SeaMonkey 1.0 released

[CougTek]

Hairy Aussie will be happy.

SeaMonkey 1.0 page on Mozilla.org.

From the few tests I've seen, SeaMonkey and the old Mozilla branch is a tiny bit faster than fireFox for browsing because it is based on a newer gecko engine.

 

[Tannin]

Cool!

 

[Bozo]

Seamonkey??? Another browser or a plug-in??

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Mercutio]

It's Mozilla with some extra letters.

Maybe Tea just likes seeing more Monkeys in software.

 

[sechs]

Shouldn't this be "2.0?" Or are we playing the version number game?

 

[CougTek]

It is the first "SeaMonkey" version. SeaMonkey is derivated from Mozilla, but it doesn't use the same gecko engine as the original Mozilla 1.0 release. IMO, especially with the name change, a 1.0 revision number is justified.

Naming it 2.0 would be just like, say, if Ubuntu would start its numbering after 3.x because that was the version of Debian on which it was first based on.

 

[Tea]

I AM NOT A MONKEY

 

[Adcadet]

Can somebody please explain to me why people would prefer Sea Monkey vs. FF+TB?

 

[CougTek]

Monkeys prefer to edit preferences rather than access options via the tools menu.

 

[Adcadet]

Oh. I'm clearly not a monkey then.
What do rats prefer?

 

[time]

Can somebody please explain to me why people would prefer Sea Monkey vs. FF+TB?

Fewer bugs for starters ...

There's been a problem with Mozilla development priorities, particularly in Thunderbird - that is, bugs aren't getting fixed. My understanding is that the team behind Seamonkey is a little more focused, so it could well become a better solution for business use - if they deliver.

 

[Tannin]

Short answer: because Firefox sucks.

Longer answer: because I don't like the dumbed-down Firefox user interface, or the severe lack of ability to quite a few things without buggerising about with all maner of dodgy extensions. When you have as many machines to administer as I do, Firefox is unmanagably cumbersome.

Unlike Time, I like Thunderbird. Oh, and I never liked the Mozilla mail app, always avoid using it. But the Moz/Sea Monkey browser is better than anything else around except Opera.

 

[sechs]

It is the first "SeaMonkey" version. SeaMonkey is derivated from Mozilla, but it doesn't use the same gecko engine as the original Mozilla 1.0 release. IMO, especially with the name change, a 1.0 revision number is justified.

Naming it 2.0 would be just like, say, if Ubuntu would start its numbering after 3.x because that was the version of Debian on which it was first based on.

So, if they start calling it "WetApe," they have to start at 1.0 again? Sure, that makes sense.

Maybe I've done too much work with logic, but it *would* make sense if Ubuntu started with 3.x. It's not as if it is some kind of new product with no history. Like Windows NT 2.0.

 

[CougTek]

You don't like my first explanation attempt? Then here's my second : because they felt like naming it 1.0. They don't have to make a public consultation everytime they ship a new milestone regarding its revision number. You're not the one spending time to develop it ; you don't have a word to say.

Better?