SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
- Location: New York State
SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
Somewhere and somehow I managed to find these versions, downloaded both and tried both.
BUT, v2.65 was corrupted somehow and wasn't usable, but v 2.57 was. In fact I'm typing using 2.57 now. I tried looking for v2.65 and that and 2.57 are no-where to be found.
What gives, on SM's download page only v 2.49 is available?
BUT, v2.65 was corrupted somehow and wasn't usable, but v 2.57 was. In fact I'm typing using 2.57 now. I tried looking for v2.65 and that and 2.57 are no-where to be found.
What gives, on SM's download page only v 2.49 is available?
Browsers that don't have a conventional horizontal Menu bar (where it's been for 25 years) are poorly designed. Period. Stop 'fixing' something that isn't broke!
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
- Location: New York State
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
IIRC, it was a pop-up in SM that directed me to the page with a list of changes for each version (which I didn't bookmark).
Browsers that don't have a conventional horizontal Menu bar (where it's been for 25 years) are poorly designed. Period. Stop 'fixing' something that isn't broke!
-
- Posts: 585
- Joined: January 30th, 2019, 9:38 am
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
This discusses the status of seamonkey builds - https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/Stat ... ource_Tree
Anything above 2.57 is only built to see if it compiles, not meant for use. This says in 2.57 that mail/news, and the sidebar do not work, and many extensions will not work.
2.53 is said to be fine, but it is not final. As of a while ago it was not available in languages other than English and German. Since it advertises a higher compatibility number in its user agent, it will work without overrides on more pages.
Anything above 2.57 is only built to see if it compiles, not meant for use. This says in 2.57 that mail/news, and the sidebar do not work, and many extensions will not work.
2.53 is said to be fine, but it is not final. As of a while ago it was not available in languages other than English and German. Since it advertises a higher compatibility number in its user agent, it will work without overrides on more pages.
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
- Location: New York State
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
Yes, 2.57 most extensions/add-ons do not work.
I wished I bookmarked that changelog page that had all the builds after 2.49 the update pop-up directed me to. The number of entries for a couple of those were numerous. There were versions below 2.57 in the list also IIRC.
I wished I bookmarked that changelog page that had all the builds after 2.49 the update pop-up directed me to. The number of entries for a couple of those were numerous. There were versions below 2.57 in the list also IIRC.
Browsers that don't have a conventional horizontal Menu bar (where it's been for 25 years) are poorly designed. Period. Stop 'fixing' something that isn't broke!
-
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: July 25th, 2011, 8:11 am
- Location: Poland
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
Here:videobruce wrote:Somewhere and somehow I managed to find these versions[...]
http://www.wg9s.com/
2.49.5 is close to next official release. 2.53 will be interim release to give time for works under 2.57 version. What will be next is unknown so far...
--
- Pim
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: May 17th, 2004, 2:04 pm
- Location: Netherlands
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
I'm using 2.57 now and it looks almost usable.
Almost, because I can't find any ad blockers for it that work. Other than that, no problems.
Almost, because I can't find any ad blockers for it that work. Other than that, no problems.
Groetjes, Pim
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
- Location: New York State
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
But, how about the conventional menu bar and navigation add on buttons?
Browsers that don't have a conventional horizontal Menu bar (where it's been for 25 years) are poorly designed. Period. Stop 'fixing' something that isn't broke!
-
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
> But, how about the conventional menu bar and navigation add on buttons?
Alle there but so much is still broken that it is only good for tests. We will see that 2.49.5 gets out the door and the concentrate only on 2.53 and 2.57. Doing backports to two trees 2.49and 2.53 and also fixing up the next version was too much so 2.57 took a backseat.
Alle there but so much is still broken that it is only good for tests. We will see that 2.49.5 gets out the door and the concentrate only on 2.53 and 2.57. Doing backports to two trees 2.49and 2.53 and also fixing up the next version was too much so 2.57 took a backseat.
- Snake4
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: December 27th, 2017, 4:03 am
- Location: Australia
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
might wanna follow this thread http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... &start=525 about 2.53 an above
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
- Location: New York State
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
Anyone know why that 'Simplify Page" in Print Preview and the ability to move the tab bar below the active page functions are missing that are availab'e in FF v56 and eariler??
Browsers that don't have a conventional horizontal Menu bar (where it's been for 25 years) are poorly designed. Period. Stop 'fixing' something that isn't broke!
-
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
This was never in Seamonkey. Different frontend code. The SeaMonkey tab browser needs and overhaul anyway but don't hold you breath for the features to pop up soon
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
- Location: New York State
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
Problem is, just those 2 features are the deal breakers. Most everything else is fine. They exist in the (what I call) classic FF & adds, why not here?
Browsers that don't have a conventional horizontal Menu bar (where it's been for 25 years) are poorly designed. Period. Stop 'fixing' something that isn't broke!
-
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
> why not here
Because they where never in the product, are not everyones dealbreakers and we are extremly short on devs. If someone implements it I am happy to bring it thru the review phase and into the offical source as fast as possible.
Because they where never in the product, are not everyones dealbreakers and we are extremly short on devs. If someone implements it I am happy to bring it thru the review phase and into the offical source as fast as possible.
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: June 24th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?
use SM 2.57 sparingly then. webextensions is not yet implemented in 2.57 and won't be in the immediate future (and thus no compatible ad blockers for it). I'm beta testing SM 2.57 on a backup hard drive on one of my PCsPim wrote:I'm using 2.57 now and it looks almost usable.
Almost, because I can't find any ad blockers for it that work. Other than that, no problems.