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."

Comments

SeaMonkey 1.0? What an odd name

[gringer]

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").

The point

[TuxPaper]

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.

Re:what's the point?

[caluml]

a/ I use every single day a browser, and email client, and, sometimes, have to compose simple HTML pages. I seldom use IRC, but when I need it, I use ChatZilla (no need to download and track yet another piece of code).

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?

Re:Wherefore

[KhanReaper]

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.