Mail Client exercise

As a class exercise, and continuing with the example of selecting a mail client, we did in groups an example of a short evaluation of six of the FLOSS projects for this purpose (Thunderbird, Sylpheed, Squirrelmail, Mutt, Balsa and Claws), based on a subset of goals that had previously selected for this case according to GQM, and in order to see if we can get an initial evaluation of these solutions.

In our case, the team with Athanasios-Illias and Sergio, we focus on the following objectives:

  • Code maintainability: where we study the main language used for each tool, the number of languages ​​used, the number of lines of code and the percentage of code used in non-core languages​​, obtained with SLOCCount tool and the data repositories of the 6 projects (you can find links below).
  • Functionalities: comparing the following features of the different tools: graphical client availability, multiplatform, number of features that provides the ability to allow multiple mailboxes, availability of web mail client, interface customization, plugins and support for IMAP and POP3.
  • Documentation: which reviewed the existence of forums, wikis, mailing lists, FAQs, etc.., in order to meet the community’s health and ability to find and provide documentation and support from communities.

Thus the conclusions obtained are as follows:

Candidate tools for the case that concerns us are Thunderbird and Claws, and can practically rule out the other mail clients. This is because although the two solutions have a large magnitude in source code, which makes them more difficult to maintain, broadly cover the features that have been established as requirements and also have documentation that facilitates learning and support. The other solutions do not have some of the established functional requirements, for example Balsa is not multiplatform or SquirrelMail that only is available in a web interface.

As you can see, we can obtain interesting results, by this way of 6 solutions, and of course with these objectives, we can practically discard 4 of them. Obviously if we have few goals is difficult to have a full evaluation of the different solutions, but nevertheless, these goals provides us an initial overview of which are adapted more to the requirements we have for the selection of appropriate software and which we can begin to discard some of them, in order to focus on the right tool.

From my point of view, as I mentioned in previous post, making requirements is fundamental to the project evaluation, because depending on where you set the most important focus we get different results, when you complete and define better your goals, there are more probability to find the best tool for our mission.

Salud2…

,

  1. #1 por adrnc.net el junio 12, 2012 - 4:59 am

    Great delivery. Sound arguments. Keep up the good work.

  2. #2 por grape seed el julio 14, 2012 - 10:47 am

    Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Ie.
    I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the issue resolved soon. Kudos

    • #3 por karpien el julio 15, 2012 - 10:13 am

      I think that it is a problem of IE browser, can you try with Chrome or Firefox?

      Bye…

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: