Talk:SeaMonkey

Allizom

Why (does) Allizom redirects here, but there's nothing about Allizom in this article?--Kakurady 01:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, though I like Allizom better (but that should go to devmo:) ^n_n^ --Kakurady 15:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may say so, why does "Allizom" need to be referenced in the article at all? It was just an unimportant joke irrelevant to the software. --Andrew T. 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Seamonkeys aim

Was wondering if you should add their aim stated on seamonkeys website.

"The SeaMonkey project is a community effort to deliver production-quality releases of code derived from the application formerly known as "Mozilla Application Suite". Whereas the main focus of the Mozilla Foundation is on Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird, our group of dedicated volunteers works to ensure that you can have "everything but the kitchen sink" — and have it stable enough for corporate use."

• • • • • ~thanks, but who included the above comment & quote, it's unsigned-- unless its supposed to be the author for the following comment, Numbers, etcFairlylowtekk (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers make me happy

Any info on how many downloads, etc.? I know that FireFox prides itself in having 1M downloads on the first day, 10M in the first ten days, among other milestones. I can't find this information superficially. --RealGrouchy 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We've had the ability to track download counts for about 6 days, though we shipped about 9 days ago (so unfortunately we don't have numbers for the first ~3 days). In the past ~6 days, there have been about 30,000 downloads through the download.mozilla.org links (we can't count downloads if you go directly to the FTP server). --CTho 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the information isn't readily available - getting download counts currently requires asking a sysadmin, which is why RealGrouchy couldn't find it. --CTho 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I am for the merge, however, which should remain the title page. There are arguments for both.

In favor of SeaMonkey remaining the title: SeaMonkey is the current incarnation of Mozilla Application Suite. Therefore, it should remain the title, with a section on Mozilla Application Suite.

In favor of Mozilla Application Suite remaining title: This was the original name of the product. Therefore, that is its name, which makes it the article title. Make a section on SeaMonkey.--Ljlego 21:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

From the marketing point of view, Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey are different products. Technically, it's a fork. Different products maintained by different people have separate articles, even if they share the same codebase. - Sikon 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, SeaMonkey is not a fork of Mozilla. It's the same code sitting on the same servers as before, only now branded as SeaMonkey, and it's actually maintained by many of the same people that Mozilla was. But it is a different product distinct from Mozilla, so yes, it should have its own article. -- Schapel 18:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am against the merge. Mozilla Suite should remain for historical reasons. --65.19.87.53 18:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I too think they should have separate articles. As mentioned above, they are different products. It's not the same as when Phoenix became Firebird became Firefox, is it? `Zozart ^.chat 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it certainly isn't. Pheonix was renamed Firebird and then to Firefox, but was always the same product from the same group and used the same versioning system. SeaMonkey is a different product from a different group and has a different versioning system. -- Schapel 04:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like most people are for the merge, I am as well. Different Product, Different Marketing, clearer target audience, etc. Lets leave the articles seperate! --Callek 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly against. You should have mozilla page for historical reasons, with a section which gives a little information about SeaMonkey with a link to the main page. Although they are similar now, you won't want SeaMonkey 1,2,3 all on the Mozilla page in a couple of years! -- User:simongoldring 16:26, 26 March 2006 (GMT)

Completely agree with simongoldring. Mozilla is near to be defunct project, and its page will actually be history article. Seamonkey article may now depict almost the same product, but it is an ongoing project and who knows what will future up-to-date informations be. Anyway, if SM should be merged to Mozilla because of its heritage, think about how many browsers should then be merged to NCSA Mosaic? ;) --Arny 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero. - Sikon 04:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that they should be merged, with SeaMonkey the title, after the Mozilla Suite is done away with, if ever. Otherwise, no merge. ~Linuxerist L / T 14:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reading that wiki wants to merge this with mozilla. I think if they are going to do that, they should make a mod section for all of the browsers built off mozilla. Anyone?

Faster & Tweaked

Keep the article on Sea Monkey. I just downloaded Sea Monkey and it's faster and less of a resource hog than Mozilla 1.7. with a lot of tweaking. Just a different animal. Noles1984 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) FireFox 3.6 is out, now see which is faster. And also, this is an opinion that will not be incorporated. --6MonthsLeft (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Ian C.

What does it do?

There doesn't seem to be any mention here of what SeaMonkey actually does. Is is just Firefox+Thunderbird, or something similar to that, or is there anything else in the suite? Henry^Flower 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the first sentence covers that by saying it's an Internet suite. -- Schapel 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Schapel, internet suite is a fairly broad term. I'm also kind of confused as to what the difference here is between just downloading seperate apps and download seamonkey. Are the browsing capabilities just FF rebadged or what? The biggest section of this article is about the name! Seems the priorities are a bit messed up.--Santahul 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More than half a year later, this article still fails to provide a meaningful description of what its subject is. In computer-geek terms, it's more like a "release notes" or "diff" page than a proper article. Considering that people coming to this article to learn what "Seamonkey" is are not likely to know about Mozilla Application Suite, and that MAS appears to be defunct, which means no one is reading about it anew even in the trade press, this is a serious flaw. (We don't go to Persian Empire to learn about Iran, after all.) Can the editors of this article take a few moments to rectify this basic problem? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you are quite right. There: I fixed it. Simple enough. Hope you like it. If you don't, please feel free to amend / add / enhance it. Regards, --AVM 15:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other posters. After reading the article thoroughly, I still don't really "get it". Also, after looking at the internet suite page, I don't even get a full understanding of what that is either... 80.47.117.229 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

SeaMonkey project hidden?

In the Products page, accessible from the front page of http://mozilla.org , SeaMonkey is hidden, and instead, the older Mozilla Suite is shown. Are they trying to hide something? Same issue with their downloads page. —Tokek 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've filed bug 335249 and bug 335376 on the issues you mention, but nobody has done anything yet. -- Schapel 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. As SeaMonkey is not officially supported. --minghong 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Camino also isn't a Mozilla product, but it's listed on the Featured Products and Downloads pages. -- Schapel 12:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Seamonkey is now prominently displayed at http://www.mozilla.org/products/ .-- Mumia-w-18 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody please protect this page. I think someone vandalized it, because I saw an inappropriate picture when I visited this article. Interestingly enough, when I logged in and viewed the page, the picture was gone. Emanla Eraton 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Features etc - we need more details

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this article is very vague as to what the software actually does, it just says "internet suite". A more in-depth section about exactly what it can and can't do seems obvious as I'm still unsure myself after reading this article. It would also be nice to know how SeaMonkey works alongside Firefox, Thunderbird etc. For example, is the built-in web browser just rebadged Firefox or is it a browser in its own right based on Mozilla? This article spends more time discussing the name than anything else.--Santahul 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, much material needs to be copied over from the MAS article, so that this article stands more on its own. Right now, it is written assuming that the reader is already knowledgeable about the [Mozilla Application Suite]. 69.87.193.176 12:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SeaMonkey 1.1 might be released soon

On their FTP-server they have a new folder holding candidates for the SeaMonkey 1.1 release, see here. Usually they release these candidates one or two weeks later. --Denniss 19:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it proprietary software?

In the Licensing section of the Mozilla Firefox article it is stated that the binaries of Firefox are proprietary because of Talkback. The FSF sees also other issues and therefore did a fork but »Google and Mozilla developers are working on Airbag, an open-source replacement for Talkback, that will allow official Firefox builds to be entirely free of proprietary software.« Now what about SeaMonkey and Thunderbird? If there is no opposition, I will remove all the »free ...« categories an add [[Category:Freeware]] -- mms 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Only trunk builds have Talkback installed at the moment, so official SeaMonkey releases are entirely free of proprietary software. -- Schapel 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Portable?

Is there a portable version of SeaMonkey? It would be helpful if the article mentioned this. 69.87.193.176 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the way configuration files are handled, it is difficult to make a generic portable version of SeaMonkey. [1] [2] There is no U3 version.
We can only hope that future versions are designed to facilitate portability. 69.87.193.176 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That statement is very misleading, since it implies that SeaMonkey is not portable across operating systems; whereas what it really means is that it cannot be easily used by putting it on a USB disk and using it on multiple computers of the same operating system (eg, MS Windows). I'm removing that line from the article. --Mike 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is now a SeaMonkey, Portable Edition which seems to be similar to Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition. I guess that it should be mentioned somewhere. (Stefan2 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Alternative Images

Here are all available Images (mostly screenshots).

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

At the moment these may not be useful but if the article get expanded they could be. Kc4 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Plugins/Plugin Repository

Does anyone know of any plugins for SeaMonkey? FireFox's power seems to be in its ability to integrate plugins, but I really haven't seen much for SeaMonkey. samwaltz 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Those are called add-ons — extensions and themes. See SeaMonkey Add-ons at AMO. Also, many extensions support multiple host programs.
• Firefox is capitalized “Firefox” or “firefox”, not “FireFox”.
• Wikipedia is not a place for such questions, but I guess I will add the link to the article.

--AVRS 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and plug-ins are binary libraries mostly used to play multimedia et al. formats in a page. --AVRS 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SpiderMonkey+Tamarin+ActionScript = ActionMonkey

http://wiki.mozilla.org/JavaScript:ActionMonkey - No article here exists yet. Wikipedia is slacking! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.164.97 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

About bugs or faulty support: small edit war

I object to User:Adahan's assertion (sic) "rv (Wikipedia is not the place to air your personal grievances about SeaMonkey. Use the newsgroups or Bugzilla to report bugs. See WP:NOR and WP:V))" , and his reverting my edits for mysterious reasons.

FIRST, I hold no grievances at all toward an admirable piece of software that I use daily and depend on for my work. In fact, I started using the original Mozilla browser ever since it appeared, and have not used Microsoft's Internet Explorer for years. As a proof that I'm fully in favor of it, I can say that I'm the one who expanded the article's lead to include a text on "What does it do?" after a complaint by User:Jeffq, thus:

 <quote> 
 More than half a year later, this article still fails to provide a meaningful description of what its subject is.
 <end quote> 

(see the preceding paragraph in this discussion)

SECOND, I provided a reference (which he erased) about the PDF problem, taken from the same source he mentions: the Mozilla Newsgroup. Hence, no "Original research". In other words, it's not only me: several people have encountered problems when trying to open a .pdf file link from within Seamonkey. Moreover, the problem mentioned could not be more easily verifiable.

THIRD: Why does User:Adahan so stubbornly deny that bugs still do exist? It looks like it's him who is taking any less-than-favorable comment about Seamonkey as a personal grievance. Which it is not.

Regards, --AVM (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What's so "mysterious" about my edits? I gave clear reasons why I reverted your changes each time. I don't see how you could miss those when you even quoted one of them.

Re: FIRST: I'm not denying that you use and are in favor of SeaMonkey, but how can you say that you have no grievances with it when you keep trying to add two of them to the article? Are you misinterpreting the word "grievance" to mean something else?

Re: SECOND: First of all, that was from the MozillaZine forums, not the newsgroups. Second of all, when did I even say that a newsgroup post would be a valid source? I asked you to take your griping about it there instead of here, but I didn't say anything about it being used as a source. Third of all, that MozillaZine thread only shows that most people do not have the problem you're ranting about, which only weakens your argument further. Finally, you have yet to provide proof that the problem lies with SeaMonkey as opposed to Acrobat or Windows. In fact, the bug report that you never bothered to link to shows that the bug is UNCONFIRMED, meaning that the testers have not even verified that it is an actual bug yet. That is far from being a significant, well-known SeaMonkey problem worthy of being mentioned in the article.

Re: THIRD: Where in the world are you getting that I don't think any bugs exist? Although the developers are doing a great job at keeping things in order, there are always hundreds of open bug reports at any given time for each Mozilla product (or any other software project of that size, for that matter). Not once did I ever deny that, so please quit it with the false assumptions. Now, out of all those bugs, what makes you think that your bugs are more important than the others to the point where they deserve a mention and the others don't?

The bottom line here is that I think you are attempting to use the SeaMonkey article to artificially inflate the importance of your "pet bugs" in hopes that they will get fixed. Not only is that improper use of Wikipedia, but it will also get you nowhere, because the SeaMonkey developers and testers are highly unlikely to even notice this article. If you want those bugs to be fixed, follow up on their bug reports with useful information on the problem rather than polluting the Wikipedia article with them, then acting rude toward those who revert your changes. --Adahan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

--Touché. I found this discussion to be highly educational. Thanks. (Whew!) --AVM (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

seamonkey council

I resigned from the council. Someone might want to update the list of members (we're actually restructuring the leadership a bit - someone should probably stop by #seamonkey on irc.mozilla.org and get an update). --CTho (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Callek updated it. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/seamonkey/archives/2008/01/seamonkey_counc.html --CTho (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Quibble: "Peacock term"

"Several of its ingenious features ... have been introduced into Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7." -- "Ingenious" is IMHO opinion and peacock. Perhaps "novel" or "innovative" or something else would be better. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Quibble: "Navigator" vs "Web browser"

SeaMonkey ... consists of a Navigator which is a descendant of the Netscape family

"Navigator" links directly to Web browser here. I believe that many Wikipedia users are likely to recognize the term "web browser" when they see it, but might not understand that "Navigator" here means "web browser". (Following on "yes, but what does it do?" above

I suggest that we change this to: "SeaMonkey ... consists of a web browser which is a descendant of the Netscape family ..." or to "SeaMonkey ... consists of the web browser, Navigator, which is a descendant of the Netscape family ..." (if that last is correct - I don't know myself.)

Or am I completely off the mark here? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your last suggestion is the best. The browser is called Navigator, but it's best described as a Web browser. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GUI

Does anybody know why the Mozilla Application Suite (or at least later versions of it) used the Netscape 6 tool bar icons, while SeaMonkey uses the old-school Netscape Communicator icons? 80.42.220.53 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision History

I'm not an expert in wiki formalities so I apologise if I'm incorrect in this matter but I don't believe that the revision history should be here. I think there is such a thing as too much detail. If this information is to be provided it should be summarised and describe differences between major releases as opposed to "bug fixes" which is quite meaningless. I think at the moment it has been put in simply as filler. If this article has more relevent information added (is edited to a state that can be regarded as "complete" or "full") then the revisions history should definitely be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.4.179 (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Article updated. 121.210.170.141 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Version history restored on separate page. --DeTru711 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

System requirements

Would be nice to have some indication of which operating system versions are supported, whether there's a minimum memory requirement, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Release History

Where did it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinnier (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion topic already exists (here). Please ask there. Luciform (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinnier (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Composer Is Dead

SeaMonkey composer is so full of bugs that were present in Netscape composer 12 years ago in 1998 (like the annoying right click does a select all) that I don't think that it is a) supported or b) used by anyone.

It is very, very, very much not what you see is what you get. Just like the .html e-mail in Thunderbird (which also has Netscape bugs circa 1998), it will very often show the author, for example, an all-Arial font page, then when looking at that mail on the computer of the recipient, or after saving it out to an .html file, you will see that it is chock full of words and lines of New Times Roman, and that anything that was cut and pasted in is painfully obvious to the viewer later on, because the fonts don't match, even though the author selected paste without formatting or repeatedly set all fonts to Arial.

This article should point out that one of the "components" of the Mozilla Suite is about as used, useful, and relevant as throwing in a copy of Windows 3.1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.147 (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I very much do not agree. Please state a version you tested and relevant bug reports you are reffering to. -current is 2.0.3-Minikola (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Describe needed references before tagging unreferenced

Describe needed references before tagging unreferenced. Please do not tag this article as unreferenced since there is a lot of references in it. If you have a problem with specific parts of the text, say what they are and references could be found for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikola (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Minikola (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with you when you suggest 7 inline citations is a lot of references. The refimprove tag would of been better. I don't agree with the rating as WP:BCLASS as article doesn't cover subject completely, there is no summary in the lead and more citations are still needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Navigator"

The article currently uses the name "SeaMonkey Navigator" for the web browser part of SeaMonkey. However, I only see the word "Browser" in version 2.3.3 (when pointing the mouse at the earth globe icon at the bottom-left part of the window or when opening the "Window" menu from the menu bar). Have the names changed at some point? (Stefan2 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Furthermore, I see that the word "SeaMonkey" appear in the names of various components in this article (e.g. "SeaMonkey Composer"), but this word is not there in my copy of the product. Have names been changed, and if so, should the article be changed to reflect this? (Stefan2 (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Probably more accurate without. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SeaMonkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331130213/http://blog.drapostles.org/archives/69 to http://blog.drapostles.org/archives/69
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207062234/http://diginotar.nl/ to https://www.diginotar.nl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

doesn't run on Mac OS Ventura

If only temporarily, this should be added. v2.9.1 "will open" but it is full of bugs and freezes - not ready for prime time 50.111.25.11 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Is versions of SM that much behind Firefox?

Looking at the versions, the newest SM is still using circa 2017. Am I reading it wrong? Septagram (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Septagram: They're behind for sure. The devs are prioritizing back-porting security patches.

Early versions of Gecko were embeddable. That's how Camino worked and also kind of why it died when Mozilla killed embedding circa 2011. SeaMonkey switched to XULRunner (Gecko for standalone applications), but Mozilla dropped support in 2015 and XULRunner doesn't work beyond Firefox 52, which is where Pale Moon had to fork their code base. Firefox 57 was a major rewrite. I think SM's current target is to get all the features of Firefox 60 (2018) working smoothly. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ouch! I guess this is why I keep getting "your browser is not supported" messages Septagram (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)