with > Mozilla. It MIGHT be easier from a code point of view, but certainly not from a legal/financial point of view. Qualcomm's a public company. [Insert Standard Not A Lawyer Boilerplate here.] If they decided just to stop selling Eudora and open up the source, executive management leaves itself open to shareholder lawsuits that might argue failure to perform fiduciary duty to "maximize shareholder value." In other words, they might have to argue in court that there was zero possibility to earn reasonable revenue from the software product, or perhaps see some revenue by attempting to sell the codebase to another developer. Or (more likely), maybe they'd have to write out a check as settlement to some disgruntled group of shareholders. Cheers, JR > In other words, they might have to argue in court that there was zero > possibility to earn reasonable revenue from the software product, or > perhaps see some revenue by attempting to sell the codebase to another > developer. Or (more likely), maybe they'd have to write out a check as > settlement to some disgruntled group of shareholders. Aha. Ok, I can see that. Thanks. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > In article <111020061037478511%maser@umich.edu>, > > I've got lots of questions: Wouldn't it be easier for Qualcomm just to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > developer. Or (more likely), maybe they'd have to write out a check as > settlement to some disgruntled group of shareholders. Well, look at what they're doing here. They're stopping selling Eudora, and they are employing six people full-time whose only job is, apparently, to produce a product that Qualcomm is not going to sell. Opening the source of this program they're no longer going to sell and which, I'm willing to bet, didn't provide them with a whole lot of revenue, isn't something that is going to put them much of a risk of a lawsuit. I would guess that their decision not to make the code open-source is not lawsuit-related but more practical. It's not very worthwhile code that no one wants to open-source. The code base is old, probably would require a lot of changes to compile as a native Intel-based app, and they have apparently decided that it's not feasible to create a competitive email client using that code. And open-sourcing it is not that easy; someone has to go through the code, make sure there isn't anything embarrassing in there (profanity, etc), and make sure there that releasing the code won't infringe on someone else's copyright. I gather it's not something that Steve Dorner or the five other Qualcomm programmers involved in the Penelope project would like to waste their time doing, and there's no good reason for Qualcomm to push for it, so it's not being done. - geoff > So, in the future, 6.2.4 will be the same whether you > are "Paid" or "Sponsored"? No. The Sponsored mode has most of the features of Paid, but it doesn't have the Junk mail features--those alone are worth enough to me to pay the upgrade fee if I need to. (I don't think I do, I think it has been less than a year since I last paid, but I'm not sure. I've downloaded the upgraded version, but I haven't yet backed up my old files, and I *never* do an upgrade on my email without backing it up first. I've never had problems, but I want to be prepared just in case.) SignatureKathy - If you're reading this in your web browser from Google or similar forum, NNTP "newsreaders" are a better way to access the content. <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/how-it-works.html> Links to NNTP newsreaders at <http://www.newsreaders.com/> > No. The Sponsored mode has most of the features of Paid, but it doesn't > have the Junk mail features--those alone are worth enough to me to pay [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *never* do an upgrade on my email without backing it up first. I've > never had problems, but I want to be prepared just in case.) Thanks, Kathy -- I wasn't aware of this difference. I agree that the anti-junk feature is very useful. SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > http://www.eudora.com/download/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >(!) 6.2.4 is NOT open source. 6.2.4 is Qualcomm's bailing out of their earlier assurance that they were going to publish a real Eudora 7 for Mac and trying to make a few bucks off of it as they exit. 6.2.4 seems to cost $19.95 to get licensed in "paid" mode. After promising and delaying and failing to deliver Eudora 7, I expect Qualcomm understands that their revenue from that bad joke won't be much. This is not really good news, it is an announcement of the death of Eudora, clothed in pretty hand-waving about open source and Thunderbird. Let's be honest: Thunderbird sucks. It is immature and unstable. I have both experienced personally and heard others report the incapacity of Thunderbird to deal with large mail archives and to deal with complex filtering needs that Eudora can handle well. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > This is not really good news, it is an announcement of the death of > Eudora, clothed in pretty hand-waving about open source and Thunderbird. > Let's be honest: Thunderbird sucks. It is immature and unstable. I have > both experienced personally and heard others report the incapacity of > Thunderbird to deal with large mail archives and to deal with complex > filtering needs that Eudora can handle well. Ditto that! The only reason I use thunderbird every once in a while is the 32000 mail limit per mailbox in eudora. Maybe the opens sourciness will catch a good developer and it will blossom like nothing before ?? Cheers! In article <1hn5hkg.fy0ezan5hkqwN%robk200401_AT_badeend_DOT_nl@nowhere.nowhere>, > > This is not really good news, it is an announcement of the death of > > Eudora, clothed in pretty hand-waving about open source and Thunderbird. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mail limit per mailbox in eudora. Maybe the opens sourciness will catch > a good developer and it will blossom like nothing before ?? Is this just a limit on the Mac version? I have both and on the XP lappy I use at work, I have 46,000 mails in my Trash. -- tim > Is this just a limit on the Mac version? I have both and on the XP lappy > I use at work, I have 46,000 mails in my Trash. It must just be a limit on the Mac version, then. SignatureKathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/> Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/> > > Is this just a limit on the Mac version? I have both and on the XP lappy > > I use at work, I have 46,000 mails in my Trash. > > It must just be a limit on the Mac version, then. The root cause is in the Mac Resource Manager. I know I've done a deep explanation here at least once... Google should have it... Yep: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bill-9BE29B.23305102062004@newsclstr 01.news.prodigy.com That was the 2004 version. There's a grumpier 2005 version somewhere. Whether the Windows version would have the same issue is unpredictable, since it would depend on whether Qualcomm was going for code commonality or whether they recognized the potential problem when they did the Windows port. As Rob has noted, Eudora does not complain about overlarge mailboxes, it just behaves badly. For people with the pathology of using Trash as a rarely used archive (you know who you are...) that is mainly accessed by a deep search anyway, it may never be obvious if there is breakage. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > Is this just a limit on the Mac version? I have both and on the XP lappy > I use at work, I have 46,000 mails in my Trash. I can't speak for the XP version. I want to use my computer instead of playing around. The mac version has a design limit dating from the OS-9 era. This is a handicap when I want to read postmaster stuff from 1000+ domains .. > The only reason I use thunderbird every once in a while is the 32000 > mail limit per mailbox in eudora. I'm not criticising, but is that really a practical limitation? Surely 32,000 emails must be differentiated in some way that would make it worthwhile sorting them into two or more different mailboxes. SignaturePd > > The only reason I use thunderbird every once in a while is the 32000 > > mail limit per mailbox in eudora. > > I'm not criticising, but is that really a practical limitation? Surely > 32,000 emails must be differentiated in some way that would make it > worthwhile sorting them into two or more different mailboxes. We should probably skip the semi-annual round of beating up on Rob for his quirky use of Eudora... SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > We should probably skip the semi-annual round of beating up on Rob for > his quirky use of Eudora... Ah, well then you probably misunderstood me. I am a very loyal user to eudora. Used it with UUCP in the 80's, still using it now with tls, ssl, imap etc. support. Had a happy sidestep with a working pgp in eudora 3.. And find myself in a weekly limit with eudora. Experienced many 32k crashes with mail messages doubled as a result ! (yes that is what happens).. Popping over 120.000 mails with thunderbird works. Not with my favourite email app. I read/chop/delete this > 1Gb mailbox and then happily run away to eudora... Yes there are people out there that manage mail lists, large domains and still try to manage stuff with eudora. Or elm, or pine... Whatever works. If only eudora used standard unix mailbox, or maildir formats, without this tiny 32k mail size. And whilst were at it, pgp anyone with eudora ? Counting the days when qualcomm allows eudora source for free download, not mimicking behind a thunderbird front end.. But then again, I am at this end of eudora, not at the source code programmers end ... Yet! Cheers! PS Bill: better a straight on target defined bug (re)quest than trying to ignore a design limitation.. In article <1hn91r0.z3e8xulf21qoN%robk200401_AT_badeend_DOT_nl@nowhere.nowhere>, [...] > And whilst were at it, pgp anyone with eudora ? Sure. It could be made more comfortable through a decent plug-in, but the Services menu works fine for me. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.