Robert Kaiser wrote:
Russell schrieb:
I'm convinced that this was a ‘behind the doors' decision with the
Firefox crowd
to justify Mozilla supporting a second browser project, and they then
agreed
that Seamonkey would only continue as an integrated suite, and that's
the only
way users will be able to use it (fatal error imo).
It's interesting that you know of decisions the project organizing way
doesn't know about. It must be nice to see conspiracies everywhere.
Robert Kaiser
I don't know that I'd call it "conspiracy", but in looking at Firefox,
Safari, Camino, Google Chrome, and now SM 2.x there certainly seems to
be a vast amount of code sharing/swapping going on...the default
interfaces are in a lot of cases nearly identical with the exception of
colors in some cases.
And though SM still offers more Pref settings choices, the Prefs choices
available in the others are also near to identical. At least that's the
impression I'm left with after a high level look at all of the Mac versions.
If this is to be/become the case, the OP certainly has a point about
loss of independence (either by choice or necessity) of code and
functionality for all of the efforts - not just SM. If that's a
business decision then that's the decision...but it sort of does bode
for less genuine choice for the user between the packages in the end.
One of the major draws to SM for me other than it being an integrated
suite was that it did things and allowed me choices I couldn't get
elsewhere...some of those features noticably vanished with SM 2.x.x, and
the thought that this could be a trend is responsible for me looking for
alternatives, too.
As I've stated previously, if I could blend one or two key features of
Opera with everything I had in SM 1.1.18 I'd declare near perfection.
--
- Rufus
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
