<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>interoperability · Grey Nicholson</title><id>https://gkn.me.uk/entries/interoperability</id><link href="https://gkn.me.uk/entries/interoperability" rel="alternate"/><link href="https://gkn.me.uk/entries/interoperability/feed" rel="self"/><author><name>Grey Nicholson</name></author><icon>https://gkn.me.uk/style/icon.svg</icon><updated>2025-10-21T12:11:00+00:00</updated>
<entry><title>How To Make Thunderbird Well Sexy</title><id>https://gkn.me.uk/thunderbirdwellsexy</id><link href="https://gkn.me.uk/thunderbirdwellsexy" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/><published>2007-08-03T07:12:00+00:00</published><updated>2007-09-05T09:46:00+00:00</updated><summary>How I envisage the Thunderbird of the future—we'll have it in our flying cars. (This is a re-publication—with a few minor edits—of a comment I wrote to Asa Dotzler's blog post about the reaction to the reorganisation of Thunderbird's development.)</summary><content type="html">
&lt;p&gt;
For Thunderbird to properly succeed in providing real choice and freedom, it needs to become the &lt;em&gt;successor&lt;/em&gt; to Firefox, in the way that Flock is currently trying to be. (You can think of Firefox as “The Internet 1.0”; Flock as “The Internet 1.1” and Thunderbird as “The Internet 2.0” if you like.)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
There are lots of people who use Firefox for day-to-day web browsing—great for HTML, CSS and JavaScript interoperability and ostensibly a win. But a large portion of that browsing consists of using “social networking websites” such as Myspace, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, even Blogger; or “instant messaging services” such as MSN, Yahoo! and AOL&#x27;s instant messengers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Each of these is closed and isolated from each other, particularly its direct competitors. Any interconnection is done at the whim of one of these companies, one service provider at a time. I can phone a BT line in Glasgow from a Virgin Media line in York; I can send an email from RandomMail to Mom&#x27;s Friendly Email Service, even if neither has heard of the other. But if I write a blog post at Acmeblog, my friends using Myface won&#x27;t see it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
For there to be true freedom, there needs to be an open, standards-based, social network through which people can freely conduct communication. (This is what the Internet is &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to be in the first place.) And I don&#x27;t mean “social network” in the limited sense of “a website where you log in and can talk to your friends lol”.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I mean a set of standard protocols by which anyone can communicate with anyone in any conceivable way. I&#x27;m thinking of open, federated standards such as email, Atom (including the publishing bit), Jabber, OpenID and OpenSearch (and avoiding saying “semantic web” even though that&#x27;s pretty close to what I&#x27;m on about).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Flock takes a standard web browser and surrounds that with structured social network stuff. Thunderbird should invert that. It should start from a set of high-level concepts such as contacts, presence, subscriptions and messages. Then it should bring in bits of web browseriness as appropriate to display the content.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
(By the way, I shouldn&#x27;t have written this on Asa&#x27;s website; I should have written it in Thunderbird, to: the web; cc: Asa.)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Imagine Thunderbird and Lightning, Pidgin, Skype (but Free), Miro, AllPeers and the Chandler project, all combined into the only communication program you&#x27;ll ever need. Thunderbird should be that.
&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry>
</feed>