Re: newest version
JeffM wrote: The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners. --Ernst Jan Plugge Here's one for you, Jeff: I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security. --Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: newest version
JeffM wrote: IE is a complete botch. Agreed, but that doesn't stop a lot of noobs from using it . . . mostly because it comes with their machines. I think the EU has the best approach. Pros know that after they have built a compliant page that looks fine in all other browsers they have to do specific tests on their pages to see how they look in IE6/7/8. While I am not a pro, I'm building a web site for my brother-in-law's real estate business. I have a Windows VM within my Linux, so I have IE(8) just so I can check how my pages render. I check them for Chrome, Opera, and IE8 (I write them using FF). I probably should check them in IE6 and 7 too, but my brother-in-law uses IE7 (well . . . AOL's version of IE7, which is another story . . . I'm more of an AOL basher than I am a Micro$oft basher) and I have him check the view-ability of pages on his machine before I release them. Unfortunately, most who view his web site are using IE7, so I have to make my code accommodate IE7. I do have the Best Viewed with the Firefox Browser caution on his site, but that hasn't changed the traffic pattern. *Smart* pros give a price for a compliant site and a separate price beyond that to make it look right in IE (actually, a separate price for *each version* of IE). There was an interesting twist to this for my brother-in-law's real estate business. He was being inundated with marketing emails from web development companies offering to design a web page for his business. Most of his colleagues had retained one or another. He asked me for advice on this, so I checked some of the sites his colleagues had (and had built by what I thought were scammers.) NONE of the sites rendered without substantial display issues in IE . . . much as I suspected. Turns out these pros (not) were doing it for a flat fee and NOT checking the rendering in IE. From my vantage point, since I knew most of the customers were viewing these pages in IE, they were seeing something that, while maybe W3C standards compliant (and real estate customers don't know what that means, much less care about it), looked very unprofessional. So that's why I agreed to do a web site for him (without charge, BTW). After the google.cn/IE6 fiasco, government agencies in France, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand advised their residents to stop using *all* versions of IE. U.S. CERT advised that back in 2004. As I said, I think the EU, and Australia and NZ, have the right approach. Interestingly though, the governments of those countries require their employees to use IE, while they recommend not to use it for their residents . . . what's wrong with that picture? I think we're in basic agreement, but you apparently are a strong M$ basher (I am a little too, but I don't get my shorts so twisted . . . I just switched to Linux over it and now am glad I left Windows . . . I get my shorts more twisted over AOL). BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Gmail interface for SM 2
Bill Davidsen wrote: Jeffrey Needle wrote: Philip Chee wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:04:34 -0500, Jeffrey Needle wrote: I see there's an absolutely beautiful add-on for Firefox that makes gmail so much nicer and easier to use. Is there something like this for Seamonkey? Using SM2 on a WinXP system. There are several extensions including BetterGmail and GTDInbox. Could you be more specific? Phil Unfortunately, no. I have to see what the interfaces do to know if it's good for me. I just think Gmail's interface is clunky and hard to use. I'll try both of the ones you mention and see how they work. I'll report back when I have more specific information. I don't understand what you mean by Gmail's interface being clunky. If you don't like the interface to IMAP mailboxes in mail/news, that's your choice, but why do you find it any clunkier than any other? While the OP may answer that anyway, it is a question of aesthetics, and thus very very subjective (I don't understand it either, but then I don't understand what's so special, and appealing to some, about modern art . . . hell, I wouldn't even know what modern art would be even if I was looking right at it). You can't really crawl into someone's subjective reasoning. So, one person's clunky Gmail interface can be another's beautiful and efficient Gmail interface (I wouldn't go so far myself to describe it as beautiful, but it seems fine to me). Will be interested to see the OP's answer. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: newest version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Arne wrote: JeffM wrote: Arne wrote: Bing Map[...] There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing. There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers; JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES. Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing? All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff but at least they give the user an option to enter any way, other simply throw you out! Is it just me, or isn't it incredibly stupid to design three or four or five different versions of your site for three or four or five different browsers because that takes two or three times as much labor? Why would a web design firm allow their people to charge them two or three times as much when they can simply require one compliant design? While it is indeed incredibly stupid that design has to be doubled, or tripled, web pages are designed for end users. Designers have to accommodate end users and cannot control what browser a person uses. And the web design firm simply passes on the cost to the page owner. So, this sad fact has an impact on the site owner, not the web design firm. Notwithstanding a best viewed with . . . notice, you really have no choice but to accommodate all browsers IF you want everybody to be able to view your site. In a perfect world, everybody would use FF/SM and multiple design would not be necessary. However, that's not reality. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: newest version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win. So would I, but that's not reality. And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not accommodating all browsers? Are some browsers unable to display compliant pages? We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block, does not display compliant pages . . . compliantly in many cases. IE will display the page, but if the code is not written in IE standards (which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display that compliant code way out of whack. I don't like that, but that is the reality. Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C compliant code, it may not be displayed properly via IE. And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM), I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance. I'm sure that 500 pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the time comes (if it ever does). BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Goodbye Seamonkey
Chris Ilias wrote: This newsgroup is not an accurate representation of the SeaMonkey userbase. How do you know that? Seriously, unless you took a poll of the userbase with a question like Do you think posters on the SM NG represent your concerns, and the majority answered No, your statement is purely anecdotal. Intuitive, maybe (and that's arguable), nevertheless it's anecdotal and not founded on factual evidence. Plus, I don't think that's the point anyway (in debate lingo, your statement would be called a Red Herring). Rufus's argument is based on the valid notion that posters here have legitimate issues (which I don't think you disagree with). Now you've brought up the point that the SM staff doesn't have enough resources to patrol these NG's, and the may indeed be an issue. But the issue is NOT that this NG is or is not an accurate representation of the SeaMonkey userbase. That's largely irrelevant and may only come into play if the SM group uses it to establish priorities . . . and even then I come back to How do you know that? BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Goodbye Seamonkey
Philip Chee wrote: On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:10:25 -0700, BJ wrote: Chris Ilias wrote: This newsgroup is not an accurate representation of the SeaMonkey userbase. How do you know that? The sad fact is that nowadays usenet and nntp newsgroups in general are now pretty much a minority interest. Most internet users these days don't even know about usenet, or if they do, they think it is part of google groups. The preferences of the current web 2.0 generation are various forms of web forums (e.g. Mozillazine) and (shudder) social networking sites. Phil I don't disagree that NG users are a minority, but that still doesn't show whether or not they're an accurate representation of the SeaMonkey userbase. Quakers are a minority, and they DO represent a much larger anti-war movement (apologies to Quakers . . . that's the only analogy I can come up with on the spur of the moment). Quakers are a minority, and they DON'T represent a much larger anti-war movement. Both statements may or may NOT reflect your opinion, depending on your own viewpoint. And that's my point: These things will remain subjective opinions and anecdotal until they are supported by FACTS (that would be the mythical pole I referred to in another post). In any case, I still maintain this is a Red Herring and largely irrelevant to the issue raised by Rufus. BJ P.S. I also shudder at social networking sites. In a lot of cases they are nests for malware. I have no use for them. P.P.S. That would be another interesting poll. Are SM users representative of the social networking userbase? My sense is that they are NOT, but that is based only on anecdotal opinion and NOT on fact. That will remain a subjective opinion until that poll is taken. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: 1.1.18 or 2.x ?? (curious)
Bill Davidsen wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Phillip Jones schrieb: As I said, It ain't going to happen, Unless someone comes up with an extension to add it back. And that not going to pass with the mozilla big-wigs. They don't want it. An extension probably cannot change this, what it would need would be a thorough security review of the affected code. It's not about wanting or not wanting it, it's about being able to guarantee security. This seems to be a concept that a number of people here don't seem to grasp anyhow, or intentionally neglect. The concept missed is that's its OUR computer. No one is asking you to guarantee security or anything else, we just want the option of JS on a per-newsgroup or rss feed basis. I agree it should be turned off, I'm comfortable that the option to turn it on have all sorts of warnings, but you sound like a mix of Microsodft and a smothering mother, saying that you know whats best. It's one thing to to leave a feature out because it isn't in TB or FF, but to take away user choice is a different thing. No JS as a global option is a prudent choice, no way to turn it on in trusted environments is removal of a feature some of us find useful. People who ignore the warning and want it on either know what they are doing, or should be allowed to take themselves out of the gene pool. While I agree 100% with your evaluation (particularly about culling the herd of idiots that compromise their own machine without knowing what they're doing), I can see the flip side of the argument. That idiot that enables JS and catches malware because of it is going to look for someone to blame other than him/herself. The likely target will be SM and the SM developers. So my suspicion is that SM is doing some defensive PR by not including the capability to read JS. They're avoiding the headline: SeaMonkey is insecure because it can enable JS. Nevermind the real cause: that idiot. Not justifying SM's position on this, but just speculating on the motive. Probably a business decision. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Goodbye Seamonkey
Philip Chee wrote: On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:31:15 -0800, Rufus wrote: Maybe that team has more Mac users on it or something, but from my Mac user standpoint they got a lot of stuff right. Kudos to them. Their team has at least two Mac users, one full time graphics designer, and one full time professional User Experience person. I'm sure that if SeaMonkey can afford to hire such people we could match Thunderbird in Mac user experience pretty quickly. Phil What the heck is a User Experience person? I mean, what do they do all day? BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Goodbye Seamonkey
Leonidas Jones wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Phillip Jones schrieb: /snip/ Phillip, I would be careful about making statements that you cannot backup, it will damage your credibility. 10 times faster? Come on now! I tried disabling tabs, and opening windows instead, with no gain in speed at all. The same links open in new tabs just as fast as new windows. Not to mention, I often have 10-20 tabs open at a time. Trying to keep track of that many windows is a nightmare. I realize this might not be your work model. If you only have a couple or three open at a time, it probably works, and if it works for you, that's great. But 10 times faster? Please provide some data to back that up. Lee YMMV. But for me its like the difference between night and day. And, it was related to having Multiple windows open for going each link in a page rather than reusing the same window. I don't have the luxury of one of the newfangled 8 GB , quadcore machines. I'm still using just a lowly 1.67GB PowerPC Machine. Plus I have a Slow DSL Line (1 mb synchronous). so setting to open in same window sped up for me as I said. As you know, I don't do tabs. Well, then how the heck do you know its 10 times faster??? I will detail the tests I ran. I do have a fast iMac, with a fast cable connection. I cleared the cache, and opened my my.myway start page. I opened 20 links in tabs, 10 were my.myway pages, and ten were external links. I then cleared the cache, and repeated with opening new windows. There was virtually no difference. The my.myway pages show the load time, and most gave the tabs a slight edge, but from my standpoint, I didn't actually notice a difference. All the pages opened quickly, whether tabs or windows. Knowing that you have an older Mac, I reran the same test on my PowerMac G4, running Tiger. Its a 450 mhz with 640 MB of ram, far slower than what you are running. Same results, if anything, the tabs were faster, though it was not noticeable as a user, within less then a second. Interesting to note the old PowerMac pulled the pages just as fast as the iMac Intel. iMac Intel, OS X 10.6.2 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM PowerMac PPC G4 450 MHz 640 MB RAM Same internet connection, same SM 2.0.2, same speed. I've always said that older machines are far from dead as far as the internet is concerned. Phillip, I respect what you are trying to do here. I agree with a lot of it, some of it I disagree completely, but I respect it none the less. But, when you say things like 10 times faster with absolutely nothing to back it up, and indeed, when it is just clearly so wrong, it damages your credibility, and people are much less likely to take you seriously. Lee I think Phillip tends to exaggerate sometimes, so I don't take something like 10 times faster literally, but rather I think it means just faster . . . how much actually is debatable, but your tests seem to be more precise. Nevertheless, I do take him seriously, just with a grain of salt. On the topic of faster, I think you put it well when you said from my standpoint, I didn't actually notice a difference. Most discussions on browser speeds boil down to maybe a few seconds faster, which a user isn't really going to notice as significant. There are, however, times when the speed IS noticeable, and in that regard Phillip's testimony sometimes leaves me wondering . . . was it really all that much more fast, or is this '10 times' thing just a matter of a few puny seconds? I don't necessarily think it is wrong for Phillip to do that, so I might disagree with you there, but I do agree that it stretches the credibility of the statement if you take it literally. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Ping Q . . . Claws Mail
»Q« wrote: Innews:t4odnrkkoe5z7fvwnz2dnuvz_rkdn...@mozilla.org, BJrbjamienos...@nospamgmail.com wrote: Hey Q, Why do you use Claws mail instead of TB or SM? What features does it have that they don't? (I'm assuming that you use it for features that SM or TB don't have . . . or is it just personal preference?) I haven't compared any feature with recent versions of SM or TB, and I don't think comparisons of Claws Mail with obsolete Mozilla products would do any good. I have TB 3 installed, but so far I've only looked at how it handles rss, not mail or news. The Claws Mail site has a lengthy features list. If you're interested in any of them, ping me in m.general and I'll answer whatever I can about them. So, why do you use SM instead of Claws Mail? ;) Am just messing with SM to see if I like it any better than FF or TB, which are actually my defaults. So far, I'm staying with FF and TB, but I want to give SM a full and fair evaluation, so I'm still messing with it. I may do the same thing with Claws, which is why I asked you the question. If Claws is not substantially different than TB, in features, I figure then why bother? I have this NG subscribed in SM alone just so I can mess with SM and see how it works with NG's . . . that's why you see the SM User Agent here. I have m.general, m.s. thunderbird, and m.s.firefox subscribed in TB. The main disadvantage of SM that I see right now is that a lot of addons that I use with FF are not compatible with SM (2.02) . . . I guess it may be just a case of the addon developers getting around to updating for this release. However, one significant drawback for me for SM is the incompatibility with TMP. Unlike Phillip, I use tabs a lot. On the developer forum for TMP, the developer said he would NEVER make a TMP for SM. That may end up to be a deal breaker for me for SM unless I can find settings in SM that give me what I use TMP for. Am drifting off topic here, so I won't go into the TMP features I want. Anyway, to get back on topic, I'd really like to know if Claws has any slick features that TB doesn't have before I clutter up my machine with an installation. I've looked on the Claws Mail site at the features (before I asked you the question), and so far I haven't seen anything that sticks out as being above TB (or SM for that matter) . . . which is another reason why I asked you the question. But I'll look again, and if I see anything that I think needs more clarification, I may take you up on your offer (just be aware, as I said, that you will see TB as my UA in m.general). And thanks for the offer . . . though I'd be even more appreciative if you could tell me what Claws has to offer above TB. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Ping Q . . . Claws Mail
Hey Q, Why do you use Claws mail instead of TB or SM? What features does it have that they don't? (I'm assuming that you use it for features that SM or TB don't have . . . or is it just personal preference?) BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Goodbye Seamonkey
Leonidas Jones wrote: »Q« wrote: Innews:eeidnfitt56q4vjwnz2dnuvz_gcdn...@mozilla.org, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: NoOp schrieb: Really? And early versions of Netscape were just simple browsers? I still have both Mosaic and Netscape on disk, including a version of the first Netscape w/support license. I suppose I could pull it out of the archives (shelf) and check it, but I seem to recall that it included an email client. Very early versions were browser-only for sure, but I can't exactly tell which version was the first to have a mail client. I heard it was some 3.x version, but I wasn't around at that time. It was Netscape 2.0 which introduced mail/news, in 1996. I've installed a browser-only SM 2.0.2. To get mailto links working, I had to edit my profile's mimeTypes.rdf, but it works. Okay, how did you install it browser only? Lee Yes, I'm interested in the answer to that too. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Tutorial?
Am trying out SeaMonkey (2.02, Ubuntu 9.10) and am brand new to this thing. Defaults are still TB and FF. Messing around right now and clicking on everything just to see how it drives. But want to get serious eventually, so is there a good tutorial you guys can point me to? BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Protect tab?
Is there any SeaMonkey 2.02 add on that will enable me to protect or lock a tab . . . or can I find something to do this that's native to 2.02? Have Googled all over the place, and so far I can't find anything. BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Protect tab?
BJ wrote: Is there any SeaMonkey 2.02 add on that will enable me to protect or lock a tab . . . or can I find something to do this that's native to 2.02? Have Googled all over the place, and so far I can't find anything. BJ Whooops . . . I meant 2.0.2 BJ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Want to try Sea Monkey
Regarding the thread titled: Re: Want to try Sea Monkey On 1/5/09 4:04 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's said: BJ wrote: I want to give Sea Monkey a try, but will it import all my current TB emails, add ons, and preferences and will it import my current FF add ons, bookmarks, and preferences? Or will I have to start all over again? yes and no. It will import your TB emails, and prefs, but not TB addons as most of those are specific to TB only. For FF, it will your bookmarks and prefs, but again, not addons. If there's a specific addon you want, then ask and perhaps there's something better, or there might be another way, or you really don't need it. Further, there is a support group SeaMonkey: mozilla.support.seamonkey NOTE: replying to this message will be sent to the above newsgroup I think it was you, Grant, that made a comment in some TB or FF thread that SM was superior to either. In any case, whoever said it was what prompted me to want to give it a try. If in fact it was you who said that, or if you share that opinion, can you be more specific? I.e. . . . in what ways is it better? Examples if you can. TIA. -- BJ Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete all the NOSPAMs from the email address after clicking Reply. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
