MozillaZine

The future of Seamonkey?

Discussion of general topics about Seamonkey
James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27430
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 2:01 pm

The legacy Firefox 52 ESR is almost EOL as Firefox 52.9.0esr out on June 26 was the last major update. It will be EOL on Sept 5th when only 62.0 Release and 60.2.0esr will be the current Release versions then. The current Firefox ESR has been based on 60.0 since Release. See overview image on https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

Unless the SeaMonkey community back ports security and or stability fixes for a while longer for SeaMonkey 2.49.x

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 498
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 6:41 pm

Frank Lion wrote: there'll be no 2.50+ option for me. I understand that SM 2.49.* is based off of Firefox 52, which is also an ESR version. This means it would receive similar security fixes that later Firefox versions did, probably right up to 59 or 60. A SM based off, say, Firefox 55 or 56 is not going to have those, so I figured I might as well make my SM cutoff point with this current version.


Frank, thanks.

Your basic thinking is basically what I've been thinking also. Having said that, though, I didn't know that 2.49.* is where I should stop (and I didn't follow your rationale on making this decision).

Hopefully, other folks here will discuss all of this so a clearer understanding can be arrived at.
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

tonymec

User avatar
 
Posts: 720
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 11:24 pm

At the moment I'm using a SeaMonkey 2.53 (based on versions 56.0.3 of Gecko and Toolkit i.e just before Toolkit 57 dropped support of classical extensions — and I'm not calling them "legacy" which is pejorative: to my POV, it is today's newfangled Firefox which is bad quality stuff built on planned obsolescence) and protecting myself against malware by, among others, not opening dubious mail except in "View source" mode and not running on a Megabucks-Microsoft OS.

When this version of SeaMonkey becomes unusable (due to for e.g. not supporting HTML 6 or whatever will be then-current web standards not yet thought-of today) I'll have, alas, to switch to Konqueror or Opera or something, but not Firefox.
Best regards,
Tony

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 498
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 6:54 am

What's wrong with SM 2.50 and beyond for a very basic user like me?
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

frg
 
Posts: 645
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 11:38 am

> What's wrong with SM 2.50 and beyond for a very basic user like me?

2.50 to 2.53 from the offical trees are mostly broken. Took some time to catch up. I have around 390 patches in my 2.53 source tree now (fixes, backports and security) and it works well.

Anything beyond 2.53 is just affected by Mozillas "lets remove anything we think we don't need or want" philosophy. Next stop 2.57 which is not ready for prime time yet.

alexyu
 
Posts: 12
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:07 am

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 12:37 pm

frg wrote:I have around 390 patches in my 2.53 source tree now (fixes, backports and security) and it works well. Anything beyond 2.53 is just affected by Mozillas "lets remove anything we think we don't need or want" philosophy. Next stop 2.57 which is not ready for prime time yet.


So, SM 2.57 is expected to still be 'true to the SM ideal' while incorporating whatever can be used from later FF versions in terms of "backports and security", and thus should be useful for SM users who intend to keep on using existing XUL extensions?

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19161
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 1:01 pm

SM 2.57 is expected to still be 'true to the SM ideal' ... and thus should be useful for SM users who intend to keep on using existing XUL extensions?

No.
As much as I'd like it to be the case, from all I can gather, not going to happen, "can't" happen.
And that is the crux of the problem, for all (users & developers, including "forks").
Mozilla, that "open" house where all are welcome, has put up a wall (at least someone has put up a wall!) to keep all the - users - out. (I see the logic in that, don't you?)
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

tonymec

User avatar
 
Posts: 720
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 2:38 pm

therube wrote:Mozilla, that "open" house where all are welcome, has put up a wall (at least someone has put up a wall!) to keep all the - users - out. (I see the logic in that, don't you?)

Or maybe to keep only the "yes-mom" muttonheads in and keep away everyone else, and in particular anyone with something else than cottage cheese in their brainboxes?
Best regards,
Tony

frg
 
Posts: 645
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 2:41 pm

A lot of extensions will become broken in 2.57. TB 60 should become available soon and you should have a preview what will still work and what not.
Some simple ones like SeaTab X 2, Version Number and debugQA still work so the basic support is still there. Lightning will be included and we are looking at either Chatzilla or the TB chat. Web extension support needs to happen for SeaMonkey and that is a task I am not sure how long it will take. In any case not this year I am afraid.
After 2.57 the source has simple degraded too much. Can be made to work but it would be pointless. Mozilla just destroys anything needed right now. Need first to see where it ends. Probably ends sooner or later for Mozilla if current Fx market share decline continues.

alexyu
 
Posts: 12
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:07 am

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 2:55 pm

Very sad that:

frg wrote:A lot of extensions will become broken in 2.57.


But, do the 'unofficial' SM versions between 2.49 and 2.57 also "break a lot of extensions"? And, if not, is there one (or more) versions one could safely install and keep on using indefinitely, if the above means that 2.57 isn't worth it (to keep all XUL extensions working)?

tonymec

User avatar
 
Posts: 720
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 5:27 pm

alexyu wrote:Very sad that:

frg wrote:A lot of extensions will become broken in 2.57.


But, do the 'unofficial' SM versions between 2.49 and 2.57 also "break a lot of extensions"? And, if not, is there one (or more) versions one could safely install and keep on using indefinitely, if the above means that 2.57 isn't worth it (to keep all XUL extensions working)?

I'd say try 2.53 (corresponding to Fx56) if you can lay hands on a functioning one, or else the highest SeaMonkey ESR version not later than 2.53. Just my 0.02 € of course.
Best regards,
Tony

alexyu
 
Posts: 12
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:07 am

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 6:17 pm

Hi, Tony! thanks for the advice:

tonymec wrote:I'd say try 2.53 (corresponding to Fx56) if you can lay hands on a functioning one, or else the highest SeaMonkey ESR version not later than 2.53.


But that's just it: I've NEVER installed anything but the official 'final releases' of any SM versions; I know that there are several 'unofficial' ones, but don't know where I could "lay hands on [...] one", and how I would know if it's "a functioning one" or not -- i.e., I would depend on someone who's knowledgeable about such things to tell me which one I could trust to be "a functioning one" and, mainly, if it's one I should trust to be "one [I] could safely install and keep on using indefinitely"...

Otherwise, I guess I'll be stuck with SM 2.49.4 until I or it (hopefully the latter) expire!

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 498
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 6:29 pm

Sorry, guys, but I'm not following all the technical terms.

I have from the beginning run SM without any additions/extensions/etc. So what is there, IN LAY TERMS, about SM 2.50 forward that should alarm me?

Thanks!
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

tonymec

User avatar
 
Posts: 720
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)

Post Posted July 31st, 2018, 7:07 pm

Peter Creasey wrote:Sorry, guys, but I'm not following all the technical terms.

I have from the beginning run SM without any additions/extensions/etc. So what is there, IN LAY TERMS, about SM 2.50 forward that should alarm me?

Thanks!

Well, in lay terms, the backends on which SeaMonkey relies are in the hands of Firefox developers and they are taking them apart left and right with no regard for anything but their own Firefoxish uses. So what alarms us all is that it seems harder and harder to get a SeaMonkey executable not only to run without crashing but even to compile from A to Z.

This said, since you don't use add-ons, there isn't much you have to worry about provided that you can still find a SeaMonkey executable that runs on your machine (according to the user-agent string in small print at the bottom of your post, that means some kind of Windows OS: I'm on Linux so I can't easily compare). At the moment the (few and unpaid) SeaMonkey release engineers (frg, who's been posting in this thread, is one; I'm not) are putting most of their energy into getting the next "stable" release out the door, only to find the next day that the backends they were relying upon the day before have been swept away during the night, so even this little is problematic and hard to predict.

I hope the above isn't too technical for you.
Best regards,
Tony

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19161
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted August 1st, 2018, 3:49 am

2.53 should be fairly tight & stable.
My primary issue that I ran into is taskbar icon reordering - possibly resulting from using existing Profile sessions files?
(Demarcation of tabs is missing, I'm pretty sure.)

Backup & give it a try. See if it works for you.

2.57, last I looked, was a total no-go for me, due to extension breakages.

Courtesy of Bill, Windows & Linux x64 builds, https://www.wg9s.com/comm-253/.
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

Return to SeaMonkey General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests