Re: Seamonkey vs Firefox? - Mozilla

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? >>

SeaMonkey is both surpassing Firefox and woefully behind...a strange mix.

Firefox 2 is about SeaMonkey 1.xx level, and Firefox 3 Beta 3 is far ahead in some areas.

SeaMonkey is too far behind the curve...why oh why SeaMonkey 1.x.x is still being worked on while SeaMonkey 2.x is so far ahead in options, features AND usefulness is somewhat perplexing to many.

That said, and those that know AND investigate will very likely come to the same conclusions.

HOWEVER, SM 1.x or 2.x is really what Firefox should have been...maybe available in two "flavors" one the Firefox feature set as iot stands now - browser only - and also an optional "full version" with the SeaMonkey mix of major components that re so well interrelated.

By the time SeaMonkey 2 is arrived at, it's almost a sure thing that Firefox 4 will be well into coding and even Alpha.

In both Firefox and SeaMonkey, the ideas, thoughts, and plans are phenomenal, though...and that's the rub to many...these features and options are needed now, or very soon, not on a one year or so rotational...things in technology and life are changing far far too fast to wait and wait and...well, wait.

Agreed, since up to a point, Firefox and SeaMonkey ARE a blessed and welcomed labor of love, and both are clearly major advances in browsing and related works and needs:

It IS unfair to sound "complain-tive" - this is CLEARLY seen and realized, especially by this writer and observer, but the above views are from someone that can stand from further away, and likely see and discern a little greater latitude and picture than those closer to the core, so to speak.

This writer, among others using and watching both browsers develop, has no real axe to grind, no real special interest groups to sway, does not make an income from observing and writing about either browser at this time.

Thus, the above views may well be more accurate, direct, and hopefully will spur some more advances.

JR WG wrote:

> SeaMonkey is both surpassing Firefox and woefully behind...a strange
> mix.
>
> Firefox 2 is about SeaMonkey 1.xx level, and Firefox 3 Beta 3 is far
> ahead in some areas.
>
> SeaMonkey is too far behind the curve...why oh why SeaMonkey 1.x.x is
> still being worked on while SeaMonkey 2.x is so far ahead in options,
> features AND usefulness is somewhat perplexing to many.
>
Because failure to fix problems in the software in production state
would destroy confidence in the new release. And if you haven't had a
"learning experience" with the SM2 stuff, you just didn't pull down the
right nightly build. ;-)


--
Bill Davidsen
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

JR WG wrote:
> why oh why SeaMonkey 1.x.x is still being worked on while SeaMonkey 2.x is so far ahead in options, features AND usefulness is somewhat perplexing to many.

Well, "worked on" is probably implying too much. Only security and
stability fixes are going into 1.1.x at this time, and >90% of those are
in platform code, so other than doing releases, there's practically no
actual work going into 1.1.x from the SeaMonkey team.

> By the time SeaMonkey 2 is arrived at, it's almost a sure thing that Firefox 4 will be well into coding and even Alpha.

Let's see about that. The more help we get in getting SM2 done, the
faster it will be ready.

Robert Kaiser

On 03/08/2008 02:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:

> Let's see about that. The more help we get in getting SM2 done, the
> faster it will be ready.
>
> Robert Kaiser

Can SM2 coexist with SM1.1.8 in the same way as SM1.1.8 can coexist with
FF? For example, if I want to keep SM1.1.8 as my standard workhorse,
but also fire up SM2 to experiment and help with testing, etc., it this:
1) possible, 2) easily set up?

yep, thats not a problem, I do that right now. SM2 has different
install locations for both the binaries as well as profile/config data,
so other than the shortcut to startup, they can exist side by side.

Adam


NoOp wrote:
> On 03/08/2008 02:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
>
>> Let's see about that. The more help we get in getting SM2 done, the
>> faster it will be ready.
>>
>> Robert Kaiser
>>
>
> Can SM2 coexist with SM1.1.8 in the same way as SM1.1.8 can coexist with
> FF? For example, if I want to keep SM1.1.8 as my standard workhorse,
> but also fire up SM2 to experiment and help with testing, etc., it this:
> 1) possible, 2) easily set up?
>
>

On 03/08/2008 02:49 PM, Adam wrote:

>
> NoOp wrote:
>> On 03/08/2008 02:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Let's see about that. The more help we get in getting SM2 done, the
>>> faster it will be ready.
>>>
>>> Robert Kaiser
>>>
>>
>> Can SM2 coexist with SM1.1.8 in the same way as SM1.1.8 can coexist with
>> FF? For example, if I want to keep SM1.1.8 as my standard workhorse,
>> but also fire up SM2 to experiment and help with testing, etc., it this:
>> 1) possible, 2) easily set up?
>>
>>
>

> yep, thats not a problem, I do that right now. SM2 has different
> install locations for both the binaries as well as profile/config data,
> so other than the shortcut to startup, they can exist side by side.
>
> Adam
>

Thanks. Appreciate the info & I'll bring up SM2 in the next few days.