Closed Bug 791438 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

Add a (shell) script / command filelink provider. (*Really* easy to implement.)

Categories

(Thunderbird :: FileLink, enhancement)

enhancement
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: navid.zamani, Unassigned)

Details

Offer a way to add a storage provider by selecting a script to call with the correct parameters, which itself returns the new link.

Example storage provider command:
  /home/username/bin/myserver-filelink.bash %filename
Which would return
  https://myserver.com/uploads/$filename
(Where $filename is the url-encoded file name passed via %filename.)

That (shell) script could do whatever it wanted internally.
Like use an existing sshfs or curlftpfs mount, to simply copy the file to the server, change the permissions, and return a calculated URL. Really simple. And much more sane than having a built-in FTP client and kitchen sink for no reason.

Works perfectly on and Linux/Unix/BSD/OSX system.

Of course stupid Windows is crippled in this aspect, and so crippled the minds of its users too. But nowadays with PowerShell, I see no reason at all, that this should not be just as simple on Windows.

This would allow nearly infinite power and freedom, with nearly zero work. A clear winner, which takes probably about 15 minutes in total, to implement.

And to be honest, it is shocking that we live in the world, in which this was no the first and obvious choice to implement. (With stdout capturing, it could even be the only one.)
Version: unspecified → Trunk
This obsoletes bug #571101, IMO.
This could be additional to, rather than instead of, 571101. ("whatever is implemented needs to be usable by a large number of people. Therefore, some system of people just entering their ftp details needs to be provided ready-made for them.")
(In reply to D Merrick from comment #2)
> This could be additional to, rather than instead of, 571101.
You got that the wrong way around, since that bug is a subset of this.

> ("whatever is implemented needs to be usable by a large number of people. 
Are you telling me, it can not be expected of users, to select a file in a “open file” dialog? ^^
The scripts would obviously be made by those who actually use computers, and available online for the appliance users.
No problem here. :)

> Therefore, some system of people just entering their ftp details needs to be provided ready-made for them.
Well, have SERVER="…", USER="…" and PASSWORD="…" at the top of the script. Or a filelink.conf.d with one file per connection, containing those settings. And point them there. I trust people can edit a txt file? ^^
This is something that I think would be fine to experiment with in an add-on.

However, I believe that the majority of users wouldn't be interested in the additional set-up required, whereas the existing specific provider based set-up gives simplicity - select provider, enter log in details and you are done. The additional requirements for Windows users would also be a big blocker for their adoption.
(In reply to Mark Banner (:standard8) from comment #4)
> However, I believe that the majority of users wouldn't be interested in the
> additional set-up required, whereas the existing specific provider based
> set-up gives simplicity - select provider, enter log in details and you are
> done. The additional requirements for Windows users would also be a big
> blocker for their adoption.

What “additional setup”?? What simplicity?? Do you even understand the concept of a computer? Because you’re having the whole thing the wrong way around.

*One* single-line input field, with a “select file” button next to it, and *nothing else*, in a OK/Cancel dialog called “Add filelink provider script”. Done. 

As opposed to implementing a whole damn (S)FTP client. Have you seen the complexity of a proper (S)FTP client’s “connection settings” dialog?

If you think that a single input field is more complex than *anything*, you should seriously lay off the bottle…

God almighty… I feel like I’m talking to the cabinet in Idiocracy here!

Mark, I don’t know what weird twisted world you’re living in, but please stop commenting on this. For your own sake. You obviously don’t even remotely comprehend anything related to computing at all. Get an iPad. It is made for that mindset.
(In reply to Navid Zamani from comment #5)
> What “additional setup”?? What simplicity?? Do you even understand the
> concept of a computer? Because you’re having the whole thing the wrong way
> around.
> 
> *One* single-line input field, with a “select file” button next to it, and
> *nothing else*, in a OK/Cancel dialog called “Add filelink provider script”.
> Done. 

Unless I've missed something, in your first comment on this bug, you said Windows users would have to install PowerShell. That would affect 90% of our users. Installing an additional application is not simple for the majority of users and is not the three step process you indicate here.

Additionally, you've also indicated we'd likely need to get the user to set up the script with connection details. That's fine if you have users with a script already set up, but I suspect the vast majority do not. Again, this would be a multiple step process.

We know from experience that installing additional applications, and setting up scripts, is not something the average user is easily able to do.

> As opposed to implementing a whole damn (S)FTP client. Have you seen the
> complexity of a proper (S)FTP client’s “connection settings” dialog?

Yes, they may be complex, however, most of the options can likely be set as defaults, and only a few items need to be offered by default.

> Mark, I don’t know what weird twisted world you’re living in, but please
> stop commenting on this. For your own sake. You obviously don’t even
> remotely comprehend anything related to computing at all. Get an iPad. It is
> made for that mindset.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am actually one of the module owners for Thunderbird and I discussed this with some of the peers, including our user experience lead, and we agreed that this bug is something that we wouldn't fix in Thunderbird, mainly due to the complexity for users to set up, but also for the amount of users that would actually be likely to use it. If our user base was 90% Linux, then I could imagine the resolution might be different, but that isn't the case.

There is, of course, nothing to stop this being experimented with and implemented in an add-on so that users could download it and use it if they wanted script based providers.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(In reply to Mark Banner (:standard8) from comment #6)
> Unless I've missed something, in your first comment on this bug, you said
> Windows users would have to install PowerShell. That would affect 90% of our
> users. Installing an additional application is not simple for the majority
> of users and is not the three step process you indicate here.

Do you even understand the concept of something being *optional*?
Also, in Windows 7 and beyond, PowerShell is integrated by default.

> Additionally, you've also indicated we'd likely need to get the user to set
> up the script with connection details. That's fine if you have users with a
> script already set up, but I suspect the vast majority do not. Again, this
> would be a multiple step process.

So you’re arguing, that something is too much work, because, at worst, it can be as much to configure as the stupid one-trick-pony SFTP dialog you propose? How do you still not get the power of generalization and modularization?
It’s people like you, that made Firefox into something, that people joke about „It’s a nice operating system. If only it had a decent browser…”.

> We know from experience that installing additional applications, and setting
> up scripts, is not something the average user is easily able to do.

What in the world are you talking about? Since when is the *option* of picking an add-on from a site, saving it to a directory, *optionally* editing it with a text editor (to do what you described in that dialog in the case of (S)FTP, and so much more in other cases), and then say “open that file” in Thunderbird “too much”?

If somebody is *so stupid*, that he can’t handle a file manager and a plain text editor (Windows Explorer and Notepad in your world), then HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH A COMPUTER. He should get an iPad. That is their whole point.

> Yes, they may be complex, however, most of the options can likely be set as
> defaults, and only a few items need to be offered by default.

Exactly like in a file, as I proposed. Hell, if you wanted, you could even have a dialog showing a two-column table of settings and values of those files. (Although it would be kitchen-sink-included stupid again.)

> I'm sorry you feel that way. I am actually one of the module owners for
> Thunderbird and I discussed this with some of the peers, including our user
> experience lead, and we agreed that this bug is something that we wouldn't
> fix in Thunderbird, mainly due to the complexity for users to set up, but
> also for the amount of users that would actually be likely to use it. If our
> user base was 90% Linux, then I could imagine the resolution might be
> different, but that isn't the case.

THIS is the whole damn problem *right there*. You always listen to the few loud idiots on the bottom of the bell curve, and dismiss the ones on the top. “Ooooh, they are really lazy stupid egocentric asses. They should not be expected to use their brains! Make everything even dumber and simpler. Who cares about it becoming less and less efficient and everything becoming more of a kludge and slower and slower for *everyone* but them?” Then, when it’s dumber, everyone adapts, by also getting even dumber, and the whole bell curve shifts downwards. So now you got even dumber idiots, and they yell even louder that it’s “too hard”. And what do you do? You *again* make it even dumber. Resulting in a vicious cycle of dumbing down, which ends in the disgraces we know as MS Clippy, auto-correct (both Apple’s and the one in the Google search) and the iPad.
It’s like even you yourself can’t think more than two steps ahead anymore.

We have *way* surpassed the point of maximum simplicity, where you can’t make any further assumptions about the user anymore, because preferences are different. And you have *always* chosen to go with the preferences of the dumbest and loudest luser you could find. (So he can allow himself to become even dumber.)
Those people can’t be saved. You can’t ever make it right for them, unless they become inanimate blobs of meat without any control over themselves or ability to manipulate the world.
The only thing you get, is a downright crippling dumbing-down, that drags everyone with them into the mud of fixed-function appliances with only a single button labeled “MAGIC”.

> There is, of course, nothing to stop this being experimented with and
> implemented in an add-on so that users could download it and use it if they
> wanted script based providers.

Yes, there is! You are working actively against it! Raping the whole damn concept of a computer!
You should not be allowed to even touch a computer! As I said: Get an iPad, because it’s already too late for you.

Have fun deteriorating into a blob! But you won’t take humanity with you! I’m out of here! Developing software for actual computer users. And steamrolling the failure that is your line of humanity out of natural selection. Even if it’s the last thing I will do!
(Ok, actually you are doing it yourself. I will just watch, and grow into that which you did rot away from.)
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
You could say: It works for me. Since I’ll drop TB, and get something for people with brains.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago12 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Show your brains and implement this in an extension for Linux/Windows (XP to 7). Then you can prove to us how easy it is and what you actually wanted to do.
Resolution: WORKSFORME → WONTFIX
(In reply to :aceman from comment #9)
> Show your brains and implement this in an extension for Linux/Windows (XP to
> 7). Then you can prove to us how easy it is and what you actually wanted to
> do.

Having brains means not to build on a rotten base. I am already in the process of writing my own complete user space (shell, file system, abstraction layers). To thanks, but I’m good.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.