Hi !

Well, I suggested in one of my earlier post to integrate the change user function as an option with some warning message concerning the lack of support if the user enables it. As for making it as a switch, it is nonetheless a first step forward (if it is accepted). If that's the case, then one can always make a button for it and offer it as an extension. Maybe it is not that difficult to do. What do you think ?

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

Hi all !

Well, the death of the change users option has produced quite some posts so far. There are three points of view about that matter. First, we have David who did not say or write anything on the subject (please correct me if I am mistaken), but actually did something about it, he simply removed it. Second, we have the beta team which supports the idea that this option was a source of numerous problems and a nightmare to code properly. Third and last, we have the community whose opinion is not as clear as the previous ones. Some members want it back as an option that could be enabled, and some went with the new way and seem to be happy with it. They say along the beta team that it is just a matter of changing your habits. Now, in order to help putting an end to this debate, it may not be a bad idea to create a poll. This way, the community will really know its position. So here it is :

[Poll]

If you have a better choice of words for the answers, please do not hesitate.

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

Just for the record, the option will not return.

Regards,

Hi !

[quote user="Han v.d. Bogaerde"]

[/quote]

This poll is not a means to make the option come back. Its purpose is more to give a way to know the community's position on that matter. Based on that, you cannot be sure it will not come back. Indeed, there are about 5037 members, and if the poll shows that 1 is indifferent, 3 do not want it back and the 5034 others say they want it back, I would say that this should be taken into consideration by David and it might make the option come back. If you take the other side, then it can only comfort all who did not want it back. So far, there was not a single vote for the "Yes" answer.

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

Even though I took part in the vote (voting in favour of the -ms commandline option), I think you're contradicting yourself somewhat here. Apart from that, I think this poll and discussion are (no offence) futile. Isn't it a little opportunistic (for lack of a better word) to discuss what the community would like to see changed or 'improved' in the program as long as its future is insecure for more pressing, financial reasons? I have thought about that and come to the conclusion that I have just about the business acumen as the author of what I consider to be the best email client I've ever used (by which I only wish to imply that I'm useless commercially, rather than insulting David). The list of programs I've tried is by no means exhaustive, but I've tried a few. Of course, Pegasus is not perfect, but it suits my needs better than any other email client, including Thunderbird, which I consider to be second best based on my experience using it when I was dual-booting Windows XP and Linux Mint for about a six-month stint.

And this, in my view, is essential. Am I willing to pay for an email client while there is other good, if not equivalent, free software available? I switched to Pegasus when Eudora went commercial, to find out I was better off. If users have to pay for Pegasus, they may opt for Thunderbird instead. Don't get me wrong, I've been fond enough of Pegasus to buy a few promotional items and make a donation of sorts. And I'm perfectly willing to make another donation. But I wonder whether this secures a sustainable future for Pegasus and think I'd be happier buying a user licence or downloading the program for free from a site teeming with ads (sorry, I really don't care and hardly notice them anyway, as long as I can find my way to the downloads section within a reasonable amount of time).

Also, I can't help wondering whether there aren't any other software companies around (like Novell, who provide both a free and commercial version of a Linux distribution) that are willing to take Pegasus on board, possibly on certain, hopefully reasonable conditions, if that is an acceptable option to David anyway.

Come what may, I wish David all the best (and hope that we may meet one day).

Cheers!
Steffan

The discussion about the so-called "change user option" (which is not an option any more for a quite long time) is becoming really bizzare and reminds me of discussions with my little children (5 and 3 years old): the more and better we explain them why they cannot get something they are keen on, the more they grouch and whine...

This poll is not a means to make the option come back. Its purpose is more to give a way to know the community's position on that matter. Based on that, you cannot be sure it will not come back. Indeed, there are about 5037 members, and if the poll shows that 1 is indifferent, 3 do not want it back and the 5034 others say they want it back, I would say that this should be taken into consideration by David and it might make the option come back. If you take the other side, then it can only comfort all who did not want it back. So far, there was not a single vote for the "Yes" answer.

Hi all !

First, this post is about the poll, not about what the poll is about. For that, there are some other posts with plenty of contributions. That said, I would like to comment on some various points of view or remarks that have been made so far. So here we go.

[quote user="Steffan"]

[...] I think you're contradicting yourself somewhat here.

[/quote]

Can you please develop ? Since this is maybe not very connected to Pegasus Mail, I suggest we discuss about that matter using private messages. That is, of course, if you want to.

[quote user="Steffan"]

[/quote]

Rest assured, no offence is taken. Concerning the futility of the discussion, as I said, it is not the right place, so I leave it aside. However, concerning the poll, it would be fair to say why you find it futile. I could provide some reasons, but I am not you, so better leave to you to elaborate (again, if you want to).

[quote user="cool_user"]

The discussion about the so-called "change user option" (which is not

an option any more for a quite long time) is becoming really bizzare

and reminds me of discussions with my little children (5 and 3 years

old): the more and better we explain them why they cannot get something

they are keen on, the more they grouch and whine... 

[/quote]

What you say would be true if coding the switch back as an option or as a native feature was impossible, but this is hardly the case. As I understood it, the switch causes some bugs and would be exceedingly long and complicated to code back, but not impossible. That is the reason why (I think) David removed it in the first place because instead of coding it properly, it took him less time and effort to find a workaround solution, the price to be paid being a small change of habit. If the switch could be coded back in a matter of seconds, I guess it would still be there and this poll would not exist. So it is difficult to code but not impossible, so there is always a possibility to have this switch back. It all depends on David I guess. Now, if Pegasus Mail was terminated, development stopped and its sources remained closed, then you could say having the switch back is something impossible. Lastly, asking for something is not the same as whining for something, and if you have read all the posts concerning this topic, I guess you would agree to say that it is more an asking than a whining. I think the other members could confirm that.

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"]

[/quote]

What do you mean by that ? If all the users of Pegasus Mail sent a message to David asking him to code back the switch, then do you mean that David would not do it ? Or if a crazy member were to offer 1000000 € to have it back, then would you say also that David would not code it back ? In both cases, it would be risky for the future of Pegasus Mail for it only exists because there are users out there who use it. If the community says it wants this switch back, I do not think it would be a smart move to answer by saying "Well, it is a hassle to code and the gain is minor, and on top of that you have the -MS switch, so please stop whining, find a reason or change your habit, whatever, but there is no way you will have this feature.". Hurting the community is not a good idea. This is the same for our crazy member, hurting her is not going to make things better, on the contrary. Now, the poll was only designed to provide some kind of measure of the community's position, which I think is an important piece of information.

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"]

It was only removed because it did not work and it caused crashes. 

Adding it back, even as an option, is not possible since there is no

way to make it work reliably.

[/quote]

The poll was not meant to sustain that the swith worked perfectly well, nor to say that coding it back is possible or impossible. Now, not working properly and causing crashes are not sufficient reasons to remove a feature. Why ? Because if this feature is important in terms of functionality or usefulness for the community, then those reasons do not really matter. If the feature has little importance or is futile, then it does not make much sense to keep it if it is not working properly and if it is causing crashes. On the latter, I think crashes appeared randomly and that for some users, there were none. Now, about your last sentence, I do not understand how you could say something like that. Where is it said or better proven that this switch cannot be coded in a way to work properly, even as an option ? It is not because David can't do it, or any other person, that it is impossible. Don't you agree ?

Well, besides all that, I really hope that there will be more members who will vote.

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

Thomas R. Stephenson:

This is like a vote to change the color of the sky.

What

do you mean by that ?

 Exactly what is says. We can have 100000 users says the sky should be red but it's have no affect on the sky at all.

If all the users of Pegasus Mail sent a message

to David asking him to code back the switch, then do you mean that

David would not do it ?

Correct, he can't do it.  If he could have fixed it the function  would not have been removed.

Or if a crazy member were to offer 1000000 € to

have it back, then would you say also that David would not code it back

? In both cases, it would be risky for the future of Pegasus Mail for

it only exists because there are users out there who use it.

The whole function of change user was basically flawed that could not be fixed so it was removed.  Our voting to have it return will affect nothing. 

Thomas R. Stephenson:

It was only removed because it did not work and it caused crashes. 

Adding it back, even as an option, is not possible since there is no

way to make it work reliably.

The

poll was not meant to sustain that the swith worked perfectly well, nor

to say that coding it back is possible or impossible. Now, not working

properly and causing crashes are not sufficient reasons to remove a

feature. Why ? Because if this feature is important in terms of

functionality or usefulness for the community, then those reasons do

not really matter. If the feature has little importance or is futile,

then it does not make much sense to keep it if it is not working

properly and if it is causing crashes. On the latter, I think crashes

appeared randomly and that for some users, there were none. Now, about

your last sentence, I do not understand how you could say something

like that. Where is it said or better proven that this switch cannot be

coded in a way to work properly, even as an option ? It is not because

David can't do it, or any other person, that it is impossible. Don't

you agree ?

If a function causes crashes and can't be fixed it must be removed even it does not cause crashes for some users.  He can't code it so the residual interaction between the Winsock and OS will not be affected the change user function.  The only thing he could do to restore the function is to cause the selection to completely close the program and reopen it as the new user.  If you are going to do that you might as well just run a new instance using the -MS function.

[quote user="whiskyfizz"]

[quote user="Steffan"]

[...] I think you're contradicting yourself somewhat here.

[/quote]

Can you please develop ? Since this is maybe not very connected to Pegasus Mail, I suggest we discuss about that matter using private messages. That is, of course, if you want to.

[/quote]

Well, you claim that the poll is not intended to try and have the

function restored, while the gist of your whole argument suggests the exact opposite. As for the futility of the poll, Mr Stephenson's reply says it all, I think.

Cheers!
Steffan

Hi !

Let's answer to some remarks.

[quote user="Steffan"]

function restored, while the gist of your whole argument suggests the exact opposite.

[/quote]

I think the poll is fairly neutral and does not try to go in one direction in particular. As for my argument or what I wrote so far, I think you misunderstand it. I did not say I wanted the switch back, or that it would be better if that was the case. In fact, I am completely indifferent (and I voted that way of course) so I don't really care wether it is coming back or not. However, just because David found a workaround is not a sufficient reason to state that coding the switch back is impossible. Sure, it will be costly in terms of time and complicated in terms of integration, but not impossible. So there is no contradiction in what I said. As for the futility of the poll, let's get back to Thomas.

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"]

[/quote]

I sure agree with you when you say that a feature that cannot be recoded and that is causing some troubles should be eliminated. However, this is true provided that the coding impossibility was proven. So, is it the case ? Let's see what the beta team has to say about it. Here are the beta members who think the function is complicated, too much time consuming, or a hassle to code, but not impossible :

[quote user="Jerry Wise"] The change user option has been removed from the file menu of v4.50pb1.

It was too problematic and the general consensus was that it should be

removed.[/quote]

[quote user="SvenH"]  FWIW, it has been removed because it causes too much support inquiries

due to many unwanted (and often nasty) side-effects like program

crashes. According to the developer these problems can't be easily

corrected without re-writing big parts of the program. Because there are so many other important tasks to do for the develop

he has decided to drop the support for this function and offer the -MS

switch as a workaround. He has been fighting quite long until he came

to this conclusion but I think we all have to accept that sometimes

things does not work as we want. [/quote]

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"] The more features used the more likely to cause a problem.  That's the primary reason it went away. [/quote].

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"] Correct, he can't do it.  If he could have fixed it the function  would not have been removed. [...]. He can't code it so the residual interaction between the Winsock and OS will not be affected the change user function. [/quote]

Let's see now the ones saying that it is impossible to code back :

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"] The point is that it is broken and connot be fixed and it was removed v4.50 for that reason. [/quote]

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"] The problem with a broken function that cannot be fixed is that it needs to be removed. [...]. The problem is that if it can't be fixed it will not return. [/quote]

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"] It was only removed because it did not work and it caused crashes. 

Adding it back, even as an option, is not possible since there is no

way to make it work reliably. [/quote]

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"] The whole function of change user was basically flawed that could not be fixed so it was removed. [/quote].

There is only one person. So on the one hand you do not say it is impossible, only that it is problematic and that David cannot code it. But on the other hand you say that it cannot be coded, be it by David or someone else. If the truth is your second opinion, then of course the poll is useless and so are the discussions about the function. However, it is not because David can't code it that it cannot be coded, right ?

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

[quote user="whiskyfizz"]I think the poll is fairly neutral and does try to go in one direction in particular.[/quote]

Huh? 

[quote]As for my argument or what I wrote so far, I think you misunderstand it.[/quote]

Count me in on that.

And also, the poll is far from complete with various choices not considered, and those that exist are not explained fully.

Hi !

[quote user="PaulW"] [quote user="whiskyfizz"] I think the poll is fairly neutral and does try to go in one direction in particular. [/quote] Huh? [/quote]

Thanks ! I corrected my sentence.

 [quote user="PaulW"] And also, the poll is far from complete with various choices not considered, and those that exist are not explained fully. [/quote]

For the incompleteness of the poll as it is, as I said in my first post, your suggestions are more than welcomed. There can be only 3 choices, either "Yes", "No" or "Indifferent". Now, the reasons behind the answers should not be taken into account for it is a matter that only concerns their authors. Be they "good" or "bad", it is their problem. You are saying that the already existing answers are not clear enough. Can you elaborate and make some suggestions ?

Anyway, thanks a lot for participating.

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

[quote user="whiskyfizz"]There can be only 3 choices, either "Yes", "No" or "Indifferent"[/quote]

Now that's where you've lost me.

You appear to be saying it's a totally black or white question, or you don't care.  I find that far too simplistic - particularly in view or the recent difficulties and when any answer involving work has other project implications.

Please raise the discussion ceiling a bit.

Polls are interesting to more than just the one asking the question, or the one doing development. A poll very often stirs up emotions, and we see what questions get people involved. As for that polls sometimes can act as guideline to any other end-user or developer about different means of accomplishing the same task. Anyone in the industry saying it can't be done, is likely to get jumped. As well as the ones who dare ask questions, or search for opinions.

So just as what answers a poll may yield, just as interesting are they as to the answers/questions they do not immediately yield - and I applaud in depth factual polls, because we can all learn from the questions asked. Good job, whiskyfizz!

Hi all !

Just to let you know that it is very nice to see some reactions and even votes on this topic. I also changed the third answer, and I think it is better. I hope this poll will give some information to the community as a whole, which means the users, the testers and the coder.

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.

I think the command line option is not an exact replacement of the Change User button :

1) The command line option was introduced a work-around, for a bug that has not been clearly identified and solved. Making it a permanent feature for the next version raises issues in terms of development philosophy.

2) The command line option operates an evolution from a menu button towards a command line option. This also is not neutral, and raises issues in terms of development philosophy, if the aim is to appeal to a large users base in the years 2010's, on Windows Seven. It seems that all other major mail clients have evolved towards more graphic interface, and the use of Start -> Run is no longer standard.

3) The command line option keeps the previous session opened. Many people saw in the Change User option the possibility to close the previous session, for example to clearly separate the activities of several persons on the same desktop, or to clearly separate the activities of the same person on the same desktop.

4) The Change User option was one of the few features that other mail clients didn't have. It is not certain that users in the years 2010's will be attracted by Pmail's superior handling of HTML rendering, spam fighting, spell-checking, etc., compared to those features in Outlook, Thunderbird, Evolution, Entourage...

In short, we must not underestimate in this poll the possibility of people "voting with their feet", i.e. leaving, instead of spending time arguing here.

[quote user="arnaudherve"]

I think the command line option is not an exact replacement of the Change User button :

1) The command line option was introduced a work-around, for a bug that has not been clearly identified and solved. Making it a permanent feature for the next version raises issues in terms of development philosophy.

[/quote]

How do you know that again? In fact the -MS command line switch has been implemented to allow Pegasus Mail to be installed on a memory stick, long before David removed the "Change User" menu entry. The fact that this switch can also be used to somehow replace the "Change User.." command is nothing more than coincidence. 

[quote user="arnaudherve"]

2) The command line option operates an evolution from a menu button towards a command line option. This also is not neutral, and raises issues in terms of development philosophy, if the aim is to appeal to a large users base in the years 2010's, on Windows Seven. It seems that all other major mail clients have evolved towards more graphic interface, and the use of Start -> Run is no longer standard.

3) The command line option keeps the previous session opened. Many people saw in the Change User option the possibility to close the previous session, for example to clearly separate the activities of several persons on the same desktop, or to clearly separate the activities of the same person on the same desktop.

[/quote]

Have you really talked with with these "many" people or is this one of your estimates again?

[quote user="arnaudherve"]

4) The Change User option was one of the few features that other mail clients didn't have. It is not certain that users in the years 2010's will be attracted by Pmail's superior handling of HTML rendering, spam fighting, spell-checking, etc., compared to those features in Outlook, Thunderbird, Evolution, Entourage...

In short, we must not underestimate in this poll the possibility of people "voting with their feet", i.e. leaving, instead of spending time arguing here.

[/quote]

LOL. As Thomas and many others already said: This feature won't come back, this is what David said and which can't be changed by whatever argument. It might be hard for some users to accept this, yes, but life is hard sometimes.

This poll is interesting for sure, but after all it will be useless since nothing can convince David to bring the function back. If someone need the function back he always can go back to v4.41.

I liked the change user feature and we never had any problems whatsoever with it so I am mystified that it made the system crash for other users.  That said the -ms switch while a bit of a pain does enable almost the same functionality so I do not really have strong feelings on the matter.

Hi all !

Well, I do not really agree with some of the statements made so far, so I would like to offer my view regarding those. First, I would like to thank the 14 people who have voted so far and I hope more of us will do the same. Next, this subject was initially about the poll, not about its subject. This means it should have been a place where we would discuss, for instance, the possible answers offered, their accuracy, effectiveness or information contentness or usefulness. However, why not mix in some thoughts about the "change users" switch itself ? In fact, those thoughts could prove to be useful to grasp the usefulness of the poll. I did not see that in the first place, so thanks for making me see this side of the poll. Anyway, let's get back to these statements.

[quote user="PaulW"]

You appear to be saying it's a totally black or white question, or you

don't care.  I find that far too simplistic - particularly in view or

the recent difficulties and when any answer involving work has other

project implications.

[/quote]

 I do not follow you very clearly here. Do you mean one should offer answers relating the time to code back the switch (that is work) with the current difficulties ? I hardly see what this has to do with the poll. It looks more like a question that has to be asked directly to David by using, for instance, private message (although it is not guaranteed to be answered). Also, what do you mean by " [...] any answer involving work has other project implications." ? Did you think of something specific ?

[quote user="SvenH"]

The fact that this switch can also be used to somehow replace the "Change User.." command is nothing more than coincidence.

[/quote]

It is thus fair to say that the -MS switch is not a proper workaround. Now, since this effect of allowing to change the user using a command line is pure coincidence, what would have been the workaround if that was not the case ? Were there any solutions offered, tested, rejected ?

[quote user="SvenH"]

[/quote]

I believe a feature that is said to be impossible to code is completely different from a feature that is proven to be impossible to code. Stating the former does not entail the latter. On top of that you cannot say that it will not come back since there were no official announcements nor any posts by David about this topic. So how can you state that he said it won't come back ? The only thing David seemed to have said has to do with the difficulty of coding the switch back, which I believe we know thanks to you :

[quote user="SvenH"]

According to the developer these problems can't be easily corrected without re-writing big parts of the program. 

[/quote]

Thus this sentence implies first that the coding back of the change user switch is not impossible, and second that it will be long and difficult. Now, if the result of this poll shows that a significant portion of the users want the change user switch back, then I am afraid David will have to eventually reconsider and even decide to go with the hassling recoding. However, according to him, it should not be that difficult, or so it seems :

[quote user="David Harris"]

[/quote]

so maybe there is hope. Who knows ? But then, with about only 0,29% of the total members having voted, significance remains a tad far.

Cheers !

Whiskyfizz.