The future of Seamonkey?

[Peter Creasey]

You sure you're not looking for problems here that don't exist?

Frank, yes, just being careful.

I thought I recalled advice being given here that upgrading past one of the upcoming versions will be too risky.

[WaltS48]

You sure you're not looking for problems here that don't exist?

Frank, yes, just being careful.

I thought I recalled advice being given here that upgrading past one of the upcoming versions will be too risky.

"Do not use the comm-central release."

REF: Status of the SeaMonkey Source Tree

Just guessing here, but there may be a problem with the Mail & Newsgroups feature of SeaMonkey 2.58(?) based on Gecko 68(?) due to changes in shared code between SeaMonkey and Thunderbird that the Thunderbird team is making to Thunderbird 68.0 because of changes Mozilla is making to Firefox 68.0.

SeaMonkey comm-central malfunctions/errors

[Frank Lion]

I thought I recalled advice being given here that upgrading past one of the upcoming versions will be too risky.

Well, as I'm bound to have mentioned before, even upgrading to the next official release is a 'risk', which is why I always suggest waiting a couple of weeks after release before upgrading. That way any missed early bugs will get spotted and be fixed.

However, what is 'risk' in this context? It can't be losing anything, can it, because everyone has already done regular daily/weekly backups of their profiles, right? *

No, 'risk' here is simply some bug in a new version, or existing version, or far distant version...and users often having to do fairly complex stuff at their end to sort it out. So, it's simple, if any of you don't fancy doing all that then minimise your risk by not upgrading until you have to. This just works on the theory risk increases with change, more changes, more risk.


* soon I'll do a simple Frank guide here (on this thread) to backing up your profile, both manually and using a program. Will not take long, but I'm busy atm.

[Peter Creasey]

Thanks, Frank and Walt.

[hardys]

I am working with SM 2.53 on a daily basis for a few month now (browser and mail) and have not experienced any bug. SM 2.53 works very stable and is faster than the previous versions.

Only my beloved Firebug doesn't work anymore so I have to stick wih the web developer tools that are included in SM. My mails are stored on a second hard drive and not in my profile so it's fast and easy to create a backup from the profile when needed. My profile dates back about 20 years ago when I first started using Netscape Navigator

[Frank Lion]

* soon I'll do a simple Frank guide here (on this thread) to backing up your profile, both manually and using a program. Will not take long, but I'm busy atm.

Backing up a SeaMonkey profile, including Emails.

Manually.

#1. Put about:profiles in the addressbar and press Enter. Bookmark page for later use.

#2. On about:profiles page go to : 'This is the profile in use and it cannot be deleted.' > Root Directory > Open Folder

#3. When your operating system File Manager (Windows Explorer, etc) opens then click Mozilla (.mozilla in Linux) in its addressbar, which will then open that Mozilla folder..

#4. Close the SeaMonkey program and then copy the whole Seamonkey folder in that Mozilla folder and paste it somewhere safe, like onto a flashdrive.

#5. You're done.


Automatic

#1. Install something like this - http://pbsys.tripod.com/products/utilities/TZip.html (there are many similar programs.)

#2. Point the program to that SeaMonkey folder, select how often to backup and maximum number of backups to keep. Then let it do its thing. I do mine daily with a max of 4 backups, straight onto a flashdrive. I also have it backing up my Thunderbird profile once a week.

#3. You're done...forever.

Notes: Don't bother with partial or incremental backups - you will only confuse yourselves if you ever need to restore a backup. To restore the profiles, just rename the SeaMonkey folder to SeaMonkeyOLD. Unzip your backup and paste it in its place in the Mozilla folder.

My personal best of bust profile to SM running again with backup profile is 1 min. 20 secs. (the unzipping slowed me down.

[Snake4]

any real SeaMonkey update on whats going on with 21.65 ? if thats oddicially gonna be released as the next ESR ? http://www.wg9s.com/
nothing Posted since Feb here
SeaMonkey/StatusMeetings
SeaMonkey Project Blog

Currently there are no plans to change course. The 2.49.x line on ESR52 will be discontinued after the next release. Further updates will be done for 2.53 and up only.

A SeaMonkey based on ESR 68 is also not on the horizon.

The team currently does not want to go this way for personal and perceived technical reasons. We invested considerable time and resources going towards a SeaMonkey release based on Gecko 60. 2.53 based on Gecko 56 is already stable and incorporating ports up to Gecko 68.

Given current developer resources we will do it one step as a time. Goal is to have a working infrastructure and a SeaMonkey 2.57 release for which backports will be done.

i think that clears up my question.

[DanRaisch]

And enough is enough. I'm locking this for now as this thread seems to be going in circles.

Off topic posts, name calling, or personal attacks will be split off. Keep it civil or the lock can be reinstated.

[LuvKomputrs]

Feeling very, very positive about the next official release of the SeaMonkey browser.
https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2019/07/16/checksums-were-fixed-but-where-are-the-binaries
*that post was written on July 16th 2019. So they are indeed up to date at the SeaMonkey Project Blog*
ewong and the rest of the SeaMonkey council are hard at work to get this done.
KUDOS to ALL of them!

[Snake4]

Feeling very, very positive about the next official release of the SeaMonkey browser.
https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2019/07/16/checksums-were-fixed-but-where-are-the-binaries
*that post was written on July 16th 2019. So they are indeed up to date at the SeaMonkey Project Blog*
ewong and the rest of the SeaMonkey council are hard at work to get this done.
KUDOS to ALL of them!

2.49.5 is a Pointless Release IMO, would have been better just to focus on the 2.53 release instead

[LuvKomputrs]

2.49.5 is a Pointless Release IMO, would have been better just to focus on the 2.53 release instead

Respectfully disagree on that.
The SeaMonkey browser is transitioning from an old infrastructure to a new one for future releases of SeaMonkey.
This is well documented in the SeaMonkey blog and this is no easy task to complete.
And KUDOS to the SeaMonkey council for doing the GREAT job that they are doing.
Working in an IT department it makes a lot of sense to me to make sure a preliminary/upcoming stable release of any type of software i.e. browser, website, etc. be worked on to make sure that are no future problems down the road.
You get a lot more problems with any rapid release of any browser or software or website, etc. Seen this many, many times in my long career working with computers on a daily basis.
It's also kinda like the analogy of the tortoise and the hare. The tortoise won the race and did so by doing it slowly.
This way when we get the stable release of 2.49.5 we have a stable browser with full functionality and then can transition over to 2.53 smoothly.

[therube]

Of course it is not pointless.
If it were pointless it would be called something like 2.50 rather then 2.49.5.

It's stable.
It's secure.
It has expected UI & UX.
It supports XP.

What more could you want.
(Oh, that's right, a "fast" browser that isn't fast.)

[Diamanti]

2.49.5 is a Pointless Release IMO, would have been better just to focus on the 2.53 release instead

I'm not going to leave the 2.49 trunk for a while.
Too many sacrifices otherwise.

[Peter Creasey]

I'm not going to leave the 2.49 trunk for a while.
Too many sacrifices otherwise.

What are the sacrifices you are referring to?

[RDaneel]

Indeed... other than a stated lack of "backwards compatibility" WRT my profile (which isn't an issue visible to me anyway, not *wanting* to go back), it isn't clear that I have "sacrificed" anything in my long-term use of the "Builds by Bill(tm)" - all right, WG9s - 2.53.

Well, other than the opportunity to stay with increasingly "old" code, of course - the only add-ins I care about, NoScript and Lightning work/are supported in 2.53 - so where's the [lack of] beef? Just sayin'.

All this, plus frg saying on more than one occasion that 2.53 is definitely on the Path into the Future(tm), could lead one to wonder why 2.49.5 is still expected to be "a thing".