Comment Re:what's the point? (Score 5, Interesting) 236
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
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.
