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

You know what day it is!

[Anonymous Coward]

Avast me mateys! Aargh! It's International Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Aargh! Me SeaMonkeys! Aye, they waited for the right date to announce it.

Bljarne!

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 interface is gross

[lav-chan]

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.

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?

[DrXym]

Firefox / Thunderbird are certainly cleaner than the suite, but you lose some benefits of integration. For example, the suite allows you to middle click on a link in an email and open it as a new browser tab. Or you can edit the page you're viewing from the menu. Or create a single wallet which holds passwords from your browser and email app. Or have a disk and memory footprint of one app instead of many.

I admit you could probably live without some of these things, but then again they all add up. I know that I really miss the middle-click behaviour on emails when using Firefox and Thunderbird.

Re:what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:what's the point?

[Tet]

I thought Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird[/Nvu] were basically better versions of what existed in the original Mozilla platform?

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.

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:what's the point?

[xander2032]

That's the thing. They aren't "better" versions.

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. ;) lol

Re:what's the point?

[bunratty]

1. Can someone explain why this exists?

Here are just a few answers to that question.

2. Do they really expect Netscape users to download something called SeaMonkey?

No, mostly users of Mozilla 1.7.x will download SeaMonkey.

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.