SeaMonkey:Reasons
 | ||
| Resources | ||
|---|---|---|
| SeaMonkey Homepage | ||
| FAQ / Help | ||
| Goals | ||
| Organization | ||
| QA | ||
| Supporters | ||
| Add-ons | ||
| Localization | ||
| Reasons | ||
| Branding | ||
| Release History | ||
| Tasks & Projects | ||
| ||
| Discussion | ||
| Suiterunner |
I'd like to understand the reasons why people are interested to keep SeaMonkey alive. I know mine (BenBucksch) are very different from those of some users.
This has major influence on the way we're taking and the change we'll make to SeaMonkey in the future, in all areas: UI, merging with Gecko, infrastructure.
Developers
bz
Neil Rashbrook
Christian Biesinger
What I want in Seamonkey...
- I want a browser for "me" not necessarily for "everyone"
- Focus on "power users"
- Less focus on extensions, default install should contain stuff people want
- More control and choice to the user
- Integrated Browser and Mail/News-Client (needs not be same process, but should work well together, share settings, etc)
Ben Bucksch
Reasons to keep SeaMonkey
Developed 2 browsers based on it and need to keep them thriving
Problems with Firefox
- Extreme instability code-wise (impossible to base derivates on it)
- 'We're not accepting patches' shows general attitude of some developers
Desired changes to SeaMonkey
- Leaner UI (at least removing redundant UI)
- make browser and mail client different processes
End Users
Owen Marshall
I can't really lump myself into the developers category; the best I can do is QA and documentation!
Personally, I prefer the SeaMonkey UI, and the tight integration between each component. I also think Firefox feels more like an exclusionary team rather than an open source project. But that's just me ;-)
What I would like to see:
- An update feature like Firefox, but a little more intelligent -- for example, in-place upgrading using the XPI's rather than downloading the installer... that may be totally impossible but would be awesome! I may learn Mozilla just to try implementing something like this
OK, that is what I would really love to see!
Davide Baroncelli
Well, I'd love to contribute, but I'm mainly a java server-side developer, and I'm afraid it would take some time before I could really do something useful for the suite. But I absolutely prefer it to FF: not for the "suite" thing, though: I do prefer the browser. I never use mail (using Eudora), chat (no IRC) or anything else (for web development activities I'd rather use NVU ;) ).
Why mozilla? Well: 1) Multizilla 2) Multizilla 3) Multizilla 4) Deeper configurability than FF (even wider with Multizilla...) 5) Searches from URL bar 6) Did I mention Multizilla?
Administrators
Wolfgang Wiese
As an administrator in an university I have to install and support software for web, mail, news and so on. Unlike the combination of Firefox and Thunderbird, the suite is much more admin-friendly, cause its more userfriendly: Users get an intergrated suite and cause of long years Netscape4 and after that Mozilla, they are known to it. Its much easier for users and administrators to set up the proferences of the suite for workstations. Unlike administrators or developers a normal user can't even understand how to call "about:config" or even use it! Firefox is only helpful for public surfstations, where we dont wan't to provide many functions.
Also as administrator I cannot argue against users why to install a combination of firefox and thunderbird until they dont show up with the features of the mozilla suite. I have to give my users something that is an improvement against the previous version (what ever its name is). But with firefox - how many plugins will I have to install until I get the features the users already have with mozilla suite? In case of making a choice, i would either stay on mozilla 1.8beta or have a turn to opera...