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 know most people don't care about this, but i really do, and it prevents me from using a lot of software. Mozilla's UI is hideous. It always has been. It doesn't look good on any platform that i've ever used it on (Windows, Mac, Linux).
That is the main reason i've always hated Mozilla. Not the fact that it uses up more RAM than the Mac OS itself, or the fact that the icon is ugmo, or the fact that it takes a year to load up. It's just gross.
Not that hard to come up with a decent interface, honestly. Firefox had a little trouble with it at first, but it only took a few versions for them to iron out most of it. It's not like Mozilla's been around for 11 years or anything.
"Firefox" is only supposed to be better by the simple virtue that a few thousands of people said it was better. That diverted resources from Mozilla, and rendered FireFox better by slowing down Moz.
I never understood that. Firefox is a backstep on Mozilla, and mostly an ego trip.
I prefer Mozilla for the following reasons:
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).
b/ I don't like to upgrade. I have better things to do with my life. Not having to track a browser and an email client is godsend. Mozilla took care of most of my online needs (okay, it could have included some additional applications)
c/ I use three different platforms (Win 2K, Mac OS X and FreeBSD). Having the same software on all three was very handy, even if it is less great than the native software.
d/ I don't like to track plugins. Firefox is ridiculous in that area. It does very little out of the box, but is so configurable that it is a usability nightmare. You have to spend *hours* drilling into hundreds of extensions, trying them, restarting the browser, to get something that may fit your needs. Upgrade are painfull, as extensions often stop working, and, as the browser is now splitted into dozen of components, you cannot count on functionality beeing always present (extensions come and go). It is a waste of time.
To get a suitable replacement of the one-shot mozilla download, you have to get Firefox + a random number of ill-named extension + a separate email client + an HTML editor. This take more time, use more RAM, is less nicely integrated, and follow conflicting release schedules.
For me, mozilla = FreeBSD, while FireFox+Extension+Thunderbird+Nvu+... = Linux.
Both have their use. I just happend to prefer FreeBSD philosophy.
The simple answer is that they're not better versions. I was eager to switch to Firefox (or Phoenix and later Firebird as it was then), as I don't use anything from the suite other than the browser anyway. But when it surfaced, it turned out to be a poor substitute for the real thing. Mozilla was and continues to be a better browser. That's why I use it.
I'm sure that with the addition of various extensions, I could probably get Firefox up to the same level as Mozilla. But Mozilla does it all out of the box, and I don't have to go around hunting for addons, or spend ages customising it in about:config.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
That's the thing. They aren't "better" versions.
;) lol
I'd like for someone to show me how Firefox and Thunderbird are "better" than Mozilla/SeaMonkey.
Things I've observed...
Mozilla and Firefox take the same amount of time to start, they render at the same speed as well, and in no way is Mozilla sluggish when compared to Firefox.
I have yet to see how Firefox has a "smaller footprint". On my system Firefox seems to use more memory when loading the exact same pages as Mozilla.
So if Firefox isn't faster, isn't "smaller", etc.. Then how is it better?
And I only use the suite as a browser. I don't use it for email, irc, etc... Although sometimes I will use Composer for a quick and dirty web page.
As for the UI. The default themes that ship with Mozilla/Seamonkey are just horrid! However, there are MANY third party themes that look great. I use the pinball theme here. Mozilla looks grea with it!
Sure Mozilla doesn't have the customizable menus that Firefox does. but I've never found that to be an issue?
I'm quite happy with Mozilla how it is.
Also... Mozilla is/was by no means a "failure". When Mozilla announced they were "dumping" Mozilla, they said that the number of users was in the "low millions".
I don't know about you, but an OSS app that has a few million users is a pretty good success!! And it definitely deserves to live on. Which is why the SeaMonkey project was started.
There's still a demand for Mozilla and quite a large user base.
I personally think Mozilla would have done just as well as Firefox if MoFo had put the same level of advertising into Mozilla as it did Firefox.
I've been a supporter of Mozilla for years now, and I continue to test SeaMonkey nightlies and submit bug reports.
But yes... They could have come up with a better name than SeaMonkey.