On 8/07/2015 11:37 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
On 07/08/2015 09:01 AM, Daniel wrote:
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In <news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org>,
Paul Bergsagel <pbergsa...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
schedule would the net benefits be greater than if SeaMonkey
continued with the current rapid update schedule?
Since the last SeaMonkey release, there have been over 40 MFSAs, many
of them critical. IMO (and it's only that) if SM decided out of policy
*not* to issue security updates in a timely manner, that would mark
the death of the project.
Hear, Hear!! If I've got a safe, secure Suite, would I care if I only
got a "Bells and Whistles" update every six months or so?? Not a
problem. My SM looks and feels much the same as NC 4.7, or earlier.
(This being cross-posted reminds me I still waiting on the "Mark
Cross-posts as Read" bugzilla to be fixed, Bug 43278. Worked in NC up
till about 4.7 but then not.)
I don't recall cross-posts ever being marked as read, but I may not have
been using NC back in 2000.
That would be nice to have.
I certainly do recall it, Walt!! At one stage, I used to wonder how come
messages that I had read in one group were being marked as read in other
groups, until someone in the secnews.netscape.com groups explained about
that pref.
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
