So yeah, the underlying code is just as stable, but the UI has been (almost) completely reimplemented in both, and Tbird is a little off if you ask me. Their new attachment bar is a waste of precious real estate for anything less than 4 attachments, which probably comprises 99.999% of all email.
Gary Thornock wrote:
Essentially, Firebird *is* Mozilla. Or, at least, it's the browser
component. It uses the same codebase as the latest Mozilla release.
Stability and compatibility with web sites should be identical.
-----Original Message----- From: Devin Pratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:33 To: BYU Unix Users Group Subject: Re: [uug] Help with the booth
Are Firebird and Thunderbird just as stable and compatible with websites as Mozilla is? If we want to make a good impression, give them the best. They won't care how fast it loads or that it doesn't need to install if it just plain doesn't work. However, I've only tried Firebird and that was a while ago.
Devin
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
