SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Discussion about Seamonkey builds
Post Reply
videobruce
Posts: 338
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: New York State

SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by videobruce »

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. #-o

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!
videobruce
Posts: 338
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: New York State

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by videobruce »

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!
kerft
Posts: 585
Joined: January 30th, 2019, 9:38 am

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by kerft »

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.
videobruce
Posts: 338
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: New York State

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by videobruce »

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.
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!
TPR75
Posts: 1353
Joined: July 25th, 2011, 8:11 am
Location: Poland

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by TPR75 »

videobruce wrote:Somewhere and somehow I managed to find these versions[...]
Here:
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...
--
User avatar
Pim
Posts: 2215
Joined: May 17th, 2004, 2:04 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by Pim »

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.
Groetjes, Pim
videobruce
Posts: 338
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: New York State

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by videobruce »

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!
frg
Posts: 1361
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by frg »

> 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.
User avatar
Snake4
Posts: 1841
Joined: December 27th, 2017, 4:03 am
Location: Australia

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by Snake4 »

might wanna follow this thread http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... &start=525 about 2.53 an above
Nightly Blog
Release Calendar
Posted With Chrome Or Firefox
videobruce
Posts: 338
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: New York State

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by videobruce »

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!
frg
Posts: 1361
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by frg »

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 :)
videobruce
Posts: 338
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: New York State

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by videobruce »

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!
frg
Posts: 1361
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by frg »

> 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.
4td8s
Posts: 784
Joined: June 24th, 2009, 1:07 pm

Re: SM versions 2.57 and 2.65; where are they?

Post by 4td8s »

Pim 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.
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 PCs
Post Reply