Was it that difficult? - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Was it that difficult? - Mozilla ; With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to migrate to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple import from these programs????? Why would they want to make it hard on the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Was it that difficult?

  1. Was it that difficult?

    With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to migrate
    to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple import from
    these programs????? Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and
    FF users, but not on anyone else???? Although I do understand the copy
    and paste of the files needed, I truly find it offensive that they left
    this procedure out. I just DO NOT understand the thinking behind it. In
    fact, it seems to me that when the install was taking place, and figured
    out that TB and FF were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that
    you have TB and FF installed, do you want to import these setting?")
    would have been a GREAT way to migrate.

  2. Re: It wouldn't be that difficult.

    Bobb Craig wrote:
    > With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to migrate
    > to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple import from
    > these programs????? Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and
    > FF users, but not on anyone else???? Although I do understand the copy
    > and paste of the files needed, I truly find it offensive that they left
    > this procedure out. I just DO NOT understand the thinking behind it. In
    > fact, it seems to me that when the install was taking place, and figured
    > out that TB and FF were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that
    > you have TB and FF installed, do you want to import these setting?")
    > would have been a GREAT way to migrate.




    Hi Bobb.

    I think that's just a tad harsh. All things considered it may not be
    politicly expedient (if you get my drift) at this time for SM to be seen
    to be taking users away from FF/TB. On the other hand, to be seen to be
    taking users away from IE/OE is a good thing. Moreover, SM is only at
    1.0 so there is plenty of time for additions along those and many other
    lines.

    --
    Adrian
    Patience is a virtue.

  3. Re: It wouldn't be that difficult.

    Adrian (down under) wrote:

    > Bobb Craig wrote:
    >
    >>With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to migrate
    >>to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple import from
    >> these programs????? Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and
    >>FF users, but not on anyone else???? Although I do understand the copy
    >>and paste of the files needed, I truly find it offensive that they left
    >>this procedure out. I just DO NOT understand the thinking behind it. In
    >>fact, it seems to me that when the install was taking place, and figured
    >>out that TB and FF were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that
    >>you have TB and FF installed, do you want to import these setting?")
    >>would have been a GREAT way to migrate.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi Bobb.
    >
    > I think that's just a tad harsh. All things considered it may not be
    > politicly expedient (if you get my drift) at this time for SM to be seen
    > to be taking users away from FF/TB. On the other hand, to be seen to be
    > taking users away from IE/OE is a good thing. Moreover, SM is only at
    > 1.0 so there is plenty of time for additions along those and many other
    > lines.
    >

    a long time -- you've got that right. I understand that the next
    version is due out in 6 months.

  4. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Bobb Craig wrote:
    > With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to migrate
    > to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple import from
    > these programs?????


    Probably because *none* of the people doing SeaMonkey-specific code are
    being paid for it (as far as I know), and we have limited time to spend
    working on SeaMonkey.

    > Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and
    > FF users, but not on anyone else????


    The import code for the other apps already existed. Nobody has written
    import code to import from FF/TB though.

    > Although I do understand the copy
    > and paste of the files needed, I truly find it offensive that they left
    > this procedure out. I just DO NOT understand the thinking behind it. In
    > fact, it seems to me that when the install was taking place, and figured
    > out that TB and FF were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that
    > you have TB and FF installed, do you want to import these setting?")
    > would have been a GREAT way to migrate.


    Lots of things seem simple until you try to actually write the code to
    do them. I'm not saying it's necessarily hard, but as someone who is
    actually a developer, I know it would take me hours to figure out how to
    do it (and likely days to get it all working).

    Chris

  5. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Chris Thomas wrote:
    > Bobb Craig wrote:
    >> With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to
    >> migrate to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple
    >> import from these programs?????

    >
    > Probably because *none* of the people doing SeaMonkey-specific code
    > are being paid for it (as far as I know), and we have limited time to
    > spend working on SeaMonkey.
    >
    >> Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and FF users, but not
    >> on anyone else????

    >
    > The import code for the other apps already existed. Nobody has
    > written import code to import from FF/TB though.
    >
    >> Although I do understand the copy and paste of the files needed, I
    >> truly find it offensive that they left this procedure out. I just DO
    >> NOT understand the thinking behind it. In fact, it seems to me that
    >> when the install was taking place, and figured out that TB and FF
    >> were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that you have TB and
    >> FF installed, do you want to import these setting?") would have been
    >> a GREAT way to migrate.

    >
    > Lots of things seem simple until you try to actually write the code to
    > do them. I'm not saying it's necessarily hard, but as someone who is
    > actually a developer, I know it would take me hours to figure out how
    > to do it (and likely days to get it all working).
    >
    > Chris

    Hello Chris,

    I am not a program developer, but common sense tells me that if a new
    user of SM can manually copy over files like address books, bookmarks,
    e-mail messages, passwords, forms, etc., then a simple application to
    allow the install program copy these files should not be that difficult.

    I disagree with your thought about SM appearing to take over FF and TB,
    if a new SM user has elected to install SM then he/she should be given
    the choice of importing the other files.

    I do not disagree as to who is paid for their service, or the time
    available, all I ask is that serious thought be given to providing the
    option to new SM users.

    My personal thought is in the business community, many small, medium,
    and some large businesses are using an older version of Mozilla Suite as
    their preferred choice of Internet communications. The power and
    overall functionality of the suite fits their business model very well.
    These profit conscious organizations will not migrate to SM while time
    consuming tasks are required to install SM with all the manual copying
    of Mozilla files.

    At least give this some serious discussion.

    Michael Gordon

    --
    Character is doing the right thing...
    Even when no one is watching...
    http://www.armadilloweb.com

    A Proud User of SeaMonkey The Suite
    Get your free copy here:
    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

  6. Re: Was it that difficult?

    On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:30:23 -0600, Michael Gordon wrote:

    > I do not disagree as to who is paid for their service, or the time
    > available, all I ask is that serious thought be given to providing the
    > option to new SM users.


    Of course it needs serious thought. It also needs someone to volunteer to
    write the code. I guess you are volunteering?

    Phil
    --
    Philip Chee ,
    http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
    Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
    oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
    [ ]Formatting Drive C: 北北北北北北北北北北北北北北炳
    * TagZilla 0.059

  7. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Philip Chee wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:30:23 -0600, Michael Gordon wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I do not disagree as to who is paid for their service, or the time
    >> available, all I ask is that serious thought be given to providing the
    >> option to new SM users.
    >>

    >
    > Of course it needs serious thought. It also needs someone to volunteer to
    > write the code. I guess you are volunteering?
    >
    > Phil
    >

    Phil,

    If I had the knowledge and skill to write this type of code I would have
    submitted a package to SeaMonkey a long time ago. BTW I have been a
    volunteer for a very long time, since NS Communicator 4.01. I do my
    best helping other users figure out how to use the products, or fix
    problems.

    Michael

    --
    Character is doing the right thing...
    Even when no one is watching...
    http://www.armadilloweb.com

    A Proud User of SeaMonkey The Suite
    Get your free copy here:
    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

  8. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Michael Gordon wrote:
    > Chris Thomas wrote:
    >> Bobb Craig wrote:
    >>> With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to
    >>> migrate to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple
    >>> import from these programs?????

    >>
    >> Probably because *none* of the people doing SeaMonkey-specific code
    >> are being paid for it (as far as I know), and we have limited time to
    >> spend working on SeaMonkey.
    >>
    >>> Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and FF users, but not
    >>> on anyone else????

    >>
    >> The import code for the other apps already existed. Nobody has
    >> written import code to import from FF/TB though.
    >>
    >>> Although I do understand the copy and paste of the files needed, I
    >>> truly find it offensive that they left this procedure out. I just DO
    >>> NOT understand the thinking behind it. In fact, it seems to me that
    >>> when the install was taking place, and figured out that TB and FF
    >>> were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that you have TB and
    >>> FF installed, do you want to import these setting?") would have been
    >>> a GREAT way to migrate.

    >>
    >> Lots of things seem simple until you try to actually write the code to
    >> do them. I'm not saying it's necessarily hard, but as someone who is
    >> actually a developer, I know it would take me hours to figure out how
    >> to do it (and likely days to get it all working).
    >>
    >> Chris

    > Hello Chris,
    >
    > I am not a program developer, but common sense tells me that if a new
    > user of SM can manually copy over files like address books, bookmarks,
    > e-mail messages, passwords, forms, etc., then a simple application to
    > allow the install program copy these files should not be that difficult.


    While it wouldn't be difficult to write e.g. a batch file or standalone
    importer, it would look crude - doing it properly is what would be
    difficult. I think that part of our philosophy with SeaMonkey is that
    we often prefer to do things properly or not at all (which is why we
    didn't have "autoscroll" support for a long time after Firefox added it
    - the Firefox implementation is unacceptably hacky).

    > I disagree with your thought about SM appearing to take over FF and TB,
    > if a new SM user has elected to install SM then he/she should be given
    > the choice of importing the other files.


    I didn't mean to imply that it *shouldn't* exist. I was just explaining
    why it doesn't.

    > My personal thought is in the business community, many small, medium,
    > and some large businesses are using an older version of Mozilla Suite as
    > their preferred choice of Internet communications. The power and
    > overall functionality of the suite fits their business model very well.
    > These profit conscious organizations will not migrate to SM while time
    > consuming tasks are required to install SM with all the manual copying
    > of Mozilla files.


    If you're using Mozilla, everything should Just Work. We use the same
    profile as Mozilla, and as far as I know, the majority of users
    upgrading from the Mozilla Suite have no problems. It's only
    Firefox/Thunderbird that we can't import from.

    > At least give this some serious discussion.


    It doesn't need discussion - it's definitely something we want. It just
    needs someone to write it.

    Chris

  9. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Just an observation by a user of both SM and FF ... If you carefully
    follow the newsgroups, you'll find that the FF and TB proponents
    increasingly resent constructive criticism and suggestions.
    "Workarounds" and reasons NOT to implement changes seem to be increasing
    .... a sure sign of early stagnation. Seems to me that a little arrogance
    is creeping into their defense of FF and TB, and that CAN'T be good.
    Don't get me wrong, FF was a great innovation, and is a really nice
    browser ... although Opera offers most of the features too...

    On the other hand, the SM people seem (to me) to be receptive to user
    ideas, but sometimes need to selectively apply their limited resources
    and talent ... a big difference. Other than a "brighter looking skin"
    in FF, I never saw the GREAT advantage in using TB and FF anyway, and
    this good SM attitude is just one more reason that Seamonkey is my
    preference. And, by the way, I did find a FF type skin for SM by posting
    in this group.

    Keep up the great work, SM!

  10. Re: Was it that difficult?

    What's involved in migrating from Netscape 7.2?

    Thanks,
    Bob

  11. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Bob Fleischer wrote:
    > What's involved in migrating from Netscape 7.2?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Bob


    Absolutely nothing. All you need to do is uninstall NS 7.2 and
    install SM 1.0 and it will take over your former NS profile. It is
    advisable though,to create a new profile for SM while you still have NS
    7.2 and then after NS is gone you can migrate your needed data over from
    that profile to the one you created for SM ..that is just being overly
    cautious so that no outdated "junk" comes over from the NS profile.

    --
    Brian

    .. http://www.mozilla.org

    .. http://ilias.ca/mozilla/

    .. http://ilias.ca/

    .. No keyboard found. Press F1 to continue.

  12. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Chris Thomas wrote:
    > Michael Gordon wrote:
    >> Chris Thomas wrote:
    >>> Bobb Craig wrote:
    >>>> With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to
    >>>> migrate to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a simple
    >>>> import from these programs?????
    >>>
    >>> Probably because *none* of the people doing SeaMonkey-specific code
    >>> are being paid for it (as far as I know), and we have limited time to
    >>> spend working on SeaMonkey.
    >>>
    >>>> Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and FF users, but not
    >>>> on anyone else????
    >>>
    >>> The import code for the other apps already existed. Nobody has
    >>> written import code to import from FF/TB though.
    >>>
    >>>> Although I do understand the copy and paste of the files needed, I
    >>>> truly find it offensive that they left this procedure out. I just DO
    >>>> NOT understand the thinking behind it. In fact, it seems to me that
    >>>> when the install was taking place, and figured out that TB and FF
    >>>> were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that you have TB
    >>>> and FF installed, do you want to import these setting?") would have
    >>>> been a GREAT way to migrate.
    >>>
    >>> Lots of things seem simple until you try to actually write the code
    >>> to do them. I'm not saying it's necessarily hard, but as someone who
    >>> is actually a developer, I know it would take me hours to figure out
    >>> how to do it (and likely days to get it all working).
    >>>
    >>> Chris

    >> Hello Chris,
    >>
    >> I am not a program developer, but common sense tells me that if a new
    >> user of SM can manually copy over files like address books, bookmarks,
    >> e-mail messages, passwords, forms, etc., then a simple application to
    >> allow the install program copy these files should not be that difficult.

    >
    > While it wouldn't be difficult to write e.g. a batch file or standalone
    > importer, it would look crude - doing it properly is what would be
    > difficult. I think that part of our philosophy with SeaMonkey is that
    > we often prefer to do things properly or not at all (which is why we
    > didn't have "autoscroll" support for a long time after Firefox added it
    > - the Firefox implementation is unacceptably hacky).
    >
    >> I disagree with your thought about SM appearing to take over FF and
    >> TB, if a new SM user has elected to install SM then he/she should be
    >> given the choice of importing the other files.

    >
    > I didn't mean to imply that it *shouldn't* exist. I was just explaining
    > why it doesn't.
    >
    >> My personal thought is in the business community, many small, medium,
    >> and some large businesses are using an older version of Mozilla Suite
    >> as their preferred choice of Internet communications. The power and
    >> overall functionality of the suite fits their business model very
    >> well. These profit conscious organizations will not migrate to SM
    >> while time consuming tasks are required to install SM with all the
    >> manual copying of Mozilla files.

    >
    > If you're using Mozilla, everything should Just Work. We use the same
    > profile as Mozilla, and as far as I know, the majority of users
    > upgrading from the Mozilla Suite have no problems. It's only
    > Firefox/Thunderbird that we can't import from.
    >
    >> At least give this some serious discussion.

    >
    > It doesn't need discussion - it's definitely something we want. It just
    > needs someone to write it.
    >
    > Chris


    SORRY >>> SORRY >>> SORRY !!!!!!!!

    I certainly did not mean to criticize the GREAT craftsmanship that is
    being accomplished by those of you working on FF/TB/and SM! I really do
    realize that writing rubbish vice well crafted code is not the same, and
    like all other things, it should be done RIGHT! Furthermore, I started
    using FF because I just became fed up with the "holes" in IE.

    I will simply apologize to all of you, and copy the appropriate files
    into the SM structure. That said, having read everything posted here so
    far, it seems that there are differing views on what exactly needs to be
    copied and what should not. Can someone who knows for sure (please not
    just an opinion), post the exact files from TB and FF that need to be
    copied, and then exactly where they need to reside in SM.

    Respectfully,

    Bobb

  13. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Chris Thomas wrote:
    > Michael Gordon wrote:
    >> Chris Thomas wrote:
    >>> Bobb Craig wrote:
    >>>> With the 1000's of TB and FF users who might be really happy to
    >>>> migrate to SeaMonkey, why WOULDN'T the design folks NOT add a
    >>>> simple import from these programs?????
    >>>
    >>> Probably because *none* of the people doing SeaMonkey-specific code
    >>> are being paid for it (as far as I know), and we have limited time
    >>> to spend working on SeaMonkey.
    >>>
    >>>> Why would they want to make it hard on the TB and FF users, but not
    >>>> on anyone else????
    >>>
    >>> The import code for the other apps already existed. Nobody has
    >>> written import code to import from FF/TB though.
    >>>
    >>>> Although I do understand the copy and paste of the files needed, I
    >>>> truly find it offensive that they left this procedure out. I just
    >>>> DO NOT understand the thinking behind it. In fact, it seems to me
    >>>> that when the install was taking place, and figured out that TB and
    >>>> FF were installed on the machine, a simple ("We see that you have
    >>>> TB and FF installed, do you want to import these setting?") would
    >>>> have been a GREAT way to migrate.
    >>>
    >>> Lots of things seem simple until you try to actually write the code
    >>> to do them. I'm not saying it's necessarily hard, but as someone
    >>> who is actually a developer, I know it would take me hours to figure
    >>> out how to do it (and likely days to get it all working).
    >>>
    >>> Chris

    >> Hello Chris,
    >>
    >> I am not a program developer, but common sense tells me that if a new
    >> user of SM can manually copy over files like address books,
    >> bookmarks, e-mail messages, passwords, forms, etc., then a simple
    >> application to allow the install program copy these files should not
    >> be that difficult.

    >
    > While it wouldn't be difficult to write e.g. a batch file or
    > standalone importer, it would look crude - doing it properly is what
    > would be difficult. I think that part of our philosophy with
    > SeaMonkey is that we often prefer to do things properly or not at all
    > (which is why we didn't have "autoscroll" support for a long time
    > after Firefox added it - the Firefox implementation is unacceptably
    > hacky).
    >
    >> I disagree with your thought about SM appearing to take over FF and
    >> TB, if a new SM user has elected to install SM then he/she should be
    >> given the choice of importing the other files.

    >
    > I didn't mean to imply that it *shouldn't* exist. I was just
    > explaining why it doesn't.
    >
    >> My personal thought is in the business community, many small, medium,
    >> and some large businesses are using an older version of Mozilla Suite
    >> as their preferred choice of Internet communications. The power and
    >> overall functionality of the suite fits their business model very
    >> well. These profit conscious organizations will not migrate to SM
    >> while time consuming tasks are required to install SM with all the
    >> manual copying of Mozilla files.

    >
    > If you're using Mozilla, everything should Just Work. We use the same
    > profile as Mozilla, and as far as I know, the majority of users
    > upgrading from the Mozilla Suite have no problems. It's only
    > Firefox/Thunderbird that we can't import from.
    >
    >> At least give this some serious discussion.

    >
    > It doesn't need discussion - it's definitely something we want. It
    > just needs someone to write it.
    >
    > Chris

    Chris,

    Thank you for taking your time addressing these issues, I appreciate
    your time, talent, and expertize.

    This is not the place for an indepth discussion on my experience
    upgrading from Mozilla 1.7.11 and .12, so I will simply state that I had
    a lot of trouble migrating one PC and two laptops to SeaMonkey.
    Creating a new profile for one because of many extensions and themes,
    and using existing profiles from Mozilla on the two laptops. The two
    laptops only had one theme and one extension. Rest assured they are all
    up and running perfectly now.

    Again, thanks for your time.

    Michael

    --
    Character is doing the right thing...
    Even when no one is watching...
    http://www.armadilloweb.com

    A Proud User of SeaMonkey The Suite
    Get your free copy here:
    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

  14. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Al wrote:
    > Just an observation by a user of both SM and FF ... If you carefully
    > follow the newsgroups, you'll find that the FF and TB proponents
    > increasingly resent constructive criticism and suggestions.
    > "Workarounds" and reasons NOT to implement changes seem to be
    > increasing ... a sure sign of early stagnation. Seems to me that a
    > little arrogance is creeping into their defense of FF and TB, and that
    > CAN'T be good. Don't get me wrong, FF was a great innovation, and is a
    > really nice browser ... although Opera offers most of the features too...
    >
    > On the other hand, the SM people seem (to me) to be receptive to user
    > ideas, but sometimes need to selectively apply their limited resources
    > and talent ... a big difference. Other than a "brighter looking skin"
    > in FF, I never saw the GREAT advantage in using TB and FF anyway, and
    > this good SM attitude is just one more reason that Seamonkey is my
    > preference. And, by the way, I did find a FF type skin for SM by
    > posting in this group.
    >
    > Keep up the great work, SM!

    Three cheers, I agree. :-)

    Michael

    --
    Character is doing the right thing...
    Even when no one is watching...
    http://www.armadilloweb.com

    A Proud User of SeaMonkey The Suite
    Get your free copy here:
    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

  15. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Michael Gordon wrote:

    > Al wrote:
    >
    >> Just an observation by a user of both SM and FF ... If you carefully
    >> follow the newsgroups, you'll find that the FF and TB proponents
    >> increasingly resent constructive criticism and suggestions.
    >> "Workarounds" and reasons NOT to implement changes seem to be
    >> increasing ... a sure sign of early stagnation. Seems to me that a
    >> little arrogance is creeping into their defense of FF and TB, and that
    >> CAN'T be good. Don't get me wrong, FF was a great innovation, and is a
    >> really nice browser ... although Opera offers most of the features too...
    >>
    >> On the other hand, the SM people seem (to me) to be receptive to user
    >> ideas, but sometimes need to selectively apply their limited resources
    >> and talent ... a big difference. Other than a "brighter looking skin"
    >> in FF, I never saw the GREAT advantage in using TB and FF anyway, and
    >> this good SM attitude is just one more reason that Seamonkey is my
    >> preference. And, by the way, I did find a FF type skin for SM by
    >> posting in this group.
    >>
    >> Keep up the great work, SM!

    >
    > Three cheers, I agree. :-)


    Seconded - I could never see the point in splitting two fundamental
    operations when accessing the Internet. Just because Microstuffed does
    it is no good reason follow? I'm often working with pages linked from
    emails, and composing emails SHOULD use the same editor as composing
    other html documents?

    NOW if the FF and TB developers talked to one another perhaps they could
    get back to the now defunct idea of actually having them playing nicely
    together in the one framework

    --
    Lester Caine
    -----------------------------
    L.S.Caine Electronic Services
    Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.

  16. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Lester Caine wrote:
    > Michael Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> Al wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just an observation by a user of both SM and FF ... If you carefully
    >>> follow the newsgroups, you'll find that the FF and TB proponents
    >>> increasingly resent constructive criticism and suggestions.
    >>> "Workarounds" and reasons NOT to implement changes seem to be
    >>> increasing ... a sure sign of early stagnation. Seems to me that a
    >>> little arrogance is creeping into their defense of FF and TB, and
    >>> that CAN'T be good. Don't get me wrong, FF was a great innovation,
    >>> and is a really nice browser ... although Opera offers most of the
    >>> features too...
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, the SM people seem (to me) to be receptive to user
    >>> ideas, but sometimes need to selectively apply their limited
    >>> resources and talent ... a big difference. Other than a "brighter
    >>> looking skin" in FF, I never saw the GREAT advantage in using TB and
    >>> FF anyway, and this good SM attitude is just one more reason that
    >>> Seamonkey is my preference. And, by the way, I did find a FF type
    >>> skin for SM by posting in this group.
    >>>
    >>> Keep up the great work, SM!

    >>
    >> Three cheers, I agree. :-)

    >
    > Seconded - I could never see the point in splitting two fundamental
    > operations when accessing the Internet. Just because Microstuffed does
    > it is no good reason follow? I'm often working with pages linked from
    > emails, and composing emails SHOULD use the same editor as composing
    > other html documents?
    >
    > NOW if the FF and TB developers talked to one another perhaps they could
    > get back to the now defunct idea of actually having them playing nicely
    > together in the one framework
    >

    Interesting thread on FF/TB attitude in Mozilla.Support.Thunderbird
    called "Back to FF", stated by me on 2/20. Both great programs, but
    when the new IE hits the streets, the migration to them will surely
    suffer and slow down. Only us MS "haters" will refuse to even consider
    the "catch up" version of IE, which supposedly will contain most of FF's
    features. Seamonkey could well be the wave of the future.

  17. Re: Was it that difficult?

    Al wrote:

    > Lester Caine wrote:
    >

    [SNIP]
    >
    > Interesting thread on FF/TB attitude in Mozilla.Support.Thunderbird
    > called "Back to FF", stated by me on 2/20. Both great programs, but
    > when the new IE hits the streets, the migration to them will surely
    > suffer and slow down. Only us MS "haters" will refuse to even consider
    > the "catch up" version of IE, which supposedly will contain most of FF's
    > features. Seamonkey could well be the wave of the future.

    That may be so very true.

  18. Re: Was it that difficult?

    On 02/23/2006 12:53 AM Bobb Craig wrote:

    [snipped Fullquote]

    > Can someone who knows for sure (please not just an opinion), post
    > the exact files from TB and FF that need to be copied, and then
    > exactly where they need to reside in SM.


    Depends on what you want.

    Just an opinion:

    user.js if it is not depending on your old structure (absolute paths etc.)

    abook.mab Adressbooks, look into your old prefs.js to see how theyx
    are built in.

    bookmarks.html is obvious (and only in FF, not in TB ;-) )

    cookies.txt and cookperm.txt are cookies and their permissions, dont
    know if they are the same in FF/SM

    training.dat Spam controls

    tbc...

    OJ
    --
    "Is our children learning?"
    (George W. Bush)

+ Reply to Thread