Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog? - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog? - Mozilla ; Greetings, I'm currently a Mozilla 1.7.13 user and I've been using Mozilla since around the 1.0 release. I'm starting to realize that I need to make the jump to either Seamonkey or Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvu. My perception is that there are much ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

  1. Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Greetings,

    I'm currently a Mozilla 1.7.13 user and I've been using Mozilla since
    around the 1.0 release. I'm starting to realize that I need to make the
    jump to either Seamonkey or Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvu.

    My perception is that there are much more development and testing
    resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to Seamonkey. Is
    that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect? If there are
    more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird that does not seem
    to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?

    Jeff

  2. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    On 21.07.2006 04:55 pm, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused McJathan to
    generate the following:? :

    > Greetings,
    >
    > I'm currently a Mozilla 1.7.13 user and I've been using Mozilla since
    > around the 1.0 release. I'm starting to realize that I need to make
    > the jump to either Seamonkey or Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvu.
    >
    > My perception is that there are much more development and testing
    > resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to Seamonkey. Is
    > that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect? If there
    > are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird that does
    > not seem to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?
    >
    > Jeff


    suppose it all depends on what you want and what you are used to!

    FF + TB have the advantage of independant development - if FF gets an
    update, TB remains and visa-versa
    FF and TB are independant of each other - *if* one crashes, the other is
    still running!

    SM (as I saw today) seems to be at 1.0.3 version.... (looking at the
    MultiMedia Testgroup) and is the *follow-up* to the Moz Suite 1.7.13
    (which, according to all reports, is "end of the line" for Moz)

    Then again - regarding "rapid updates" may also mean.... there is
    something that *NEEDS* updating?? Not necessarilly a good omen, methinks!

    SM seems to be superior to TB in the MultiMedia world of eMail
    applications - in the MultiMedia Testgroup, the gals and guys there are
    very pleased with its performance!

    snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia
    snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia

    SEAMONKEY - the Moz-Suite successor
    news://news.mozilla.org:119/mozilla.support.seamonkey

    reg

  3. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog? oooopppssss!

    On 21.07.2006 08:28 pm, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    squaredancer to generate the following:? :

    > On 21.07.2006 04:55 pm, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused McJathan
    > to generate the following:? :
    >
    >> Greetings,
    >>
    >> I'm currently a Mozilla 1.7.13 user and I've been using Mozilla since
    >> around the 1.0 release. I'm starting to realize that I need to make
    >> the jump to either Seamonkey or Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvu.
    >>
    >> My perception is that there are much more development and testing
    >> resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to Seamonkey. Is
    >> that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect? If there
    >> are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird that does
    >> not seem to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?
    >>
    >> Jeff

    >
    >
    > suppose it all depends on what you want and what you are used to!
    >
    > FF + TB have the advantage of independant development - if FF gets an
    > update, TB remains and visa-versa
    > FF and TB are independant of each other - *if* one crashes, the other
    > is still running!
    >
    > SM (as I saw today) seems to be at 1.0.3 version.... (looking at the
    > MultiMedia Testgroup) and is the *follow-up* to the Moz Suite 1.7.13
    > (which, according to all reports, is "end of the line" for Moz)
    >
    > Then again - regarding "rapid updates" may also mean.... there is
    > something that *NEEDS* updating?? Not necessarilly a good omen,
    > methinks!
    >
    > SM seems to be superior to TB in the MultiMedia world of eMail
    > applications - in the MultiMedia Testgroup, the gals and guys there
    > are very pleased with its performance!
    >
    > snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia
    > snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia
    >
    > SEAMONKEY - the Moz-Suite successor
    > news://news.mozilla.org:119/mozilla.support.seamonkey
    >
    > reg


    the other MM-Testgroup.....

    news://news.mozilla.org:119/mozilla.test.multimedia

    got me Paste stuck - sorry!

    reg

  4. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    McJathan wrote:


    > My perception is that there are much more development and
    > testing
    > resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    > Seamonkey. Is
    > that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?


    Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    it.

    > If
    > there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    > that does not seem
    > to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?


    I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    not exist.

  5. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Penguiniator wrote:
    > McJathan wrote:
    >
    >
    >> My perception is that there are much more development and
    >> testing
    >> resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    >> Seamonkey. Is
    >> that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?

    >
    > Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    > extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    > longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    > by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    > it.
    >
    >> If
    >> there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    >> that does not seem
    >> to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?

    >
    > I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    > segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    > developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    > not exist.


    All true. However, as others have mentioned, the critical concept to
    understand is that the SeaMonkey development is leveraged off of the
    Firefox (and Thunderbird) efforts because they all share the same core.
    So, most of the efforts being poured into FF and TB benefit SM as
    well. Hence, I would say its long-term viability is very good.

    So the answer to the OP is: Decide what features and user interface you
    prefer and choose accordingly. And if you change your mind later your
    data can be fairly easily migrated in either direction.

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net

  6. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    squaredancer wrote in
    :

    > SM (as I saw today) seems to be at 1.0.3 version.... (looking at
    > the MultiMedia Testgroup)


    The latest release of SeaMonkey is 1.0.2. There's a release candidate
    for 1.0.3.

    --
    Q

  7. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Ed Mullen wrote:

    > Penguiniator wrote:
    >
    >>McJathan wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>My perception is that there are much more development and
    >>>testing
    >>>resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    >>>Seamonkey. Is
    >>>that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?

    >>
    >>Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    >>extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    >>longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    >>by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    >>it.
    >>
    >>
    >>>If
    >>>there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    >>>that does not seem
    >>>to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?

    >>
    >>I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    >>segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    >>developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    >>not exist.

    >
    >
    > All true. However, as others have mentioned, the critical concept to
    > understand is that the SeaMonkey development is leveraged off of the
    > Firefox (and Thunderbird) efforts because they all share the same core.
    > So, most of the efforts being poured into FF and TB benefit SM as
    > well. Hence, I would say its long-term viability is very good.
    >


    since all that is true, then why doesn't SM have the same memory
    problem that FF has? And why doesn't SM have the "Closing the
    Program" problem that FF [and sometimes TB] seems to have? And why
    doesn't it have a loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just to
    mention a few.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that a cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

  8. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    gwtc wrote:
    > Ed Mullen wrote:
    >
    >> Penguiniator wrote:
    >>
    >>> McJathan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> My perception is that there are much more development and
    >>>> testing
    >>>> resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    >>>> Seamonkey. Is
    >>>> that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?
    >>>
    >>> Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    >>> extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    >>> longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    >>> by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    >>> it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> If there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    >>>> that does not seem
    >>>> to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?
    >>>
    >>> I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    >>> segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    >>> developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    >>> not exist.

    >>
    >>
    >> All true. However, as others have mentioned, the critical concept to
    >> understand is that the SeaMonkey development is leveraged off of the
    >> Firefox (and Thunderbird) efforts because they all share the same
    >> core. So, most of the efforts being poured into FF and TB benefit SM
    >> as well. Hence, I would say its long-term viability is very good.
    >>

    >
    > since all that is true, then why doesn't SM have the same memory problem
    > that FF has? And why doesn't SM have the "Closing the Program" problem
    > that FF [and sometimes TB] seems to have? And why doesn't it have a
    > loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just to mention a few.
    >


    Because the SeaMonkey developers chose to NOT leverage the bad parts of
    the core? ;-)

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net

  9. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Ed Mullen wrote:
    > gwtc wrote:
    >
    >>Ed Mullen wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Penguiniator wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>McJathan wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>My perception is that there are much more development and
    >>>>>testing
    >>>>>resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    >>>>>Seamonkey. Is
    >>>>>that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    >>>>extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    >>>>longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    >>>>by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    >>>>it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>If there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    >>>>>that does not seem
    >>>>>to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?
    >>>>
    >>>>I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    >>>>segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    >>>>developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    >>>>not exist.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>All true. However, as others have mentioned, the critical concept to
    >>>understand is that the SeaMonkey development is leveraged off of the
    >>>Firefox (and Thunderbird) efforts because they all share the same
    >>>core. So, most of the efforts being poured into FF and TB benefit SM
    >>>as well. Hence, I would say its long-term viability is very good.
    >>>

    >>
    >>since all that is true, then why doesn't SM have the same memory problem
    >>that FF has? And why doesn't SM have the "Closing the Program" problem
    >>that FF [and sometimes TB] seems to have? And why doesn't it have a
    >>loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just to mention a few.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Because the SeaMonkey developers chose to NOT leverage the bad parts of
    > the core? ;-)
    >

    so, in other words, SeaMonkey is the better program. And I would have
    to agree. If you look at all the problems in the Thunderbird and
    Firefox newsgroups, and then you look at the problems in the SeaMonkey
    and Mozilla Suite newsgroups, there is NO comparison. TB & FF have
    far more problems and complaints. Lots are complaining about the same
    problems. SM & Moz only have questions about "how to do this" and "how
    to do that", but very few complaints and very few problems.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that a cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

  10. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    gwtc wrote in
    :

    > so, in other words, SeaMonkey is the better program. And I would
    > have to agree. If you look at all the problems in the Thunderbird
    > and Firefox newsgroups, and then you look at the problems in the
    > SeaMonkey and Mozilla Suite newsgroups, there is NO comparison.


    I think SeaMonkey and Mozilla Suite have far fewer users with problems
    mainly because they have far fewer users.

    > SM & Moz only have questions about "how to do this" and "how
    > to do that", but very few complaints and very few problems.


    And I think the relatively large number of "how to do this" questions
    are due to their godawful user interfaces.

    --
    Q

  11. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Q wrote:

    > gwtc wrote in
    > :
    >
    >>SM & Moz only have questions about "how to do this" and "how
    >>to do that", but very few complaints and very few problems.

    >
    >
    > And I think the relatively large number of "how to do this" questions
    > are due to their godawful user interfaces.
    >

    you may think its godawful, but imo its a lot better than FF or TBs

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that a cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

  12. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 6:04 PM:
    > since all that is true, then why doesn't SM have the same memory problem
    > that FF has?


    Who says it doesn't? ;-)

    > And why doesn't SM have the "Closing the Program" problem
    > that FF [and sometimes TB] seems to have?


    I haven't seen SeaMonkey do that; so I'll assume that the cause of that
    just isn't part of the core code that is shared, between the two.

    > And why doesn't it have a
    > loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just to mention a few.


    See above. (Although, that may also be a problem in SeaMonkey, just not
    a big enough user-base.)
    --
    Chris Ilias
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    Mozilla links
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

  13. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Chris Ilias wrote:

    > _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 6:04 PM:
    >
    >>since all that is true, then why doesn't SM have the same memory problem
    >>that FF has?

    >
    >
    > Who says it doesn't? ;-)
    >
    >
    >> And why doesn't SM have the "Closing the Program" problem
    >>that FF [and sometimes TB] seems to have?

    >
    >
    > I haven't seen SeaMonkey do that; so I'll assume that the cause of that
    > just isn't part of the core code that is shared, between the two.
    >
    >
    >> And why doesn't it have a
    >>loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just to mention a few.

    >
    >
    > See above. (Although, that may also be a problem in SeaMonkey, just not
    > a big enough user-base.)


    "just not a big enough user-base" -- I think that is just a cop-out
    excuse. The problems and complaints just aren't there.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that a cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

  14. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 7:22 PM:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 6:04 PM:
    >>
    >> I haven't seen SeaMonkey do that; so I'll assume that the cause of
    >> that just isn't part of the core code that is shared, between the two.
    >>
    >>> And why doesn't it have a loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just
    >>> to mention a few.

    >>
    >> See above. (Although, that may also be a problem in SeaMonkey, just
    >> not a big enough user-base.)

    >
    > "just not a big enough user-base" -- I think that is just a cop-out
    > excuse. The problems and complaints just aren't there.


    "The problems and complaints just aren't there" is a cop-out, just as
    SeaMonkey is better because its group gets less traffic.
    --
    Chris Ilias
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    Mozilla links
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

  15. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Ed Mullen wrote:
    > gwtc wrote:
    >> Ed Mullen wrote:
    >>
    >>> Penguiniator wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> McJathan wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> My perception is that there are much more development and
    >>>>> testing
    >>>>> resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    >>>>> Seamonkey. Is
    >>>>> that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    >>>> extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    >>>> longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    >>>> by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    >>>> it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> If there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    >>>>> that does not seem
    >>>>> to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    >>>> segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    >>>> developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    >>>> not exist.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> All true. However, as others have mentioned, the critical concept to
    >>> understand is that the SeaMonkey development is leveraged off of the
    >>> Firefox (and Thunderbird) efforts because they all share the same
    >>> core. So, most of the efforts being poured into FF and TB benefit
    >>> SM as well. Hence, I would say its long-term viability is very good.
    >>>

    >>
    >> since all that is true, then why doesn't SM have the same memory
    >> problem that FF has? And why doesn't SM have the "Closing the
    >> Program" problem that FF [and sometimes TB] seems to have? And why
    >> doesn't it have a loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just to
    >> mention a few.
    >>

    >
    > Because the SeaMonkey developers chose to NOT leverage the bad parts of
    > the core? ;-)
    >

    Or because the Majority of Seamonkey users are not newbies?

    --
    Irwin

    Managing TB Profiles: http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/profile
    Managing FF Profiles: http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/profile

  16. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 7:22 PM:
    >
    >>Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>
    >>>_gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 6:04 PM:
    >>>
    >>>I haven't seen SeaMonkey do that; so I'll assume that the cause of
    >>>that just isn't part of the core code that is shared, between the two.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>And why doesn't it have a loosing of the bookmarks like FF has? Just
    >>>>to mention a few.
    >>>
    >>>See above. (Although, that may also be a problem in SeaMonkey, just
    >>>not a big enough user-base.)

    >>
    >>"just not a big enough user-base" -- I think that is just a cop-out
    >>excuse. The problems and complaints just aren't there.

    >
    >
    > "The problems and complaints just aren't there" is a cop-out, just as
    > SeaMonkey is better because its group gets less traffic.

    how many complaints in the FF ng do you see regarding memory usage? --
    lots
    how many proportionally complaints in the SM ng do you see regarding
    memory usage? -- none
    how many complaints in the FF ng do you see regarding the parent.lock
    file? -- lots
    how many proportionally complaints in the SM ng do you see regarding
    the parent.lock file? -- none
    how many complaints in the FF ng do you see regarding the bookmark
    file being lost? -- lots
    how many proportionally complaints in the SM ng do you see regarding
    the bookmark file being lost? -- none

    note: when I say SM I also mean in Mozilla Suite. Even then, when Moz
    was the main program, I sure didn't see those complaints in the old
    secnews newsgroups

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that a cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

  17. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    On 7/21/06 2:10 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
    > Penguiniator wrote:
    >
    >> McJathan wrote:
    >>
    >>> My perception is that there are much more development and
    >>> testing
    >>> resources being devoted to Firefox/Thunderbird than to
    >>> Seamonkey. Is
    >>> that correct -- is Seamonkey the underdog in this respect?
    >>>

    >> Yes. Firefox and Thunderbird are the flagship products. Most
    >> extensions are developed for them. Seamonkey is actually no
    >> longer developed by the Mozilla team. Development was taken over
    >> by its user community when the Mozilla team ceased developing
    >> it.
    >> If
    >> there are more resources being developed to Firefox/Thunderbird
    >> that does not seem
    >> to bode well for the future of Seamonkey. Thoughts? Comments?
    >>
    >> I don't think I'd write it off so quickly. There is a certain
    >> segment of users that prefer it and enough of them are
    >> developers to keep it going. If there weren't, Seamonkey would
    >> not exist.
    >>

    >
    > All true. However, as others have mentioned, the critical concept to
    > understand is that the SeaMonkey development is leveraged off of the
    > Firefox (and Thunderbird) efforts because they all share the same core.
    > So, most of the efforts being poured into FF and TB benefit SM as
    > well. Hence, I would say its long-term viability is very good.
    >
    > So the answer to the OP is: Decide what features and user interface you
    > prefer and choose accordingly. And if you change your mind later your
    > data can be fairly easily migrated in either direction


    Or do as I do: use all three. That way bookmarks are backed up in other
    program, as are address books, cookies, sites, and PWs.

    --
    John McWilliams

  18. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > I think you're being very ignorant.

    Thanks for calling me ignorant. You're making a habit of this --
    calling me names. And when was the last time I called you something?

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that a cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

  19. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 21/07/2006 8:41 PM:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> I think you're being very ignorant.

    > Thanks for calling me ignorant. You're making a habit of this --
    > calling me names. And when was the last time I called you something?


    You are ignoring data. *By definition*, you are being ignorant.

    If you'd like to address the actual topic of discussion of this thread,
    then I'd be glad to continue that discussion. If you want to turn this
    into some personal squabble, I'm not replying.
    --
    Chris Ilias
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    Mozilla links
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

  20. Re: Compared to Firefox/Thunderbird is Seamonkey the underdog?

    Q wrote:
    > gwtc wrote in
    > :
    >
    >> so, in other words, SeaMonkey is the better program. And I would
    >> have to agree. If you look at all the problems in the Thunderbird
    >> and Firefox newsgroups, and then you look at the problems in the
    >> SeaMonkey and Mozilla Suite newsgroups, there is NO comparison.

    >
    > I think SeaMonkey and Mozilla Suite have far fewer users with problems
    > mainly because they have far fewer users.
    >


    Numerically, perhaps, as one would suspect, much as one might say the
    same about Windows vs. Linux, Cadillac vs. Mercedes, etc. How about
    percentage-wise? That's the statistically valid question.

    >> SM & Moz only have questions about "how to do this" and "how
    >> to do that", but very few complaints and very few problems.

    >
    > And I think the relatively large number of "how to do this" questions
    > are due to their godawful user interfaces.
    >


    I, for one, find the user interfaces of FF and TB to be highly inferior
    to the Suite programs. But, hey, choice is good. I'm not
    proselytizing, just commenting.

    http://mozilla.edmullen.net/seamonkey.html

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast