Seamonkey vs Firefox? - Mozilla

Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand alone
browser? i.e. are all plugins and extensions interchangeable?

--

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

jetjock wrote:
> Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand alone
> browser?

yes

> i.e. are all plugins and extensions interchangeable?

yes and no. Not all FF extensions are available for SM.
When SM 2 comes out, then they should be.

Plugins: neither FF or SM has anything to do with these.
They belong to 3rd parties.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> jetjock wrote:
>> Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand
>> alone browser?
>
> yes


I use both and there are plenty of differences....

Bill Spikowski wrote:
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> jetjock wrote:
>>> Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand
>>> alone browser?
>> yes
>
>
> I use both and there are plenty of differences....

yes, you're right. They are the same in some ways, but very
different in others.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

jetjock wrote:

> Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand
> alone browser? i.e. are all plugins and extensions interchangeable?

The part that's the same is the part that actually renders the webpages
for you.

Plug-ins use the same framework, so Firefox and SeaMonkey should be
able to use the same ones.

Extensions, no. Some extensions work with both browsers, but the
extension author has a bit of work to make that happen. Don't install
and extension in SeaMonkey that's not marked as safe for it, unless you
don't mind some headaches.

jetjock wrote:
> Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand alone
> browser? i.e. are all plugins and extensions interchangeable?
>

Yes and no. The rendering engine is the same. Plugins are
interchangeable between SeaMonkey, Firefox, Netscape, and even some
non-Mozilla browsers such as Konqueror or Opera (but not Internet Explorer).

Extensions are not interchangeable. Some extensions can be used with
both, but the extension author has to take a lot of trouble to make that
happen, especially with Sm version 1, whose Extensions backend is quite
different from that used by Fx2 and Tb2. When Sm2 comes out, it will
have the same Add-Ons Manager as Fx3 and Tb3, and approximately the same
one as Fx2/Tb2, but that won't make extensions interchangeable. There
will still be a number of differences between Sm and Fx, for instance in
the tabbed-browser backend, and extension authors will still have to
"work" (more or less depending on what they want their extension to do)
in order for their extensions to work in both. As a minimum, there will
always be two distinct lines in the extension source, defining the
compatible versions of Fx OT1H, and of Sm OTOH; and usually there will
be a number of additional checks in the code, to do different things
(even to achieve the same result) in one and in the other.


Best regards,
Tony.
--
GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?
ARTHUR: Yes!
GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!
ARTHUR: What?
GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em
together.
The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty
Python)

Tony Mechelynck wrote:

> jetjock wrote:
>
>> Is the browser portion of Seamonkey the same as the Firefox stand alone
>> browser? i.e. are all plugins and extensions interchangeable?
>>
>
> Yes and no. The rendering engine is the same. Plugins are
> interchangeable between SeaMonkey, Firefox, Netscape, and even some
> non-Mozilla browsers such as Konqueror or Opera (but not Internet
> Explorer).
>
> Extensions are not interchangeable. Some extensions can be used with
> both, but the extension author has to take a lot of trouble to make
> that happen, especially with Sm version 1, whose Extensions backend is
> quite different from that used by Fx2 and Tb2. When Sm2 comes out, it
> will have the same Add-Ons Manager as Fx3 and Tb3, and approximately
> the same one as Fx2/Tb2, but that won't make extensions
> interchangeable. There will still be a number of differences between
> Sm and Fx, for instance in the tabbed-browser backend, and extension
> authors will still have to "work" (more or less depending on what they
> want their extension to do) in order for their extensions to work in
> both. As a minimum, there will always be two distinct lines in the
> extension source, defining the compatible versions of Fx OT1H, and of
> Sm OTOH; and usually there will be a number of additional checks in
> the code, to do different things (even to achieve the same result) in
> one and in the other.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.


Many thanks for the info! Please see new thread "Mozilla vs Firefox".

I've posted this twice now and it's not showing up for me. I'll try
again with a different subject.

Well, it finally dawned on me why this isn't showing up. I was using an
imported html smilie that was tipping his hat to you all. So, I guess
I'll just have to tip my hat vocally to all of you who helped. I should
have all the info I need now.

--

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

jetjock wrote:
> I've posted this twice now and it's not showing up for me. I'll try
> again with a different subject.
>
> Well, it finally dawned on me why this isn't showing up. I was using an
> imported html smilie that was tipping his hat to you all. So, I guess
> I'll just have to tip my hat vocally to all of you who helped. I should
> have all the info I need now.

you can't send attachments to this news server, unless
they're pure text. The only group that accepts attachments
are the all but abandonded, the Chris I. nearly destroyed,
multimedia newsgroups

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

> jetjock wrote:

>> I've posted this twice now and it's not showing up for me. I'll try
>> again with a different subject.
>>
>> Well, it finally dawned on me why this isn't showing up. I was using
>> an imported html smilie that was tipping his hat to you all. So, I
>> guess I'll just have to tip my hat vocally to all of you who helped.
>> I should have all the info I need now.

> you can't send attachments to this news server, unless they're pure
> text.

> The only group that accepts attachments are the all but
> abandonded, the Chris I. nearly destroyed, multimedia newsgroups

To PP the PH:

I separated this sentence from what preceded it, simply because it
doesn't make any sense to me at all...
Would you like to re-phrase it?

keith whaley

keith_w wrote:
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>> jetjock wrote:
>
>>> I've posted this twice now and it's not showing up for me. I'll try
>>> again with a different subject.
>>>
>>> Well, it finally dawned on me why this isn't showing up. I was using
>>> an imported html smilie that was tipping his hat to you all. So, I
>>> guess I'll just have to tip my hat vocally to all of you who helped.
>>> I should have all the info I need now.
>
>> you can't send attachments to this news server, unless they're pure
>> text.
>
>> The only group that accepts attachments are the all but
>> abandonded, the Chris I. nearly destroyed, multimedia newsgroups
>
> To PP the PH:
>
> I separated this sentence from what preceded it, simply because it
> doesn't make any sense to me at all...
> Would you like to re-phrase it?
>
> keith whaley
>

you can't send attachments to the groups on this server. No
Binary attachments like pictures and other images, or audio
or video attachments. Except, you can send texted based
attachments [.txt], and .html attachments.

The exception newsgroup is the multimedia newsgroup which
you can send binary attachments and other type of
attachments. And its a newsgroup that was nearly destroyed
by the above mentioned individual, and because of the
problem that occurred there, back in November 2007, its
almost abandoned. The only ones posting there are the ones
that don't know any better.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> keith_w wrote:
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>>> jetjock wrote:
>>
>>>> I've posted this twice now and it's not showing up for me. I'll try
>>>> again with a different subject.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it finally dawned on me why this isn't showing up. I was
>>>> using an imported html smilie that was tipping his hat to you all.
>>>> So, I guess I'll just have to tip my hat vocally to all of you who
>>>> helped. I should have all the info I need now.
>>
>>> you can't send attachments to this news server, unless they're pure
>>> text.
>>
>>> The only group that accepts attachments are the all but abandonded,
>>> the Chris I. nearly destroyed, multimedia newsgroups
>>
>> To PP the PH:
>>
>> I separated this sentence from what preceded it, simply because it
>> doesn't make any sense to me at all...
>> Would you like to re-phrase it?
>>
>> keith whaley
>>
>
> you can't send attachments to the groups on this server. No Binary
> attachments like pictures and other images, or audio or video
> attachments. Except, you can send texted based attachments [.txt], and
> .html attachments.
>
> The exception newsgroup is the multimedia newsgroup which you can send
> binary attachments and other type of attachments. And its a newsgroup
> that was nearly destroyed by the above mentioned individual, and because
> of the problem that occurred there, back in November 2007, its almost
> abandoned. The only ones posting there are the ones that don't know any
> better.
>

If having such a group is that valuable why don't you just create a
Usenet group (like alt.mozilla.multimedia) and migrate there?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
The obituaries in the newspaper prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
people die in alphabetical order.

Ed Mullen wrote:
> If having such a group is that valuable why don't you just create a
> Usenet group (like alt.mozilla.multimedia) and migrate there?

because not every news server accessing the group accepts
binaries. Most of them are text only.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> If having such a group is that valuable why don't you just create a
>> Usenet group (like alt.mozilla.multimedia) and migrate there?
>
> because not every news server accessing the group accepts binaries. Most
> of them are text only.
>

My ISP has stopped carrying a number of binary newsgroups, trying to
fight that way the dissemination of illegal copies of copyrighted music etc.

Best regards,
Tony.
--
Every improvement in communication makes the bore more terrible.
-- Frank Moore Colby

Ed Mullen wrote:
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> keith_w wrote:
>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>
>>>> jetjock wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I've posted this twice now and it's not showing up for me. I'll try
>>>>> again with a different subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it finally dawned on me why this isn't showing up. I was
>>>>> using an imported html smilie that was tipping his hat to you all.
>>>>> So, I guess I'll just have to tip my hat vocally to all of you who
>>>>> helped. I should have all the info I need now.
>>>
>>>> you can't send attachments to this news server, unless they're pure
>>>> text.
>>>
>>>> The only group that accepts attachments are the all but abandonded,
>>>> the Chris I. nearly destroyed, multimedia newsgroups
>>>
>>> To PP the PH:
>>>
>>> I separated this sentence from what preceded it, simply because it
>>> doesn't make any sense to me at all...
>>> Would you like to re-phrase it?
>>>
>>> keith whaley
>>>
>>
>> you can't send attachments to the groups on this server. No Binary
>> attachments like pictures and other images, or audio or video
>> attachments. Except, you can send texted based attachments [.txt], and
>> .html attachments.
>>
>> The exception newsgroup is the multimedia newsgroup which you can send
>> binary attachments and other type of attachments. And its a newsgroup
>> that was nearly destroyed by the above mentioned individual, and because
>> of the problem that occurred there, back in November 2007, its almost
>> abandoned. The only ones posting there are the ones that don't know any
>> better.
>>
>
> If having such a group is that valuable why don't you just create a
> Usenet group (like alt.mozilla.multimedia) and migrate there?

alt.binaries.multimedia.mozilla... unless bin* is in the second node,
then most servers won't classify it as a binaries group and will filter
them out. After alt.binaries.* comes the type of binaries, in this case
*.multimedia.*

B/, alt.config regular