Slashdot Mirror
SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha released
An anonymous reader writes "SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha was released last week. Users of the Mozilla Suite or Netscape should check it out - it contains numerous new features and bugfixes when compared to Mozilla 1.7, but offers the same basic look and feel. There are a few screenshots on the SeaMonkey blog showing off some of the features. For those who don't know, SeaMonkey is the continuation of the Mozilla Suite after the Mozilla Foundation ceased shipping new releases."
I would have preferred something like 2.0, because I've always associated SeaMonkey with the Mozilla Application Suite (which was up to 1.7.11, last time I checked). From a brief glance at the project page, it looks like it has similar functionality to that suite ("all-in-one internet application suite").
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Wow, first two posts here are asking what' the point is.
The point is that it's a continuation of the Mozilla suite. Just because mozilla.org is too busy to handle the project, doesn't mean that a lot of developers don't want to code for it, nor does it mean that a lot of users don't want to use it.
Who's the target? Simple: People who have Mozilla 1.7.
Why? Same reason people use Mozilla 1.7.
Sure, Firefox is leet and is made by leet ex (and current) Mozilla developers, but it was not made as a replacement for Mozilla.
People who hate Firefox's simplistic options (or hate being uber-leet and going into about:config to change even the simplest config options) are the target. People who want a mail/news app bundled with their browser are a target. People who dislike the attitude of the leet Firefox developers when they first started up are targets.
Go ahead and troll rate me for calling Firefox users/developers leet if you want. I remember distictively when Firefox first came out, the users were bragging they were leet.
Everybody knows the name, and seamonkey is a really bad name for a browser
I'm not talking so much about the logic of the design. I'm talking about the aesthetics (and i know your first reaction is probably 'who cares about the aesthetics', but i'm just obsessive like that).
Things shouldn't be 'themable'. Themable is BAD. Let the fucking desk-top environment decide what programs look like. I don't know about Linux, but those little panel buttons with all the dots on them do not exist in the standard Windows or Macintosh interfaces. Why are they there? Why has Mozilla decided to invent an interface component that no other piece of software in the history of computing has ever used? That is an obvious example.
I downloaded SeaMonkey just now and this is what i see. Some of the buttons aren't real Windows buttons. The menus aren't real Windows menus. The status bar is probably 10 pixels too tall (Why the hell?). The tool bars aren't tall enough. The side bar is completely random, it doesn't look like Windows at all.
And so on. I guess it's secondary to the features and junk, but like i said i'm obsessive about stuff like that, and it's not like it's hard to fix, especially given a whole decade.
I'd, on the other hand, prefer to update only the IRC client when there is a flaw in the IRC client, rather than 4 packages. You know how long it takes to compile Firefox and Thunderbird?
Get your own free personal location tracker
while I can understand that The Kitchen Sink suits you nicely, and offers a consistent Kitchen Sink across platforms, I do fear there is something of the luddite in these statements; Firefox is a backstep on Mozilla, and mostly an ego trip. Firefox is the first piece of OSS software that I both liked sufficiently enough to recommend it to my girlfriend, to my dad, to my mum, and also that has remained a favourite of two of the three listed. If by 'ego trip' you mean the necessary and useful refinement of the interface offered by Mozilla'a previous offerings (read: netscape, moz. suite) to something that is readily comprehended by non-geek users, I have to agree with you there. Indeed, may the collective ego of all firefox developers continue to expand and to do useful things like: - developing and refining platform agnostic windows, menus so that non-geeks never have to become aware of the fact that their browser is somehow not quite like Windows. - letting them clear History, Saved Form info, Passwords, Download history, Cookies, and Cache, all with one button. - letting them choose the download folder, so they're not prompted where to save every download My point really is only that, pehaps banally, there are different horses for different courses and that firefox, clearly, is something much better than the mere ego trips of developers. End users don't care about the politics of browser development. They don't care that, in fact, firefox is the bastard grandson of netscape, indeed, they are more likely to use it if they don't know that. The emerging profile of the firefox user is that of the IE/Win user who has got fed-up of spyware, and have become receptive, over a long time, to the fuss in the computer press about this other browser. And they damned well wouldn't be interested in the ugly bloat of The Kitchen Sink.
Aside from actual technical reasons, perhaps one can have philosophical reasons for using it over Firefox and Thunderbird. Consider the following excerpts from the Firefox team's development blog and the Firefox readme:
1.) The middle finger housed at this site certainly implies the user and anyone who differs with the holy developers is wrong. Here, the customer is wrong, so it throws community accountability into question.
2.) Read lines 96 to 111 in the Firefox readme, and tell me that the developers are not being arrogant. While I see the value in meritocracy, to an extent, I fail to see the value arrogance. Secondly, it fails to offer anyone in the community any standardized channel for getting the attention of the developers, were the individual to have something that actually warranted their attention.
- Begin Quote -
96 ian 1.7 Q6: So to whom do I send patches?
97 ian 1.6
98 We are not currently accepting any input. No UI specs, no bugs,
99 and definitely no patches. See Q3.
100 ian 1.9
101 Q7: How do I get involved?
102
103 You don't except by invitation. This is a meritocracy -- only
104 those gain the respect of those in the group can join the group. See
105 Q6.
106 ian 1.6
107 ian 1.10 Q8: I don't like the mozilla/browser process! This sucks! I'm
108 never going to contribute to Mozilla again!
109
110 Oh no, please, don't go, whatever shall we do without you.
111
- End Quote -
The software may technically be open source because I can fetch the source via CVS; but under the policies of its developers, it is unaccountable and closed to my submission. How discouraging.
This is off the topic, but my final complaint about Firefox and Thunderbird is merely technical. Before anyone claims that I am wrong due to the fact that the user can write extensions and thereby participate in the community, I would agree in this argument, but I believe that it overlooks something: Everyone raves about extensions as if they are the best solution to ending the bloat of the original software. That view is fine, but I beg to differ with tradeoff of how cheap and poorly integrated the majority of main extensions feel. I have yet to use an extension that feels integrated better than the numerous features included in the Seamonkey suite.
If my views are not sufficient here, consider taking a look at this large list of individuals who think otherwise: http://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey:Reasons.
Even the Politburo concurs with Process of Elimination http://process-of-elimination.net
Actually, he never said he was a "Mac fanboy," you just apparently made the assumption that only Mac people would complain about interfaces. What's worse, you made the assumption that the only complaints about UI design have to do with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but I complain about interface design much more frequently based on usability.
Based on your tone, you're preparing some comment about how only namby-pamby GUI users would ever care about that. But ask why people who have strong preferences for Emacs over Vim or vice-versa have such a preference. I can guarantee that "Emacs has a much prettier interface that matches my drapes nicely" is not going to come up very often. Now, ask why there are people who prefer NEdit, or BBEdit, or another full-featured GUI editor over both of those. I can guarantee that you for 99% of those people, it's because all of the functionality they need is wrapped up in an interface they find more intuitive, faster to learn, and faster to use.
UI "prettiness" is subjective, but a lot of usability principles aren't. NEdit will always be faster for a new user to learn than XEmacs. This isn't a slam on XEmacs or its functionality or on users who've become comfortable with it and have little reason to change, but NEdit is not less functional because it is easier to use.
And, yeah, Mac people tend to be more sensitive about UI design than some others. That may be because they're all nitpicky whiny bastards. Or, it may be because they've had twenty years of programs largely designed by people who put a lot of thought into how good interface design makes programs more intuitive and usable. Frankly, I wish free software developers would get down off their "the console is god" high horses and listen to the whining just a little more.