Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Evan Yan wrote: > >> We delivered Mozilla 1.7 in Solaris, and promised to support it. >> Delivering SeaMonkey won't reduce our work on Mozilla 1.7, right? >> > > It would if you delivered SeaMonkey as a replacement/patch for Mozilla 1.7, > the way Mozilla 1.7 was delivered as a replacement/patch for Mozilla 1.4. > > Since all the functionality is the same, it shouldn't be a problem - even > though the name has changed, it's basically just a Mozilla 1.8 release > isn't it? > Is your opinion to deliver SeaMonkey with Firefox and Thunderbird together, or to deliver SeaMonkey instead of Firefox and Thunderbird? If the answer is the former, is it wise for us to deliver applications with overlapped functions? Which should be the default one? How about we just contribute SeaMonkey's Solaris build to community but not promise to support it? If the answer is the latter, dividing Mozilla into separated applications should be based on marketing requirement (Mozilla corporation must have done the marketing survey, I guess) and Firefox and Thunderbird did make a success, won't it make Solaris less competitive to abandon Firefox and Thunderbird?
-Evan
