(In reply to comment #162)
> For this special case - a 5 year old bug - I consider it appropriate to remind
> "folks" to finish the issue. 

Precisely that it is 5 years-old shows that this isn't special. It may be for you but obviously not special enough to have deserved the effort from your side (you, me or anyone else) to fix it nor to find a replacement for Thunderbird.

> And it seems you also considered it fair to disobey the etiquette in this
> (meta-) case ...

I sent a reminder of the etiquette after a violation of it. But if you feel better thinking that you are vindicated if my reminder also broke etiquette rules...

As for this this (possibly) pointless comment, I am writing it because, like you and many, I was frustrated of long-standing bugs and I know the feeling. Then I started to contribute to a software libre project and had to deal with bug reports and I understood. If the above message can make understand at least one person, it would have been worth it.

(In reply to comment #163)
> >>but since I cannot contribute
> anything (money, code, technical advice...), I don't think I have a right to
> complain about it.
> 
> Pardon me if I do not agree with you, but IMHO open source developers do not
> have only the rights to work for the fun of it, but they also have duties.

This is not a matter of opinions but a matter of facts. They do not have the duty to fix bugs. Period. You are wrong and negating reality only leads to frustration and despair.

(I was also wrong for a while. It is a common misconception.)

> Let me explain: when a commercial developers put a product on the market and
> get money for it, we consider as normal that they offer some waranty that the
> product will work as advertised, and that bugs will be corrected.

I don't see Outlook's open bugzilla, do you? Nevertheless, they get money for selling their software, not for fixing bugs. Fixing bugs may help or may not help sell the software, depending on the bug. Some bugs may help sell a later version of the software.

> In that sense, I say that open source developers do not only take some other
> commercial product's market, they should also assume the responsability of
> providing the same kind of service.

You are free to believe whatever you fancy. Reality is that they do not have such responsibility. They may have a desire to provide a good product but it is up to them and/or their employers and/or contractors to define what that means.

> Open source developers do not contribute by altruism, they do it because first
> they have fun, secondly they have the time to do it.

There are many reasons to work on open-source software: being paid, fixing a bug, implementing a desired feature, altruism, ethical ideas, friendship...  How many thunderbird developers have you sampled to reach your conclusion?

> And if people like you and me use their product, it is not just to thank them
> because they are nice enough to give away their work.

People like you and me use their product because we judge that it maximises a cost/benefit ratio, where cost may include economical and ethical costs and benefit includes an assessment of the features versus the bugs.

> It is also because they have wiped other products off the market.

Quoting myself: "Negating reality only leads to frustration and despair."

http://kontact.kde.org/kmail/
http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/evolution.html
http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/
http://www.claws-mail.org/

I only mention a few that are software libre, because non-libre ones do not meet my cost/benefit minimum. Perhaps your cost/benefit is different.

I won't continue this off-topic discussion. Apologies to the rest of subscribers.