Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Rufus wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rufus schrieb:
...and I'm ok with the Webkit usage requirement. Never said I didn't
believe that.
And we are unable to build a SeaMonkey based on WebKit, due to requiring
XUL for our current code and not being able to re-write the whole app on
something else due to resource constraints (and just not wanting to -
which is argument #1 in a volunteer community).
Robert Kaiser
That's what I was looking to hear. Not that it's "impossible".
Look Rufus.
You have now strayed far off the topic of criticizing Seamonkey 2.1.
Really, your rants belong in the/an advocacy group, rather than a
support/help group.
And anyway SM 2.1 is now history, with 2.2 supposed to be announced
today, and according to Justin Wood (Callek) 2.3 due in 6-7 weeks
from now, and on the new release schedule more versions soon
thereafter in rapid succession. :)
Remember that each new version/release brings with it a whole new
bag of goodies and bugs. So if you want to vent, switch now to 2.2.
Actually, 2.3 might be something I could be interested in. Maybe. Too
many things are changing in the Mac world at once...
My big fear remains the Lion OS, it's "iOS-like" full screen app
implementation (which I hope I can turn off, or find a hack to turn off)
and what that is going to mean for everyone. Frankly, I'm more
concerned about functionality of current app implementations under Lion
than I am about the apps (like SM) themselves.
That being said, I'm not in a mode to update/upgrade most of my software
until I get a dose of what Lion really will or won't do for me. If I do
grab the Lion OS then I'll be mostly starting from scratch and it may
make more sense for me to move to SM 2.3 and beyond. Util then I'll be
holding onto SM 2.0.14.
--
- Rufus
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
