No, SeaMonkey is a monolithic application. The package of Firefox and Thunderbird would exist as a single download and install, but the applications would remain separate. It's just like OpenOffice is one download and install, but is six separate applications. As Mitchell Baker, Chief Lizard Wrangler, explains:
...it may well be the case that one option for delivering Mozilla products is to have a combined Firefox, Thunderbird, maybe a calendar, who knows. Some combination of products that the user gets and installs only once and gets a set. That may well be the case. We're not sure yet; some people want it, many people seem to be happy currently with getting the browser separately. The goal of Firefox and Thunderbird is a new architecture which allows those products to be built separately, to remain separate products. But that is separate from the packaging and delivery mechanism. So we do have in mind that it might make sense at some point to package these and deliver them together.
Re:Firefox, Thunderbird, and now Seamonkey?
on
Seamonkey 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, Mozilla has almost everything to do with SeaMonkey. They developed Mozilla 1.8, which SeaMonkey is still based upon. They host the source code, bug database, and releases. The core of SeaMonkey is shared with Firefox and Thunderbird so most Mozilla development directly improves SeaMonkey with no extra effort. SeaMonkey remains an official Mozilla project. SeaMonkey simply isn't a Mozilla product, which means that Mozilla doesn't drive SeaMonkey-specific development or provide support.
There we go with the FUD again. 68 core memory leak bugs have been fixed in the past year. Core bugs are bugs that are common to all Gecko products such as SeaMonkey and Firefox. Yes, there are memory leaks, but they are being fixed. There's no need to keep complaining.
I think the FUD that the OP was referring to was not that Firefox and SeaMonkey do have some leaks, but that some people try to make "the memory leak" seem like a huge, obvious problem that is going unfixed. I've seen several posts lately saying something to the effect that "the memory leak" is not being addressed. The reality is that the leaks are being fixed. I also don't see any evidence that Firefox or SeaMonkey leak any more than other browsers. So there is FUD, and also you are not just imagining memory leaks.
Yes, Firefox does have memory leaks. But no, it typically doesn't cause any visible problems for most users. I'm sure all browsers have memory leaks, as do most moderately complex software packages. But generally leaks are a relatively benign problem that will not cause symptoms until after many days or weeks of use.
For a total 284 days in 2006 (or more than nine months out of the year), exploit code for known, unpatched critical flaws in pre-IE7 versions of the browser was publicly available on the Internet... In contrast, Internet Explorer's closest competitor in terms of market share -- Mozilla's Firefox browser -- experienced a single period lasting just nine days last year in which exploit code for a serious security hole was posted online before Mozilla shipped a patch to remedy the problem.
I think Firefox 2 vs. IE7 is still a no-brainer. Secunia reports IE7 still has more security vulnerabilities than Firefox 2. IE7 still lags in standards support compared to Firefox 2. I do agree that Mozilla needs to put more emphasis on getting Firefox to corporate users, such as making Firefox MSIs available. When they do, that will just make Firefox all the more popular.
First, Firefox's download counter doesn't include upgrades. Second, the fact that IE7's numbers are rising does not mean Firefox's numbers are falling, just that IE6's numbers are falling. Third, it's not like people are eager to get IE7 -- they just get it automatically.
Re:So let the flame wars begin!
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As someone else has pointed out, sometimes you simply don't have a GUI editor available. What are you supposed to do when you telnet into a machine and need to edit a file? I learned vi long ago when I was in such a situation, and it's still my preferred way to program. I think it's just faster to keep my fingers over the letters than to have to move them to the mouse, or even over to the arrow and ctrl keys. The esc key is about as far as they need to go, and only when I want to change from insert mode to command mode.
They might well both be correct. However, we have overwhelming evidence to support the evolution of life on Earth, but no hard evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer. Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in a classroom, but conjectures about an intelligent designer should likely be kept out of basic science classes.
All the W3C validator can do is point out syntax errors in HTML or CSS. It can't point out semantic errors, or show which JavaScript or DOM code won't work in one browser or another. Validating is a great thing to do, but you really do need to test your site in multiple browsers to ensure it does work in those browsers.
That doesn't mean that I shouldn't feel able to point out a serious issue that needs to be addressed in later updates, and that is well known, and documented.
However, it isn't "well known, and documented" because no one can point out a single one of these "horrendous memory leaks". I have to conclude those people still talking about them just don't have a clue what they're referring to.
That response wasn't a response to someone having trouble with Firefox. It was a response to someone asking why Microsoft is vilified for their security vulnerabilities, but this Firefox vulnerability is being downplayed. Internet Explorer's vulnerabilities often result in the user's computer becoming infected with malware. All this Firefox vulnerability does is cause the browser to crash. When the user restarts Firefox, seconds later all the tabs they had open reappear. It really doesn't sound like such a huge deal to me. Of course, Mozilla should fix the crash bug, but it's not like your computer is going to become a remote controlled bot because of the bug.
They may not be completely ignoring the massive memory leaks that Firefox 2.0 still has, but they sure as hell aren't communicating that they are actually looking into them and have any intention of fixing them.
What massive memory leaks? Can you point out a single, specific "massive memory leak" in Firefox 2? I don't see any except small, infrequent leaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Mozilla has almost everything to do with SeaMonkey. They developed Mozilla 1.8, which SeaMonkey is still based upon. They host the source code, bug database, and releases. The core of SeaMonkey is shared with Firefox and Thunderbird so most Mozilla development directly improves SeaMonkey with no extra effort. SeaMonkey remains an official Mozilla project. SeaMonkey simply isn't a Mozilla product, which means that Mozilla doesn't drive SeaMonkey-specific development or provide support.
I think the FUD that the OP was referring to was not that Firefox and SeaMonkey do have some leaks, but that some people try to make "the memory leak" seem like a huge, obvious problem that is going unfixed. I've seen several posts lately saying something to the effect that "the memory leak" is not being addressed. The reality is that the leaks are being fixed. I also don't see any evidence that Firefox or SeaMonkey leak any more than other browsers. So there is FUD, and also you are not just imagining memory leaks.
Yes, Firefox does have memory leaks. But no, it typically doesn't cause any visible problems for most users. I'm sure all browsers have memory leaks, as do most moderately complex software packages. But generally leaks are a relatively benign problem that will not cause symptoms until after many days or weeks of use.
There's been some talk of packaging Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird together as a sort of Internet suite.
Sure. It's not as if bugs suddenly disappear when they release a final release build.
Nightly trunk and branch builds with no extensions. I've submitted bug reports for all the leaks I've been able to reproduce with any reliability.
PC World
Zimbra
Robert Scoble
Browser Memory Benchmark
Firefox has hundreds of leaks. Many have been fixed over the past year. Other browsers leak memory, too.
I think Firefox 2 vs. IE7 is still a no-brainer. Secunia reports IE7 still has more security vulnerabilities than Firefox 2. IE7 still lags in standards support compared to Firefox 2. I do agree that Mozilla needs to put more emphasis on getting Firefox to corporate users, such as making Firefox MSIs available. When they do, that will just make Firefox all the more popular.
First, Firefox's download counter doesn't include upgrades. Second, the fact that IE7's numbers are rising does not mean Firefox's numbers are falling, just that IE6's numbers are falling. Third, it's not like people are eager to get IE7 -- they just get it automatically.
As someone else has pointed out, sometimes you simply don't have a GUI editor available. What are you supposed to do when you telnet into a machine and need to edit a file? I learned vi long ago when I was in such a situation, and it's still my preferred way to program. I think it's just faster to keep my fingers over the letters than to have to move them to the mouse, or even over to the arrow and ctrl keys. The esc key is about as far as they need to go, and only when I want to change from insert mode to command mode.
They might well both be correct. However, we have overwhelming evidence to support the evolution of life on Earth, but no hard evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer. Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in a classroom, but conjectures about an intelligent designer should likely be kept out of basic science classes.
All the W3C validator can do is point out syntax errors in HTML or CSS. It can't point out semantic errors, or show which JavaScript or DOM code won't work in one browser or another. Validating is a great thing to do, but you really do need to test your site in multiple browsers to ensure it does work in those browsers.
Maybe Luis von Ahn will make Wikipedia fact checking into a game.
The Macarena is different because of that cool dance that goes along with it. Hey Macarena!
Or better yet, just go ahead and play The ESP Game and Peekaboom.
That response wasn't a response to someone having trouble with Firefox. It was a response to someone asking why Microsoft is vilified for their security vulnerabilities, but this Firefox vulnerability is being downplayed. Internet Explorer's vulnerabilities often result in the user's computer becoming infected with malware. All this Firefox vulnerability does is cause the browser to crash. When the user restarts Firefox, seconds later all the tabs they had open reappear. It really doesn't sound like such a huge deal to me. Of course, Mozilla should fix the crash bug, but it's not like your computer is going to become a remote controlled bot because of the bug.
What massive memory leaks? Can you point out a single, specific "massive memory leak" in Firefox 2? I don't see any except small, infrequent leaks.
As for communicating that they are actually looking into them, see this page about how to report memory leaks and this list of memory leaks fixed in 2006.