The future of Seamonkey?

Discussion of general topics about Seamonkey
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Creasey
Posts: 1340
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Peter Creasey »

I thought it was advised that basic users (like me) don't go past SM 2.49.4. Is this the case? Or is 2.53 okay?
. . . . . . . . . . Pete
User avatar
therube
Posts: 21703
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by therube »

If you're happy with 2.49, then stick with it.

If you want to explore 2.53, then back up what you have & give it a try.
2.53 should be stable so shouldn't be any issues in that respect.

(2.57 is an entirely different matter.)
Fire 750, bring back 250.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
rdtom
Posts: 83
Joined: February 26th, 2016, 3:48 pm

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by rdtom »

Try 2.53 with a new profile.
Don't go back and forth between 2.53 and 2.49.
Places.sqlite will become corrupt.
User avatar
Frank Lion
Posts: 21173
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Frank Lion »

Peter Creasey wrote:I thought it was advised that basic users (like me) don't go past SM 2.49.4. Is this the case? Or is 2.53 okay?
This stuff is quite simple. Unless you are feeling adventurous then stick to official builds - https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)
.
User avatar
Peter Creasey
Posts: 1340
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Peter Creasey »

Frank Lion wrote:
Peter Creasey wrote:I thought it was advised that basic users (like me) don't go past SM 2.49.4. Is this the case? Or is 2.53 okay?
This stuff is quite simple. Unless you are feeling adventurous then stick to official builds - https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
Frank, good point. I should have been clearer.

Here is what I should have asked...

When SM 2.53 becomes an official build, should I avoid advancing to it and stay with 2.49.4? Or should I (a very basic user happy with 2.49.4) do the update to the official build of 2.53?
. . . . . . . . . . Pete
User avatar
Frank Lion
Posts: 21173
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Frank Lion »

Peter Creasey wrote:When SM 2.53 becomes an official build, should I avoid advancing to it and stay with 2.49.4? Or should I (a very basic user happy with 2.49.4) do the update to the official build of 2.53?
I do something between the two. I wait until the official release and then give it a month before I update to it.

The reason is that it is impossible for a developer to betatest every combination of variables prior to release, so the first real test a build gets on real world conditions is immediately after release. So, I let any bugs appear, get fixed and then update to it.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)
.
User avatar
tonymec
Posts: 734
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)
Contact:

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by tonymec »

Peter Creasey wrote:When SM 2.53 becomes an official build, should I avoid advancing to it and stay with 2.49.4? Or should I (a very basic user happy with 2.49.4) do the update to the official build of 2.53?
If and when 2.53 becomes official, I see no reason why one should not update to it, though I've been told that downgrading from it might damage your places.sqlite (i.e. bookmarks, etc.).

Builds later than 2.53 are a different problem, mainly because a lot of the backend code important to us has been teared down at that point by Firefox developers, and e.g. the Toolkit backend code needed by classical extensions was removed in Toolkit 57.0, corresponding to SeaMonkey 2.54.
Best regards,
Tony
User avatar
Snake4
Posts: 1841
Joined: December 27th, 2017, 4:03 am
Location: Australia

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Snake4 »

...
Last edited by Snake4 on August 25th, 2021, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nightly Blog
Release Calendar
Posted With Chrome Or Firefox
User avatar
Peter Creasey
Posts: 1340
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Peter Creasey »

Mouse4 wrote:prolly easier to get 2.53 rather than Having to change ya UA string eventually so a website(s) will be OK with the browser as websites will eventually say NO to old coded browser like 2.49
Yes, this has worried me as I don't know how to change the UA string for website compatibility.
. . . . . . . . . . Pete
User avatar
tonymec
Posts: 734
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)
Contact:

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by tonymec »

Peter Creasey wrote:
Mouse4 wrote:prolly easier to get 2.53 rather than Having to change ya UA string eventually so a website(s) will be OK with the browser as websites will eventually say NO to old coded browser like 2.49
Yes, this has worried me as I don't know how to change the UA string for website compatibility.
With SeaMonkey 2.53 or lower you can use the User Agent Switcher extension. (In 2.54 or later the backends needed by classical extensions have been removed by the Firefox developers.) Or, on any version, you can set general.useragent.override to the desired UA string in about:config.

However, knowing which UA to use on which site may be a trial-and-error problem. In worst-case scenarios, you might have to find out which Firefox UA is accepted by the website and masquerade as that.
Best regards,
Tony
frg
Posts: 1361
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by frg »

> (In 2.54 or later the backends needed by classical extensions have been removed by the Firefox developers.)

Not true. They did some damage to the source by removing apis but classic extensions can mostly made to work. Only after 60 Gecko turned into complete junk.
frg
Posts: 1361
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by frg »

Btw. 2.53 would need l10n changes for an official relase so it will probably not arrive. As I said mostly my pet project on the way to 2.57 to test changes in a stable environment. We might do a 2.53 beta later.
User avatar
tonymec
Posts: 734
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)
Contact:

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by tonymec »

frg wrote:
tonymec wrote:(In 2.54 or later the backends needed by classical extensions have been removed by the Firefox developers.)
Not true. They did some damage to the source by removing apis but classic extensions can mostly made to work. Only after 60 Gecko turned into complete junk.
Ah? Thanks for correcting me. I thought Toolkit 57 (Fx57, Sm2.54) had already teared away the whole classical extensions stuff.
Best regards,
Tony
User avatar
LuvKomputrs
Posts: 659
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 8:15 am

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by LuvKomputrs »

Am quite content with using 2.49.4 of SeaMonkey for now until the next stable release comes out. :)
Haven't had any issues with any other sites that I use other than Yahoo for my email.
Just used this method by setting the general.useragent.override.* to the desired UA string in about:config
Am thinking when 2.57 is released we'll be seeing this in the UA string Firefox/60. SeaMonkey/2.57 :-k
Am glad to see that SeaMonkey is still going. It's one of the best browsers out there. :D
User avatar
Snake4
Posts: 1841
Joined: December 27th, 2017, 4:03 am
Location: Australia

Re: The future of Seamonkey?

Post by Snake4 »

......
Last edited by Snake4 on August 25th, 2021, 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nightly Blog
Release Calendar
Posted With Chrome Or Firefox
Post Reply