Thoughts on the announcement or "With everything, stir, stir, stir...."

[Steve Lamb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

    OK, we've all had a few days to mull over the announcement from Thomas
Bradford of BSW.  Being in the dubious position of using a different email
client and thinking of writing my own open source client prototype I think I
may be more immune to the hype machine.  So here are my thoughts, take them
for what they most likely are, utter tripe.  There is some minor snipping to
make it flow better, but nothing important that would, IMHO, change the
context of the announcement.  As always it is available, unedited, on
<http://www.pmmail2000.com>.

> August 31st, 2000 Wilmington, NC - Blueprint Software Works, Inc. is proud
> to announce the future development plans for PMMail/2 and PMMail 2000.

    Good, plans are good.

> Please digest this slowly. It's not really a formal press release as much as
> it is a mission statement and a vehicle for letting you know our short,
> intermediate, and long-term strategy for PMMail. Ready? Take a deep breath
> and read on!

    Breath in, breath out.  Already, though, we have a problem.  "Mission
statement".  Corp speak at the highest.  Being in a moderately sized
corporation I can say that Mission Statements are about as effective as toilet
bowl cleaners for getting any progress made on an product.  Well, unless your
product is toilet bowl cleaners.

> Item 1: We are extremely proud to announce that Mr. Peter Nielsen will be
> taking a position as President of Product Development at Blueprint Software
> Works, Inc.

[snip Peter Nielsen's short bio]

    No PMMail news here.  In effect they've stated "OK, here's what has been
causing some problems as this is where our suits have been focusing their
energies while the programmers out back have been getting a suger and caffine
high off twinkies and Mt. Dew."  Being a programmer of sorts I can attest that
we are a herd of cats, need constant attention and while twinkies are not my
forte people have told me to lay off the Mt. Dew lest my caffine drive me to
an early grave.  Needless to say if any work had been progression on PMMail in
any incarnation that would be from the programmers, not the suits, and we
should have seen some results.

> Item 2: For our loyal OS/2 users, please rest assured that we consider the
> continued development of PMMail for OS/2 to be of paramount importance. Yes,
> it is true that it is not going to make anyone rich - let's face it. On the
> other hand, where would we be without our OS/2 users? Just another face in
> the crowd. Out of a sense of loyalty we collectively agreed that the OS/2
> version shall continue.

    Battle Hymn for the Republic, anyone?  Brings a tear to my eye to know
they still are willing to support legacy (thrice over) customers.  To be
honest, a good move.  I personally feel OS/2 is dead & buried but, like a bad
series of horror movies, it keeps coming back to haunt the young and old.

> This does not mean that it will always be on par with the Windows version,
> or that releases will be made at the same time.

    "We'll support it, just don't expect equal support.  We make our money from
the Windows version and everything else is an afterthought.  Keep that in
mind."

> And the previous sentence is not code for "It's abandoned, they just won't
> say it."

    BSW does have a history of OS/2 products so I do believe them here.  Just
giving the translation of the previous sentence above.

> Support for some of the development tools used to create the OS/2 version
> has been discontinued by IBM and at the same time tools and widgetsfor the
> Windows platform seem to be multiplying like rabbits. There's precious
> little we can do about that and no matter what our patriotic feelings may
> be, we can't re-code from the ground up continuously or rewrite major chunks
> of code just to tread water. That's just how it has turned out.

    First sane statement in the whole announcement, IMHO.  Plan,
straightforward facts.

> Item 3: This version will have over 2 pages of bug fixes, tweaks, and
> improvements.

    What version?  I saw no announcement for a new version nor a timeline.

> I regret to say that IMAP support will not be one of them.

    Never fear, I didn't bet the farm that it would be.  There are some
constants in the universe, a lack of decent IMAP support seems to be one of
them.  Funny thing is, if later plans pan out there might not be a need for
IMAP support.  :)

> It was a tossup - offering IMAP support would delay the release for more
> than 6 months.

    Not that, according the timelines published we're not pushing 6 months
/now/, mind you.

> By leaving out IMAP support, we can get a solid release out this year,
> hopefully before Christmas.

    Ah-ha!  A... well, vague date.  Of course by previous timelines by that
time we are 6 months overdue, enough time for the IMAP support, but, hey, I
need stability in my life.

> Hold the tomatoes folks - you may not have heard a lot from us as far as
> development goes, but it's hard to talk with your mouth full.

    We've heard /nothing/ and it isn't hard for suits, support personnel and
people other than those actually neck deep in the code to offer a summary of
the change logs of code to date.  One would hope that BSW is using some sane
version of revision control (RCS, CVS or some bastard version from Microsoft)
which /will/ provide a good history of progress for those not involved in the
coding to sift through and summarize to other people.  I'd accept this line
from Bob & Ike because they were two guys doing it all.  However, Bob & Ike,
two guys doing it all, were still able to give their customers timely, albeit
late, updates and regular progress reports to at least the beta team if not
the public at large.  The beta team then was able to discuss what was cleared
for them to discuss to the public at large.  BSW is not just two people.  I
know this.  We have Jimmy, we have Peter Nielson now, we have Thomas Bradford.
That's 3.  4 if you count Trevor but I don't know his relationship with BSW.
None of those 4, AFAIK, is the programmer or programmers on the PMMail
projects so we have 4-5 now.  Sorry, not buying the "We have had time" line
but sure buying the "We haven't had a timeline" line.  ;)


> We've been working on this next release for more than a few months

    Good.  We've heard this before, nothing new.  Details now would be much
better than what we have already gotten.

> and there are some things the original code was never intended to do. IMAP
> support is one of them. To say it another way, we have to rewrite a very
> significant amount of code to give you IMAP.

    Which is exactly what Bob told me when he polled me on what I felt IMAP
/should/ do.  He also described his plans on how to implement it and I agree,
from the details Bob gave me, it is a total rewrite.  In fact, he was slating
IMAP for v3, not v2 which is what we're currently on.

> It will be available in a future release; just not the next one.

    Another thing we knew.  IMAP is in the next major release.

> You may be interested to know that we mailed out thousands and thousands
> (literally) of emails announcing the PMMail survey and IMAP support came in
> with 19% of 1900 licensed users voting 3 or higher on a scale of 1-5 with 5
> being "got to have it". (4 hours after the announcement was initially made)

    Glad to know that my /years/ of telling PMMail developers that it was
something they needed to jump on /now/ (meaning years ago) to get more
customers wasn't just me blowing smoke.

> Item 4: We have not decided if the next release will require a modest
> upgrade fee. I'm shooting straight with you. It all depends on the final
> development costs. I'll promise you this: If we charge an upgrade fee, we
> have plans to release a slimmed down fully functional demo that does not
> expire; similar in concept to Eudora Light (tm).

    We've had upgrade fees before, not a problem.  As for the slimmed down
version I had proposed something to Bob years ago that I wish he had taken to
heart.  Release the previous demo version sans time limit as the demo.  Maybe
with some minor bug fixes (no new features), and some other restrictions
(single account, no PGP support, or something).  This will get people into the
PMMail paradigm, get the name out there and still provide them with incentives
to move up to the full version.

    However, we already knew this as well.

> Item 5: There won't be a Mac version unless someone steps forward and says
> "I can do it." Then there will be a Mac version. We'd simply love to have
> PMMail available running on the Apple OS; but alas, we know of no one and
> have no contacts in this area.

    No comment, not my area of expertise or interest.

> Item 6: We get asked about BeOS about 10 times a week. See item 5. Actually,
> this was discussed seriously about a year ago, but the starch seemed to go
> out of the effort.

    Ironically Bob was willing to do a BeOS version and, in fact, a lot of the
beta testers and old-timers on here still remember the v1.5 series that used
(illegally from what I gathered) BeOS icons.  ;)

    Solution: Hire out Southsoft consulting to do the BeOS version.  *chuckle*

> Item 7: The only thing we get feelers about more than BeOS is a Linux
> version. Hold your hat: This is an area I can say we are going to pursue
> earnestly. The market is there, the momentum is there, and our customers are
> there. We'll be there too, as quickly as possible.

    And this would also provide the one way to get around the IMAP problem.
The big push from a lot of people for IMAP, AFAIK, is so they have access to
their mail, ALL of it, from different locations.  With a Linux version one
doesn't need IMAP, they just need an SSH connection and export the X session.
It would be running on the Linux box but displaying remotely.  So instead of
making the mail accessible from different locations now the program's
operation is accessible from different locations and, once again, ALL of a
person's mail is avialable to them.

    To be honest, this is a new nugget.

> Item 8: Are you a developer with credentials? If you have input on #5, #6,
> or #7 above email me at info@blueprintsofwareworks.com.

    "HEEEEELP!"  No comment.

> Item 9: Now that we have began to discuss this in earnest, please check this
> list every once in a while as it is a living document. One day soon there
> will be a #10, a #11, and so on.

    Nothing else new there so far.  Hopefully BSW will understand that there
is a venue here of ~220 people they can update in a timely manner by having
Jimmy simply post new points as they become available.  Jimmy, correct me if
I'm wrong, but it would take all of, what, 1-2 minutes of your time?

> Once more, I thank you for your loyalty, support, and especially your
> patience. We will not let you down!

    Standard closing, no comment.


    So, with the inline commentary out of the way lets look at what we got.
The vague timeline of hopefully a new release by Christmas (for Windows users,
OS/2 may not get some love as per point #2), a lite version to accompany it,
and a Linux version in the works (far distant works, kinda like IMAP going on
4 or so years now).

    What we had before.  A new release soon with a lite version to accompany
it.

    Aside from the Linux announcement which, to me, means squat given Peter
Nielsen's alleged comments on another list, we got absolutely nothing new.  We
got the same information we had before 11:59pm, August 31st, 2000, give or
take 15 minutes.

    We did not get any details of plans, any details of what has been done,
any timeline ("reelase soon", "release by Christmas", Christmas is soon by
now), nothing.

    I, for one, am utterly disappointed in this announcement because it is
exactly like the announcements we've had before.  I'm certainly not better the
farm on any statements made to date so far.  BSW has played this game before.
The users get cranky?  Issue the /same/ statement, slightly reworded,
hopefully that'll hold them for a month or two.  Even with the tragic events
in my life in the past week it certainly didn't hold me that long.  Others on
here might have a different view.  I'm /hoping/ that I am proven wrong.  But I
most certainly will continue to plan development of my prototype client,
continue to use The Bat! and mutt for email until BSW does something more than
reissue the same statement.

    Details of work done, timelines, concrete plans for the future.  Not
mission statements and vague notions of half-formed thoughts.  I am a geek, I
don't do corpspeak.

- --
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBObe4THpf7K2LbpnFEQLiAwCfVSQmPjBeYQhvmwcS8+SsJKuUx14An1Cy
tRuTtYGOm10LtArh/6kJYIc7
=dJF4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----