Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the just-add-water dept.

Mozilla 236

An anonymous reader writes "SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha was released last week. Users of the Mozilla Suite or Netscape should check it out - it contains numerous new features and bugfixes when compared to Mozilla 1.7, but offers the same basic look and feel. There are a few screenshots on the SeaMonkey blog showing off some of the features. For those who don't know, SeaMonkey is the continuation of the Mozilla Suite after the Mozilla Foundation ceased shipping new releases."

cancel ×

236 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594567)

Frist Psot!!!!!! hehe, atleast I hope, it's been a while :p BTW, why aren't there any comments from subscribed members? They're like, less active..

Re:FP (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594573)

As I recall, don't subscribers just get the chance to prepare their posts, but cannot actually submit until its gone live?

(trip master monkey uses this to great effect)

first post (-1, Offtopic)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594570)

I am awesome

Wherefore (0, Offtopic)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594577)

I understand the *what* and the *how*, I'm just not surely I really understand the *why*.

A chacun a son gout, I suppose.

Martin

Why Seamonkey? (2, Informative)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594587)

I think maybe some overreactive mod missed my point.

I understand the *what* and *how* of Seamonkey, I don understand the *why*.

I'm not sure why anyone is bothering to keep Seamonkey alive, in these post-Firefox times.

Please contro, your twitches, Trollmods.

Martin

Re:Why Seamonkey? (2, Insightful)

drac (13878) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594621)

Because some people like tight browser-mailer integration. For instance, some people like having a "send page by email" in a browser submenu. or being able to fire up a new mail message with a single hotkey while in the browser window.

Different folks, different preferences.

Re:Why Seamonkey? (1)

pahles (701275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594742)

some people like having a "send page by email" in a browser submenu.
File -> Send link...
or being able to fire up a new mail message with a single hotkey while in the browser window.
Ctrl-M

Re:Why Seamonkey? (4, Informative)

drac (13878) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594782)

"Send page by email" does not exist in Firefox. "Send link" is not the same thing.

The ctrl-M shortcut within Firefox unleashed a sea of iexplore windows on this machine. I shall not be doing it again.

Please understand that those are only examples.

I understand that the differences are trivial for some people. It should not be difficult for those people to understand, however, in a general sense, that seamless integration (like most features) is more important to others.

It cannot be reasonably argued that Firefox, Thunderbird, and NVU provide a seamless integrative experience. That's not a flaw overall, but a design decision.

It is therefore not unreasonable for those for whom a seamless integrative experience is important to prefer the integrated suite.

You asked, I answered. That's the "why".

Re:Why Seamonkey? (4, Interesting)

n4t3 (266019) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594634)

Speaking as someone who administers a small company that has been standardized on first Netscape then the Mozilla suite for many years, it will take some time for me to learn whatever I will need to in order to replace the suite with the separate components of FF and TB. Then after all the machines are set up, (I'm assuming I will be able to find a way to push the install through Active Directory), I'll have to deal with the training issues: "where's this, where's that?". Then don't even start the discussion about plugins - there's folks in every building with some kind of plugin that will need to be set up (Web developer, enigmail, etc.) Although I'm excited about FF/TB, my personal experience with FF has been lackluster - mysterious crashes and such while the Mozilla suite has been rock solid (if a little slow).

Re:Why Seamonkey? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594945)

Indeed, the development strategies of Firefox and Mozilla Suite do differ.

I'd say that Firefox is more like the Linux development process. It's not as well engineered, but there's the community impetus behind it that keeps the work going. Sometimes the quality is a bit lacking, but such problems are dealt with soon enough.

Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey is more like the *BSD development process. Things move more slowly, but the product is quite solid and well designed.

In the end, it's difficult to say which is a better method: rapid development with rapidly fixed problems, or slower development without significant problems. Either way, the software produced trumps anything put out by many commercial vendors.

Re:Why Seamonkey? (1)

oojah (113006) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594816)

The reason from my point of view is that I don't really like Firefox. I still use the suite because it is better, in my opinion.

There are plenty of other people in the same position as me it seems and some of them decided to work on the suite.

Fair enough?

Roger

Re:Why Seamonkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594941)

Because we like it? And it suits our needs?

What you're asking is like asking why people use different Linux distros.

Why does Dave use Slackware while Tim uses Fedora Core with that nifty and "better" grapicial installer?

Your needs may not be the same as mine, nor is it probably the same as other Mozilla users.

If you don't like Mozilla, you don't have to use it nor do you have to download it. And if you run a web site, you don't have to worry about supporting it because it's based on the same code as Firefox. Gecko is Gecko.

Re:Wherefore (2)

jonadab (583620) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594618)

> A chacun a son gout, I suppose.

Excellent piece of music that. Shickele is an unsung genius...

> I understand the *what* and the *how*, I'm just not surely I
> really understand the *why*.

Presumably, so that people who prefer the suite can get the advantage of any recent Gecko rendering engine improvements. Duh.

Why would someone prefer the suite? Well, at first I preferred Navigator over Firefox because the Firefox extension management mechanism frankly sucks. (The existence of the extension mechanism is important, and the idea of leaving many features to extensions is not really the problem, but among other things there's no easy way to say "I want this extension, and this one, and this one, and this one, and that one" and have them all download and install as a batch. Then there's the trial-and-error uninstall-half / test / reinstall-half method you have to go through if one of your extensions is causing you trouble; the UI for this is abysmal, and reinstalling requires re-downloading, which is totally unacceptable for people on dialup.)

I did eventually switch from Navigator to Firefox, after the first major round of improvements to the extension mechanism (notably, extensions now persist when you install a new version of the browser; without that, I was sticking with Navigator just because it had some of the most important extensions built in). However, the browser is the only component that I use. I can easily see why someone who also uses the Mail/News component, for instance, might prefer the suite. Fundamentally, Navigator is still a quite usable browser, containing all of the most important feature innovations that Firefox has. It's not the latest and greatest thing that the Mozilla Foundation is excited about, but it's not exactly some crufty old twentieth-century browser with no features, either. Really it's pretty good, and still has its fans. It just hasn't garnered the mainstream attention that Firefox has.

Re:Wherefore (1)

pahles (701275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594725)

and reinstalling requires re-downloading,

Since when? Nobody told you to download AND install it the first time. You could've just downloaded it, put it in a place somewhere on your HD and install it afterwards.

Mozilla Suite (2, Interesting)

Commander Trollco (791924) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594580)

Why should /. be excited about this? Well, for one, there are actually a great many users out there that do want an all-in one browser/email/chat client, and Mozilla was perhaps one of the best. One wonders if the explosive popularity of Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox and Thunderbird dimmed the Mozilla foundation's view of its flagship product

Re:Mozilla Suite (2, Interesting)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594600)

Well, given that Mozilla never achieved any significant market share, and Firefox took off because Moz moved away from monolithic preference-hell, the evidence seems to suggest you are wrong.

There might be a nice market amongst luddites and regressives, and those who think they are sticking it "to the man" by using something with such an aging and nasty interface.

But other than that? I dunno.

I would have thought the devs could have found better projects to turn their resources to.

Martin

Re:Mozilla Suite (3, Insightful)

kernelpanicked (882802) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594688)

>>There might be a nice market amongst luddites and regressives, and those who think they are sticking it "to the man" by using something with such an aging and nasty interface.

Odd. The interface is exactly why I use Mozilla and not firefox. What genius moved the google search to an entirely new field when on Moz you can just type in the address bar and hit the down arrow? There is also the distinct lack of huge memory leaks which means Mozilla can run for a month or so at a time without a restart on my machine. It also appears (nope I haven't done benchmarks) to render pages much faster than F irefox.

Re:Mozilla Suite (1)

Greger47 (516305) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594870)

What genius moved the google search to an entirely new field when on Moz you can just type in the address bar and hit the down arrow?

Yea, thats what bugs me the most about Firefox as well. If someone writes an extention to put that feature back into Firefox I might consider it, untill that time, the Mozilla Suite rules the day.

/greger

Re:Mozilla Suite (0)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594712)

> something with such an aging and nasty interface

hey, do you mean that (https://addons.mozilla.org/themes/moreinfo.php?ap plication=firefox&category=Modern&numpg=10&id=9 [mozilla.org] ) interface, that did not look like a lame IE copy??

Seriously folks, why does FF in it's standard design look as poor as IE? To me this "ms-imitation-design" that also caught most X window managers ist absolutely stupid (and ugly). And ther surely is something better. Innovate. Don't imitate!

Re:Mozilla Suite (4, Interesting)

ooze (307871) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594781)

1st: Firefox + Thundebird is about 2 times as ressource hungry as the mozilla suite alone, where you have all that functionality and much more
2nd: I'm running a Mozilla suite 1.8 alpha for about a year already at work. It's so much more stable than the Firefox I had at home for a while, where I had more hangups in the two weeks I was using it than I had with the Mozilla (Alpha!) in the whole year. Granted, Firefox is more stable than IE, but that isn't that much of an achievement. I don't see any bloat in the suite. I'm using it on my development machine at work, which isn't exactly packed, and have no problem with speed. The only time I have problems with speed is when I start the Visual Studio. That's the reason I almost never do that. I develop with emacs...considering that this was once the standard example for bloat it's sort of funny.
3rd: The suite has so many more features important to web developers, such as the integrated DOM Inspector etc...
4th: Much better intgration (naturally) of all basic internet usage tools
5th: It may be ugly in the standard themes, but there are countless themes available. And yes, even themes that make it look like Firefox.
6th: Speed? How often do you start up your browser a day? If the load time of your browser starts to eat significant time of your day, because you start it up so often, then you should maybe take a closer look on your work habits, since those seem to have more impact on your little time.

Re:Mozilla Suite (1)

Ghost_3k (521943) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594974)

I have been using Mozilla (browser+email) for a few years and I have no plans in switching to Firefox.
I just have no interest in Firefox, no new features, speed is the same.
And I know there are still users like me that will always use Mozilla/Seamonkey.

what's the point? (4, Interesting)

AWG (621868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594588)

1. Can someone explain why this exists? I thought Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird[/Nvu] were basically better versions of what existed in the original Mozilla platform? Why is this continuing to be developed? Who is their target audience here?

2. Do they really expect Netscape users (e.g. people on AOL that don't know any better) to download something called seamonkey?

Re:what's the point? (0, Offtopic)

everithe (915847) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594594)

-shrugs-
Some people have nothing better to do.

This SeaMonkey seems rather similar to what we already have in FF etc.

Re:what's the point? (1)

AWG (621868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594602)

Lamely replying to my own post. I read TFA and I understand the continued support of 1.7. For whatever reason there are plenty of people that haven't switched to firefox. But a -new- release that will not be supported by Mozilla? I'm not sure if i understand that.

Someone enlighten me.

Re:what's the point? (1)

Ravatar (891374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594616)

Why is there more than one linux distro, that have similar goals and features?

Re:what's the point? (1)

SenFo (761716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594736)

You have a valid argument; but I think the argument of the original poster was that they're basically taking a similar approach to Firefox, so why not just go with Firefox? There's probably a reason that the Mozilla Foundation dropped the original Mozilla suite (I personally don't know what it is), so it may seem a little strange that somebody would insist on working with the old code, let alone using it.

AWG, feel free to jump in and correct me if I misunderstand you, but I think what you're trying to say is that people refused to move to Firefox and continued to run the old suite. Now the SeaMonkey developers have picked up the original Mozilla code and are essentially turning it into Firefox. So what's the point?

Am I close?

Re:what's the point? (0)

Moderator (189749) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594819)

"There's probably a reason that the Mozilla Foundation dropped the original Mozilla suite (I personally don't know what it is), so it may seem a little strange that somebody would insist on working with the old code, let alone using it."

There is a reason, the Mozilla foundation wanted to create a separate web browser for a "mainstream" audience who didn't need the added features of an email client (after all, most newbies to the internet use webmail). The browser was targeted at a different set of people, while the Mozilla Suite was targeted at power users. Of course, when somebody wanted an email client to go along with their 'Firefox', Thunderbird was spawned, followed by a whole slew of apps that aren't integrated, and together use several times the memory footprint of the Mozilla suite alone.

That's in a nutshell. Until very recently, most of the new features of Firefox and Thunderbird could be found in the Mozilla-1.8 nightlies before they were available to the standalone programs.

Re:what's the point? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594745)

Good question. It brings confusion and duplicates effort that could otherwise be applied to moving fewer Linux distributions forward faster.

Re:what's the point? (1)

el_womble (779715) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594878)

Thats easy:
  1. Create your own Linux Distro
  2. ???
  3. Profit
Nobodys sure how to make money out of linux yet. It clearly provides something that people want, and creates a lot of market interest whenever you say it loud enough, especially when you say your going to give it to them for free, but how do you turn free into profit. Who knows how to convert free to profit? Here are the options as it stands:
  • Include the price of the OS in new hardware.
  • Include advertising within the OS
  • Charge for support.
None of these options are viable at the moment because of the cost of transfering (mainly time and training) to Linux and the quality of the product compared to Windows for home users (everything is in the 'wrong' place, and it doesn't have MS Office). But once somebodies figured out what option four is in that list, you want to have your own distro ready and raring to go so you can get some profit too

Re:what's the point? (5, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594633)

Firefox / Thunderbird are certainly cleaner than the suite, but you lose some benefits of integration. For example, the suite allows you to middle click on a link in an email and open it as a new browser tab. Or you can edit the page you're viewing from the menu. Or create a single wallet which holds passwords from your browser and email app. Or have a disk and memory footprint of one app instead of many.


I admit you could probably live without some of these things, but then again they all add up. I know that I really miss the middle-click behaviour on emails when using Firefox and Thunderbird.

Re:what's the point? (3, Informative)

infestedsenses (699259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594748)

I know that I really miss the middle-click behaviour on emails when using Firefox and Thunderbird.

Firefox offers a very similar function. Set the following option and any links you click in your email client (or any other app, for that matter) will open in a new tab (provided Firefox is set as your default browser).

Tools > Options > Advanced > Tabbed Browsing > "a new tab in the most recent window"

Re:what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594857)

Yes, but when you middle-click on a link in an email in Thunderbird, then nothing happens, which is very disconcerting if you're used to middle-clicking when you want a new tab to appear.

There are also issues that arise when Firefox isn't already open - sometimes opening a link from Thunderbird causes Firefox to mysteriously open in a default profile of some sort instead of in the profile you usually use. Which only wastes 30 seconds while you close Firefox and open it again, but it's still kind of annoying when it happens.

So let's just say I'm one of the people who might well be tempted to give Seamonkey a try if the next versions of Firefox and Thunderbird don't work together slightly better...

Re:what's the point? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594677)

"Firefox" is only supposed to be better by the simple virtue that a few thousands of people said it was better. That diverted resources from Mozilla, and rendered FireFox better by slowing down Moz.

I never understood that. Firefox is a backstep on Mozilla, and mostly an ego trip.

I prefer Mozilla for the following reasons:

a/ I use every single day a browser, and email client, and, sometimes, have to compose simple HTML pages. I seldom use IRC, but when I need it, I use ChatZilla (no need to download and track yet another piece of code).

b/ I don't like to upgrade. I have better things to do with my life. Not having to track a browser and an email client is godsend. Mozilla took care of most of my online needs (okay, it could have included some additional applications)

c/ I use three different platforms (Win 2K, Mac OS X and FreeBSD). Having the same software on all three was very handy, even if it is less great than the native software.

d/ I don't like to track plugins. Firefox is ridiculous in that area. It does very little out of the box, but is so configurable that it is a usability nightmare. You have to spend *hours* drilling into hundreds of extensions, trying them, restarting the browser, to get something that may fit your needs. Upgrade are painfull, as extensions often stop working, and, as the browser is now splitted into dozen of components, you cannot count on functionality beeing always present (extensions come and go). It is a waste of time.

To get a suitable replacement of the one-shot mozilla download, you have to get Firefox + a random number of ill-named extension + a separate email client + an HTML editor. This take more time, use more RAM, is less nicely integrated, and follow conflicting release schedules.

For me, mozilla = FreeBSD, while FireFox+Extension+Thunderbird+Nvu+... = Linux.

Both have their use. I just happend to prefer FreeBSD philosophy.

Re:what's the point? (5, Insightful)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594756)

a/ I use every single day a browser, and email client, and, sometimes, have to compose simple HTML pages. I seldom use IRC, but when I need it, I use ChatZilla (no need to download and track yet another piece of code).

I'd, on the other hand, prefer to update only the IRC client when there is a flaw in the IRC client, rather than 4 packages. You know how long it takes to compile Firefox and Thunderbird?

Re:what's the point? (2, Interesting)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594786)

Yes, but if there is a flaw in the rendering engine you have to recompile firefox and thunderbird anyway. I actually prefer the user interface with firefox and that is the primary reason I use it. I use firefox in Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. I use thunderbird in Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. The only platform that firefox and thunderbird suck on is Mac OS X. I think the code is less mature and often crashes on my ibook.

As a netscape user for most of my time on the internet, I was very sad when I learned the netscape suite was dying, but then I tried firefox and realized why it was great. I miss having my email client open all the time, but its nice to have the extra memory free. There's no point to leaving it open when i don't see the notifications anymore when new mail arrives.

Re:what's the point? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594845)

I'm the AC you are replying to.

> I'd, on the other hand, prefer to update only the IRC client when there is a flaw in the IRC client, rather than 4 packages.

I think you are actually fuelling my point. Let me reply to you in light of my original a/b/c/d

a/ I seldom use IRC. Do you expect me to track security release of my seldom used IRC client ? No. Do you think I track security vulnerabilities of my DiVX player or Inkscape ? No. Maybe I should, but the truth is that I don't.

b/ I don't like to upgrade. So, if one week there are 2 vulnerabilities in the browser, one in the IRC, and one in email, I just expect my internet suite to tell me to upgrade the suite. And, for the record, the suite is a single package, not 4 as you said.

c/ As I use 3 different platform, I would need to track three (probably different) IRC client. That's madness.

d/ Worse, what will I do if there is a security vulnerability in a popular FF extension (something you should agre that is not unheard of)

> You know how long it takes to compile Firefox and Thunderbird?

Yes. That's why I use an already build mozilla, and move to do other things with my life (and as I am a coder, so those other things involve _my_ code)

Source based component upgrade is the path to madness (well, it is cool and usefull, but for an end-user, it is madness). You newly build IRC client will need some upgraded version of libxml, which may have an incompatibility with the Nvu HTML composer. After a few upgrades, you end up in dependency hell. Your binaries starts to randomly segfault, and you end up re-installing the whole OS.

I (used to) download binaries for Windows/Mac OS X and do pk_add -r on freebsd (ie: I get binary packages). My broadband access is several Mbits (free.fr, I've lost track of how much they offer me), and I never get less than 200K bytes/s in download from popular sites.

So, basically, a mozilla suite upgrade is a two minutes download. I stopped building mozilla myself since roughly M18.

We're exactly opposite. I don't want to think aboud upgrading individual components. I want a stable featurefull production software. Even if it lags behind in term of bleeding edge. It is only a web browser/mail client/irc and page composer, after all. From my point of view, that's commodity software.

Firefox diversion of resources could have been much better used in improving mozilla. I am glad that the SeaMonkey project exist, and I will consider swicthing from FireFox to SeaMonkey if they offer me a stable no-brainer, multi-platform internet software.

Re:what's the point? (2, Interesting)

Willeh (768540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594807)

I don't like to track plugins. Firefox is ridiculous in that area. It does very little out of the box, but is so configurable that it is a usability nightmare. You have to spend *hours* drilling into hundreds of extensions, trying them, restarting the browser, to get something that may fit your needs. Upgrade are painfull, as extensions often stop working, and, as the browser is now splitted into dozen of components, you cannot count on functionality beeing always present (extensions come and go). It is a waste of time.
You just summed up the main problem i have with Firefox. It's getting quite ridiculous with all the extensions just to get (imo) basic functionality. And god forbid you'd try to *gasp* upgrade the browser, since now all (or alot) of shit breaks.

This is not an anti firefox troll, i tried my very best to like it, but it's just not for me. If you want to spend hours tinkering with your browser, then that's cool. Firefox does have it's place though, the people i support use it without extensions and they seem happy.

Re:what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594976)

It's getting quite ridiculous with all the extensions just to get (imo) basic functionality.

Just what, pray tell, "basic functionality" are you referring to? What, exactly, does the base Firefox install lack compared to other browsers (save mouse gestures in Opera). Hmm? Hmmmm?

You'd have to either install add-ons for the other browsers, too, or do without the functionality completely.

IHBT. HTH. HAND.

Fair comment but.. (4, Insightful)

Unski (821437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594823)

while I can understand that The Kitchen Sink suits you nicely, and offers a consistent Kitchen Sink across platforms, I do fear there is something of the luddite in these statements; Firefox is a backstep on Mozilla, and mostly an ego trip. Firefox is the first piece of OSS software that I both liked sufficiently enough to recommend it to my girlfriend, to my dad, to my mum, and also that has remained a favourite of two of the three listed. If by 'ego trip' you mean the necessary and useful refinement of the interface offered by Mozilla'a previous offerings (read: netscape, moz. suite) to something that is readily comprehended by non-geek users, I have to agree with you there. Indeed, may the collective ego of all firefox developers continue to expand and to do useful things like: - developing and refining platform agnostic windows, menus so that non-geeks never have to become aware of the fact that their browser is somehow not quite like Windows. - letting them clear History, Saved Form info, Passwords, Download history, Cookies, and Cache, all with one button. - letting them choose the download folder, so they're not prompted where to save every download My point really is only that, pehaps banally, there are different horses for different courses and that firefox, clearly, is something much better than the mere ego trips of developers. End users don't care about the politics of browser development. They don't care that, in fact, firefox is the bastard grandson of netscape, indeed, they are more likely to use it if they don't know that. The emerging profile of the firefox user is that of the IE/Win user who has got fed-up of spyware, and have become receptive, over a long time, to the fuss in the computer press about this other browser. And they damned well wouldn't be interested in the ugly bloat of The Kitchen Sink.

Re:what's the point? (0, Flamebait)

rdwald (831442) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594825)

So basically, you're saying that Mozilla is like emacs and Firefox/Thunderbird/etc. are like vi?

Re:what's the point? (1)

ImTheDarkcyde (759406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594858)

i dont know, im a pretty avid firefox user, i had tried mozilla at one point but it's just not as good on a slow PC. while somewhere i read FF is slower than IE, the opposite was true because this is kind of a family computer ("hey lets open this attatchment from spambot@lol.com")

Still, i bought a new computer and first thing installed was firefox, and in the 2 months i've had it i only have 1 extension (plugin) and that's adblock, which is pretty much a godsend.

Re:what's the point? (2, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 8 years ago | (#13595029)

I don't like to track plugins. Firefox is ridiculous in that area. It does very little out of the box, but is so configurable that it is a usability nightmare. You have to spend *hours* drilling into hundreds of extensions, trying them, restarting the browser, to get something that may fit your needs. Upgrade are painfull, as extensions often stop working, and, as the browser is now splitted into dozen of components, you cannot count on functionality beeing always present (extensions come and go). It is a waste of time.

I've always maintained that it would be nice if 5-10 of the most popular plugins were made available during the installation phase rather than people having to get them manually everytime they rebuild. It's not like they don't already do this with the DOM inspector - which has zero use for the majority of people.

I'm sure there would be some contention over which ones to add, but i would consider anything that would appeal to the masses.

In addition, some of the really small and plainly obvious ones could actually be merged into the trunk. For example, it was always silly to make people install a 7kb extension to get tabs drag and droppable when people would expect this from the onset (thankfully, I'm told that 1.5 has this in).

To those who complain about download bloat and customisabilty, the obvious answer would be to make the installer download them during the installation process, therefore it wouldn't matter how big the extensions were, your installer size would only increase by a set size and you wouldn't have to have them if you didn't want.

Whilst we're at it, can some of the hidden settings be turned on? The ability to paste url's broken up over two lines into the address bar is brilliant so I'm unsure why it's off by default and then hidden.

Re:what's the point? (5, Interesting)

Tet (2721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594690)

I thought Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird[/Nvu] were basically better versions of what existed in the original Mozilla platform?

The simple answer is that they're not better versions. I was eager to switch to Firefox (or Phoenix and later Firebird as it was then), as I don't use anything from the suite other than the browser anyway. But when it surfaced, it turned out to be a poor substitute for the real thing. Mozilla was and continues to be a better browser. That's why I use it.

I'm sure that with the addition of various extensions, I could probably get Firefox up to the same level as Mozilla. But Mozilla does it all out of the box, and I don't have to go around hunting for addons, or spend ages customising it in about:config.

Re:what's the point? (2, Funny)

halleluja (715870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594698)

Can someone explain why this exists?
Those free AOL cd's need to be filled with something.

Besides, it's easier to tell users to click seaclunky/setup.exe than first firefox/setup.exe, next thunderbird/setup.xe etc.

Re:what's the point? (1)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594743)


Can someone explain why this exists? I thought Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird[/Nvu] were basically better versions of what existed in the original Mozilla platform? Why is this continuing to be developed? Who is their target audience here?


I'm still a user of the suite and see no point to move other than TBird extensions like SyncKolab. Yes I have tried Firefox. I have it installed on other boxes here. I don't want to use it for day to day use. Ever. Personally if I were to migrate, it wouldn't be to FF or TB.

FF was cool when SeaMonkey was slow as a wounded donkey but not anymore for me.

I don't seem to mind Camino on the Mac though, despite the fact its pretty simular to FF (minus extensions plus better intergration with the rest of the OS due to being built with Cocoa)

Re:what's the point? (5, Interesting)

xander2032 (719016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594899)

That's the thing. They aren't "better" versions.

I'd like for someone to show me how Firefox and Thunderbird are "better" than Mozilla/SeaMonkey.

Things I've observed...

Mozilla and Firefox take the same amount of time to start, they render at the same speed as well, and in no way is Mozilla sluggish when compared to Firefox.

I have yet to see how Firefox has a "smaller footprint". On my system Firefox seems to use more memory when loading the exact same pages as Mozilla.

So if Firefox isn't faster, isn't "smaller", etc.. Then how is it better?

And I only use the suite as a browser. I don't use it for email, irc, etc... Although sometimes I will use Composer for a quick and dirty web page.

As for the UI. The default themes that ship with Mozilla/Seamonkey are just horrid! However, there are MANY third party themes that look great. I use the pinball theme here. Mozilla looks grea with it!

Sure Mozilla doesn't have the customizable menus that Firefox does. but I've never found that to be an issue?

I'm quite happy with Mozilla how it is.

Also... Mozilla is/was by no means a "failure". When Mozilla announced they were "dumping" Mozilla, they said that the number of users was in the "low millions".

I don't know about you, but an OSS app that has a few million users is a pretty good success!! And it definitely deserves to live on. Which is why the SeaMonkey project was started.

There's still a demand for Mozilla and quite a large user base.

I personally think Mozilla would have done just as well as Firefox if MoFo had put the same level of advertising into Mozilla as it did Firefox.

I've been a supporter of Mozilla for years now, and I continue to test SeaMonkey nightlies and submit bug reports.

But yes... They could have come up with a better name than SeaMonkey. ;) lol

 

Re:what's the point? (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594917)

1. Can someone explain why this exists?
Here are just a few answers to that question [mozilla.org] .
2. Do they really expect Netscape users to download something called SeaMonkey?
No, mostly users of Mozilla 1.7.x will download SeaMonkey.

You know what day it is! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594593)

Avast me mateys! Aargh! It's International Talk Like A Pirate Day! [talklikeapirate.com]

Aargh! Me SeaMonkeys! Aye, they waited for the right date to announce it.

Bljarne!

Re:You know what day it is! (2, Funny)

digital-madman (860873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594706)

International Talk like a Pirate day..hmmm??? So I should try to be uber-leet and start downloading some serious 0-day and say nuts to the RIAA??? -Digital Madman

Re:You know what day it is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594833)

Well, The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] sure are celebrating it, so...

Re:You know what day it is! (2, Informative)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594768)

"Arrrr!", not "Aargh!" [talklikeapirate.com]

Re:You know what day it is! (1)

Cally (10873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594993)

Q: Why are pirates called pirates?

A: Because they Aaaarrrrrrr! :)

SeaMonkey 1.0? What an odd name (5, Insightful)

gringer (252588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594606)

I would have preferred something like 2.0, because I've always associated SeaMonkey with the Mozilla Application Suite (which was up to 1.7.11, last time I checked [mozillazine.org] ). From a brief glance at the project page, it looks like it has similar functionality to that suite ("all-in-one internet application suite").

Re:SeaMonkey 1.0? What an odd name (2, Informative)

TuxPaper (531914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594637)

Seamonkey was prevented from using "Mozilla Application Suite" by mozilla.org, which makes sense because they "own" the word Mozilla, and using it would infer that mozilla.org still supported newer versions, which it doesn't.

Same goes for v1.8. mozilla.org strongly recommended against using 1.8. And since they have kindly offered to host the souce, dist, bugs, etc for Seamonkey, you pretty much have to do what they recommend. Even 2.0 would be tricky, because people might think it's a upgrade from "Mozilla 1.7" (which it is, but.. well, isn't)

Re:SeaMonkey 1.0? What an odd name (1)

hritcu (871613) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594683)

I agree that Mozilla Application Suite would have made much more on the corporate users then SeaMonkey. Serious people will probably skip this app entirely, even before they find out what it is all about.

Mozilla as well? (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594730)


I don't get it. Is there still a Mozilla? Does this compete with Mozilla?

Why is this not Mozilla 2.0 or 1.8 or some other number?

And why did people split out and make different components? Netscape / Mozilla were great because all your net needs were taken care of: browsing, email, web authoring, and eventually IM. Now things don't work together.

Re:Mozilla as well? (1)

Myen (734499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594828)

Yes there still is a Mozilla [mozilla.com] .

They're not using it as a product name anymore, but they're still using the name.

Re:Mozilla as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13595013)

Why is this not Mozilla 2.0 or 1.8 or some other number?
A condition of using Mozilla Foundation resources (bugzilla, FTP servers, etc) was that we not call our first release 1.8, because the Mozilla Foundation doesn't want people to think this is an upgrade path from Mozilla 1.7.

The interface is gross (5, Interesting)

lav-chan (815252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594607)

I know most people don't care about this, but i really do, and it prevents me from using a lot of software. Mozilla's UI is hideous. It always has been. It doesn't look good on any platform that i've ever used it on (Windows, Mac, Linux).

That is the main reason i've always hated Mozilla. Not the fact that it uses up more RAM than the Mac OS itself, or the fact that the icon is ugmo, or the fact that it takes a year to load up. It's just gross.

Not that hard to come up with a decent interface, honestly. Firefox had a little trouble with it at first, but it only took a few versions for them to iron out most of it. It's not like Mozilla's been around for 11 years or anything.

Re:The interface is gross (1)

pD-brane (302604) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594645)

I for one find Mozilla Suite's UI very nice. I like it better than Firefox (or Opera or IE).
For instance, I like the search in the same field as the address field. It is themable, so you don't have to use the old Netscape skin. The menu's are more logical, IMHO... I mean Extra -> Preferences, what's that (in Firefox)? You want to edit your preferences, right? So that must be Edit -> Preferences (in Mozilla).
Anyway, the UI of Mozilla / SeaMonkey really isn't hidious.

The only thing I'm confused about the Mozilla Suite is that it was first on version 1.7/1.8 and now on 1.0 again! The original code name of the project was Seamonkey, right? I'd call it SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha (even though I really dislike version exponentiation).

Re:The interface is gross (3, Insightful)

lav-chan (815252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594674)

I'm not talking so much about the logic of the design. I'm talking about the aesthetics (and i know your first reaction is probably 'who cares about the aesthetics', but i'm just obsessive like that).

Things shouldn't be 'themable'. Themable is BAD. Let the fucking desk-top environment decide what programs look like. I don't know about Linux, but those little panel buttons with all the dots on them do not exist in the standard Windows or Macintosh interfaces. Why are they there? Why has Mozilla decided to invent an interface component that no other piece of software in the history of computing has ever used? That is an obvious example.

I downloaded SeaMonkey just now and this is what i see. Some of the buttons aren't real Windows buttons. The menus aren't real Windows menus. The status bar is probably 10 pixels too tall (Why the hell?). The tool bars aren't tall enough. The side bar is completely random, it doesn't look like Windows at all.

And so on. I guess it's secondary to the features and junk, but like i said i'm obsessive about stuff like that, and it's not like it's hard to fix, especially given a whole decade.

Re:The interface is gross (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594686)

Things shouldn't be 'themable'. Themable is BAD
And the "I'm-apparently-incapable-of-distinguishing-my-per sonal-preferences-from-universal-laws" meme claims another victim.

If you don't like themes, then you don't have use them. Please don't try and generalise them into a universal evil. It makes you look like a retard.

Re:The interface is gross (0, Flamebait)

lav-chan (815252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594788)

Uh. It is a law, asshat. There's this thing called human interface design. First rule says IF IT LOOKS THE SAME, IT WORKS THE SAME.

Re:The interface is gross (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594795)

Uh. It is a law, asshat. There's this thing called human interface design. First rule says IF IT LOOKS THE SAME, IT WORKS THE SAME.
Dude. Two points:
i) That's still someone's opinion. You may choose to call that person a guru, but I don't.
ii) "If it looks the same it works the same" is not the same thing as "Everything interface should look the same". Ever wonder why a helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel?

Re:The interface is gross (1, Flamebait)

lav-chan (815252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594839)

Dude.

i) That's still someone's opinion. You may choose to call that person a guru, but I don't.

Yeah OK. It's also just someone's opinion that it's wrong to litter and that it's wrong to steal and that it's wrong to set fire to a person's house and that it's wrong to cut people's throats. I mean i don't know if you want to consider these people gurus or anything....


ii) "If it looks the same it works the same" is not the same thing as "Everything interface should look the same". Ever wonder why a helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel?

Oh, you got me on that one. Because the difference between a car and a helicopter is clearly equivalent to the difference between two pieces of software running under the same environment on the same computer, not to mention, of course, that a helicopter works exactly the same as a car, so i mean, logically, it does follow that it should employ the same means of guidance (oh wait)

Off topic: unfortunate helicopter analogy (1)

Bozdune (68800) | more than 8 years ago | (#13595021)

There was a project at Draper Laboratory in the 70's where, essentially, a steering wheel for a helicopter WAS invented.

It was fly-by-wire, of course. It consisted of a Plexiglas half-sphere that could be tilted in any direction ("go that way"), lifted up ("go up"), or pushed down ("go down"), with spring returns to zero position. When at zero position, the helicopter DIDN'T MOVE, PERIOD. They used an inertial guidance unit to hold position, automatically adjusting for wind.

My mother could fly this helicopter, and fly it well. Which meant that all the expensive training that's required for helicopter pilots (and there's a ton of it) wasn't necessary any more. Joe Army Private Off The Farm could jump into this thing and drive it. What was the reaction of the military? They HATED it. It offended all their macho sensibilities. Hey, pilots are cool, man, you can't let ORDINARY GUYS drive helicopters!

Now we're replacing all the aging (but reliable) heavy-lift helicopters with that plane/copter thingie that can't lift as much, costs about a billion dollars, and crashes all the time. You know, the one that Congress forced us to build even after the military tried to kill it. But I understand this new thingie is way harder to fly than helicopters, so we got the macho thing covered.

Re:The interface is gross (2, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594978)

I know most people don't care about this, but i really do, and it prevents me from using a lot of software. Mozilla's UI is hideous. It always has been. It doesn't look good on any platform that i've ever used it on

Sucks to be you.

Yet another Mac fanboy whining about the "hideous" interface, or the look of the widgets, or whatever insignificant little thing that makes your life unliveable with anything but the "perfect" Apple interface.

I guess I'm just dense, but doesn't this get down to the level of nitpicking after a while?

Is your life, and your current tool so perfect that something so minor as a less than perfect interface or widget or whatever ruins everything?

I question the intelligence of rejecting reasonably functional software just because the interface, or the look and feel, or the widgets aren't your idea of perfection. Seems like narrow-mindedness of the first order, especially regarding something as subjective as UI.

Baby, meet bathwater...

Re:The interface is gross (0, Flamebait)

lav-chan (815252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13595032)

I don't even use a Mac, you fucking idiot, and i'm certainly not a 'fanboy'.

And i never made any assertions as to the functionality of Mozilla (aside from saying that it's slow to load up and it used up more RAM on a Mac than the classic OS itself did). Back when i did have a Mac (which was years ago), i was forced to use Mozilla because there was nothing better, and i used it almost exclusively.

So why don't you get off my back about it? I don't use Mozilla anymore, and i probably never will use it ever again, so this doesn't really affect me. Opera was pretty shitty as far as interface for a long time, but they finally got it mostly right (although their preferences window is kind of lame), so i'm content with that. But that fact, in addition to all the many nice things i'm sure you can say about Mozilla's functionality, don't at all change what i said.

So, you know, if you want to talk about babies, you can start with your debate tactics.

Thank god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594617)

I was afraid I had to split my ~/.mozilla into ~/.thunderbird and ~/.firefox (or whatever they use) manually... which would have cost 30 seconds of my precious time.

Mozilla is dead, long lives seaMonkey my favourite (and only) desktop app.

Re:Thank god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594643)

You might have to rename it instead...

"cd; mv .moz .seamonkey"

23 Keystrokes and scriptable. Not too bad...

The point (5, Insightful)

TuxPaper (531914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594625)

Wow, first two posts here are asking what' the point is.

The point is that it's a continuation of the Mozilla suite. Just because mozilla.org is too busy to handle the project, doesn't mean that a lot of developers don't want to code for it, nor does it mean that a lot of users don't want to use it.

Who's the target? Simple: People who have Mozilla 1.7.

Why? Same reason people use Mozilla 1.7.

Sure, Firefox is leet and is made by leet ex (and current) Mozilla developers, but it was not made as a replacement for Mozilla.

People who hate Firefox's simplistic options (or hate being uber-leet and going into about:config to change even the simplest config options) are the target. People who want a mail/news app bundled with their browser are a target. People who dislike the attitude of the leet Firefox developers when they first started up are targets.

Go ahead and troll rate me for calling Firefox users/developers leet if you want. I remember distictively when Firefox first came out, the users were bragging they were leet.

Re:The point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594696)

I remember distictively when Firefox first came out, the users were bragging they were leet.

And you never got over it either, I see.

Re:The point (1)

tewmten (608383) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594705)

Oh yes, and people who hate it when Firefox keeps on crashing, all the bloody time, and when it eats all the memory, and when it's just plain slow and sluggish.
Mozilla is way more stable for me then Firefox has ever been!

I love Mozilla and run it on my Linux box, on OSX though, I stick with Safari.

Re:The point (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594732)

Please don't use FUD. I find it hard to believe that Firefox is less stable than Mozilla, without proof.

Mozilla has different design goals than Firefox, that's all. I like it, and if development were as active as in Firefox I would still use it as my default.

Re:The point (2, Funny)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594804)

I remember distictively when Firefox first came out, the users were bragging they were leet.

I remember that, too. During recess, they would all gather around the swing set and the teeter-totter and tease us:

We are lee-et and you-ou're no-ot.
Neiner, neiner, nei-ner!.
We use firefox and you-ou do-on't.
Neiner, neiner, nei-ner.


And the Principal never did anything.

Good times.

Re:The point (2, Funny)

noamt (317240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594926)

Go ahead and troll rate me for calling Firefox users/developers leet if you want.

It's spelled 1337.

Troll!

What about libs like xul and gecko? (1)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594969)

Are the underlying libraries that both are based off of seperate projects? I guess my (mis)-understanding of it was the main mozilla tree handled gecko, xul, etc etc. And the browser (and variants) were xul frontends using those backend libraries.

As long as the backend libraries still get development I don't think it's a huge concern...

In similar words of Conan O'Brien... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594631)

I'm sure at least one or two will understand what the SeaMonkey team meant with this release.

Much faster and lighter (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594651)

I always find it entertaning when people say "I run Firefox and Thunderbird because they're lighter".

When you're running both of those at the same time, they load up their own GREs and Geckos, thus are almost twice as heavy on RAM as the single Mozilla/SeaMonkey suite.

Add to that the huge memory leaks in Firefox (how can people advocate it so much when it has large flaws that we bash Microsoft for?).

Re:Much faster and lighter (2, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594691)

Firefox doesn't have memory leaks.

It has an ermmmmm integrated memory testing functionality suite built in.

However, in the real world, I do agree with you and the hole(s) should be fixed. Depending upon usage FF basic footprint can skyrocket (usually multiple large gallery pages makes this problem worse). A loss of just a few bytes per image is made much worse by pages with thousands of images.

Add to this addins created entirely out of script and it becomes sluggish on large pages.

HOWEVER, ff is 100x better than the alternative and however sluggish or much memory it uses, it still works.

Re:Much faster and lighter (1)

gausterm (911688) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594749)

"HOWEVER, ff is 100x better than the alternative and however sluggish or much memory it uses, it still works."

If you're referring to IE as the alternative I agree. If you're referring to Opera as the alternative, I'd like to get some of what you've been smoking.

Re:Much faster and lighter (1)

pklinken (773410) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594761)

Multiple large gallery pages eh?
Say no more!

Re:Much faster and lighter (1)

schmu_20mol (806069) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594815)

Altough I like FF for daily browsing (email, /., etc) I have to disagree.

The footprint FF has started to accumulate lately is just ridiculous. Fire up one page with party pics and my (not that up to date) system goes down to its' knees quickly. The only way to fix that is restarting FF - not really a pleasant way.

And yes I can remember the days when it was nothing like that - it was a breeze and that's why I switched in the first place.

Well, can't have everything...
any alternatives?

Re:Much faster and lighter (1)

Yer Mum (570034) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594874)

"any alternatives?"

SeaMonkey?

Please keep the name "Mozilla" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594671)

Everybody knows the name, and seamonkey is a really bad name for a browser

Re:Please keep the name "Mozilla" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594752)

Another great Open Source name that will help people take it seriously - Almost as good as Gimp!

Address Book (1, Interesting)

WhyteRabbyt (85754) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594672)

Can someone explain give a good justification for the fact that, although the 'old' Mozilla has been broken up into component parts, the Address Book is still part of the mail program?

I dont want to have to fire up a mail program just to get someone's phone number.

Re:Address Book (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594700)

Efficiency, speed, economy

Instead of firing up your address book or your email client, you have them already up and running together with your browser, consuming practically zero additional resources.

Chances are that you are constantly running your browser, right?

Try it and you shall see. Start Firefox and Thunderbird and then compare their total to Mozilla, (sorry I just can't get used to "SeaMonkey"). You are in for a big surprise.

Personally, I used to be a big fan of Mozilla, but since development focused on Firefox, I decided to make the change. However, this didn't work in Mozilla Org's favor since I had to pit Thunderbird againt my Outlook 2003 and Thunderbird was blown to pieces.

Having all in one was a good incentive for me. I never really understood why they stopped developing Mozilla under the Firefox usability guidelines. That would make a killer app.

Re:Address Book (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594707)

> I never really understood why they stopped developing Mozilla under the Firefox usability guidelines.

Correction -- I meant to say: "I never really understood why they didn't continue developing Mozilla, but under the Firefox usability guidelines"

A Simple Observation (2, Funny)

digital-madman (860873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594695)

Okay the browser is called SeaMonkey... Humans "may" have evolved from monkeys... and the Internet is mostly used as a redundant porno delivery service.

That is a perfectly named browser!

SeaCiety (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594762)

SeaMonkeys + ???? = SeaCiety

Re:SeaCiety (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594809)

Sea Monkeys + Semen = SeaCiety

Just in time for... (0, Redundant)

corbs (878524) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594783)

National Talk-Like A Pirate Day!

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/ [talklikeapirate.com]

Mozilla dev sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594826)

If you want to patch mozilla you have to go to the back stages, humbly beg for a "super review" and kiss these people's asses for letting you do so.

Where is the dev list?
How do we know who are the contributors?
What gain is there for one if his name cannot be googled for submitting patches to mozilla?

It's more like: Ok here is our code. Just so we say we are open source. But really, don't bother contributing your crap to our project. Go away! It's ours! And don't you even think you have a chance of getting a penny from the mozilla funds!

Time for a new browser perhaps?

Bloat? (2, Insightful)

porneL (674499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594850)

Opera 8 manages to fit:
* browser
* mail
* newsgroups
* chat
* bittorrent client
* other smaller features (gestures, panels, SSR, slideshow...)
* ad banner everyone is scared of

in 3.7mb.

SeaMonkey is much bigger package, and any major difference is having WYSIWYG editor (which I wouldn't use for anything other than occasional HTML mail).

I think SeaMonkey could do better.

Re:Bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594931)

Isn't XUL a major difference ?

mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13594863)

I have been using Mozilla for a few years and I have no plans to switch to Firefox anytime soon.
It's interesting that the people who say that mozilla is bad and firefox rules, have never actually used Mozilla.
Find a long-time Mozilla user and ask him about switching to Firefox, I bet he'll say NO.

And all that buzz about Firefox being faster... It was sure not faster compared to Mozilla.

What's the installation image? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594961)

What's the image shown in the installer supposed to be? Is it a sheep on a yacht? I fail to see how that is a "SeaMonkey".

Just add water!--and before your very eyes...! (1)

zenwarrior (81710) | more than 8 years ago | (#13594975)

Even as a kid with absolutely no programming experience, I could create my own SeaMonkeys by simply adding water! Does this mean we'll be seeing shrink-wrapped SeaMonkey CD-ROMs in comic books?!

("Hey kids! Get your own SeaMonkey code and watch it grow right before your very eyes! How? Send in 99 cents and one I.E. boxtop!)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>