SeaMonkey:Reasons

Resources
SeaMonkey Homepage
FAQ / Help
Goals
Organization
QA
Supporters
Add-ons
Localization
Reasons
Branding
Release History
Tasks & Projects
IRC Chat Logs
Discussion
Suiterunner

I'd like to understand the reasons why people are interested to keep SeaMonkey alive. I know mine (BenBucksch) are very different from those of some users.

Please try to be specific. To help with decisions, don't just say "I like the UI better", but say why.

Council

Christian Biesinger

What I want in Seamonkey...

• I want a browser for "me" not necessarily for "everyone"
  • Focus on "power users"
• Less focus on extensions, default install should contain stuff people want
• More control and choice to the user
• Integrated Browser and Mail/News-Client (needs not be same process, but should work well together, share settings, etc)

Chris Thomas

Pretty much what Christian Biesinger said.

• I want a product that fits my needs. I'm not concerned about "winning the browser war".
• Extensions aren't important to me. If autoscroll and flashblock were incorporated, I wouldn't use any. That said, supporting extensions well is not a bad thing.
• I like how our pref window has so many options - it needs to be reorganized, but having control through the UI is nice. I often see Firefox users needing to modify options in "about:config", which isn't a good thing.

Developers and QA

Ben Bucksch

Reasons to keep SeaMonkey

Developed 2 browsers based on it and need to keep them thriving

Problems with Firefox

• Extreme instability code-wise (impossible to base derivates on it)
• 'We're not accepting patches' shows general attitude of some developers

Desired changes to SeaMonkey

• Cleaner UI (at least removing redundant UI)
• make browser and mail client different processes

Alex Vincent

Our company's corporate product uses Mozilla Application Suite (not Mozilla Firefox). For various reasons, the 1.7.x series was not adequate for our needs. Further stable builds are in my employer's interest. (I should note I'm not being paid to work on these Mozilla releases.)

R.J. Keller

Most of what Biesinger said. I'd like the ability to click on Edit this Page and it opens in an editor without eating up more memory with a new application instance and really prefer seamonkey over Firefox. I believe it has a lot of potential.

Changes I'd like to see/implement in Seamonkey

• I'd like to rewrite the Help Viewer documentation, which is badly needed.
• prefs are poorly organized.
• new review policy that sets XUL and JS changes to require only review and no review necessary for module owners.

End Users

Owen Marshall

I can't really lump myself into the developers category; the best I can do is QA and documentation!

Personally, I prefer the SeaMonkey UI, and the tight integration between each component. I also think Firefox feels more like an exclusionary team rather than an open source project. But that's just me ;-)

What I would like to see:

• An update feature like Firefox, but a little more intelligent -- for example, in-place upgrading using the XPI's rather than downloading the installer... that may be totally impossible but would be awesome! I may learn Mozilla just to try implementing something like this

OK, that is what I would really love to see!

---

What do you prefer about the SeaMonkey UI? -- BenBucksch

I have an autoupdater that I could contribute. It doesn't use XPIs (at least not yet), but just compares files, though. But I am generally very interested in updater solutions. -- BenBucksch

Davide Baroncelli

Well, I'd love to contribute, but I'm mainly a java server-side developer, and I'm afraid it would take some time before I could really do something useful for the suite. But I absolutely prefer it to FF: not for the "suite" thing, though: I do prefer the browser. I never use mail (using Eudora), chat (no IRC) or anything else (for web development activities I'd rather use NVU ;) ).

Why mozilla? Well: 1) Multizilla 2) Multizilla 3) Multizilla 4) Deeper configurability than FF (even wider with Multizilla...) 5) Searches from URL bar 6) Did I mention Multizilla?

David Madore

I can't stand the firefox user interface (the worst offender is the separation of search bar and URL bar: why anyone would actually like this waste of precious screen estate simply beats me; the sidebar is also pretty useless in comparison to seamonkey's). But it also looks as though many useful mozilla features (aka "bloat") were made into extensions in firefox, and, well, extensions just don't work seamlessly and they're a pain to install (random example, venkman: things may have changed, but last time I checked it didn't work very well with firefox, and probably not at all with thunderbird).

To summarize, it's not so much that I like seamonkey (though I do, and very much) than that I dislike firefox/thunderbird.

Vladimir Simovic aka Perun

I like the Websuite-Concept (all-in-one). Because when im online i'm using the Browser, the Mail, the Adressbook and from time to time the IRC-Client (Chatzilla). And why should i now install 3 different Programms for this. Since the first time on the Web (around 1997) i'm using a Websuite (at this Time Netscape 4.x) and from Aug./Sep. 2002 Mozilla 1.0. For very short time, between NN 4.x and Mozilla 1.0, IE6&OE. But this was pain in the neck. :-)

So i hope the Websuite-Concept will continue in some way. Otherwise i will switch to Opera. For me a Browser is not only a Webbrowser. For me a Browser is also a webworking-tool and a PIM.

My "wishlist" for the future is better integration between Seamonkey and Open Office, a small RSS-Reader and maybe anstead of Composer a Codeeditor (something like [Mozedit]) and if possibe a notes-function.

And so far is possible i will help to this Project. I'm Enduser but there are Ways how also Enduseres can help.

Alexander Rabtchevich

I use Mozilla from the first public builds, so I got used to its interface and features.

1. All-in-one product. One should not search for and download plugins, which provide rather basic functionality on the one hand and are not guaranteed, tested or supported on the other hand.
2. All-in-one product. The initial idea of FF, TB creation was to decrease the resources consumption. But this could only be done via shared libraries used by all products. That was not done. So now Mozilla consumes less or equal memory than FF on the same PC and if TB is ran the memory consumption exceeds Mozilla's.
3. All-in-one product. The integration between browser and mail allows to open links in mail in browser tabs and vice versa. Also it's only one program instead of two opened which notifies of new mail.
4. Convenient interface to settings adjustment. There are some "commonly used" settings like paths to user settings, cache and mail directories that user is to have the ability to adjust. This is only the most misunderstanding shortage of FF compared to Mozilla.
5. Text only apperance also shows the small icons. This is very convenient while saving the space.
6. The ability to bookmark a group of tabs via convenient interface. The ability to open group of tabs in new tabs. Also I'd like to see the FF ability to open each bookmark directory as a groop of bookmarks.
7. Classic default interface compared to "childish" FF's. This also concerns the bookmarks editing interface.
8. Very good history manager. Also I'd like to have the ability to "undo" tab closing, which may happen accidentally. There is the issue for this wish with lots of duplicates.
9. Much more stable and polished product than FF+TB.

What I'd like to see in Mozilla:

1. Integration of the latest nui code instead of the current composer.
2. Virtual folders as in TB.
3. RSS client.
4. SVG and maybe Mathml support.

Long live Mozilla!

Nikulin Pavel aka FUBAr

I use mozilla since very old times when opera was very popular becaus NN became
 very decrepit.Mozilla was like a fresh air in ages of total
 comercializatoin. Now mozilla was killed by stupid mofo becaus casual
 FF can give more users.

REMEMBER - OPERA IS A DARK SIDE :-)

Renard Benoît

I have used Mozilla since version 1.2, because of recommendations from a fellow message board poster.

Why I like Mozilla:

• Tight integration between browser, mail client and IRC client.
• Complete interface, with many options.
• Rock-stable.

How I would like to see Mozilla evolve:

• Start using the new toolkit.
• Fix many bugs, no matter how unimportant to the overall product. Some of these can be annoying to certain users.
• More Mac-friendly. They deserve as much support as the other users.
• After fixing current problems, start to implement new features.

Matthias Berndt

I use the Suite, because

• I'm used to it
• The Suite is a lot more stable than the single Apps
• I only have to install one version of the GRE, while FF, TB, SB, NVU require their own (though afaik this will be fixed soon)
• The preferences dialog is about 1000 times better
• I can install everything at once, but i don't have to.
• The modern theme looks a lot better than the default Firefox theme (IMO)

I'd like someone to

• add the following features from FF:
  • The new search dialog
  • the Extensions Manager
  • the ability to open a bookmark in a new tab by middle-clicking it
  • the update features
  • configurable toolbars
• make the "modern" theme the default.
• activate SVG and MNG support and add the MathML fonts to the package
• add synchronisation features for PDAs, cellphones (Siemens! I have an SL55) etc. to the mail component. This should be fairly easy under Windows)
• i heard that the bayes spam filter in TB works better than the one in Mozilla Mail, so somebody might integrate the one from TB in the Mozilla Mail component.
• add an option to choose whether document.all support should be detectable (document.all==true) or not (document.all=false)
• make the receive email button get the mail from all the accounts instead of just the main account (or make this configurable)
• make the account settings in the mail component clearer (SMTP Server configuration, IMHO it's nonsense that by default you don't have to specify an SMTP Server for every account. Every decent email provider has SMTP-login enabled nowadays)
• when i install the mozilla language pack (i'm german) and then upgrade Chatzilla, it won't work anymore unless i set the language back to english, this should be fixed by separating the Chatzilla Language Packs from the Moz Suite language packs. After all Chatzilla is not a real Mozilla component since it's available as an extension for FF, too.
• add a better Bookmark Management
• make the Extension API as similar to Firefox' as possible, so that extensions without "official" Seamonkey Support work.

That's it for the moment. Oh, and PLEASE DON'T just bundle the separate apps into a "new" suite, for at least FF s***s far too much

Oscar C. Lee

I have chosen Mozilla Suite for a number of years over not just Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvo but all other solutions that are available because it has browser, mail client, HTML editor, and IRC client all integrated as one unified open source solution. Combined with the brand and marketing powers of Mozilla Foundation, it is unique and irreplaceable to IT and business communities alike.

What I would like to see in SeaMonkey in the future: RSS reader.

KDS Sahambi

I volunteer to work with R.J.Keller for improving Help Documentation. One of the most important reasons I like Seamonkey is because of its superior Bookmarks Manager(BM). One important feature missing from the BM, is highlighting of some sort for 'active bookmark folder'. Porting Seamonkey to the XUL toolkit would be best thing to happen as it will allow all new features Firefox has with the added feature of being a single application. Composer misses a robust implementation of publishing via ftp. An ssh option in the publisher would be great to have.

Dan Mellem

1. I like getting all of the features in one, supported installation instead of depending on 3rd-party extensions.
2. I hate sidebars and tabs. Some of it can be changed with about:config in Firefox but many of the windows were removed.

Juergen B.

1. I'd like to have seperate processes for browser, mail, news, irc, etc., allowing individual installers, but integrating into existing other parts of the suite (without downloading the full suite!).
2. FF/TB sucks as they are completely seperate products.
3. Seamonkey shall remain highly integrated, but allow transfer of Mozilla settings (TB, FF, etc.) back into the "suite" (including security features - passwords, certificates, etc.).

Pavel Alexeev

I use Seamonkey because:

• i can edit web pages with Composer (this is great for the simple htmls),
• all components use (and load in memory) only one set of gecko libraries,
• mozilla is faster than ff, eats less memory and has less memory leaks,
• mozilla has more preferences in "Edit -> Preferences".

What i (and my friends who use ff instead of mozilla because of this) missed is the text field autocompleting like in ff and IE (not only for the text forms and address line like it is currently in mozilla).

---

Donald Axel

I use Mozilla (seamonkey? If I had known that name I wouldn't have used it;-) because:

Some years ago I read articles by "Joe Burns, ph.d" about webdesign and Javascript, and he wrote about the strange fact that nobody has asked the common user how a browser should be. You can have the newest Internet Traveller or Tourist or Explorer "which is so much improved", but none of these improvements were based on what customers want.

I prefer Mozilla because it gives me most security and I think (I am not sure) that you can tweak the security settings more with Mozilla than with Firefox.

I have installed a third party extra which blocks flash. Mozilla is easy to configure and the results are satisfactory. Therefore!

Mike Feeney

I prefer the browser in Seamonkey to Firefox because

1. It doesn't constantly look for favicon.ico files it shouldn't be (annoying to me as a website owner).
2. It has an easy to find option for making animated GIFs only loop once or not at all. In Firefox I have to edit about:config and it doesn't seem to save the preference between sessions.
3. Shift+Enter in location bar does Save As.
4. Find works the way I expect (and prefer) it to.
5. Bookmarks management is a lot better (at least since the Moz1.8 alphas).
6. Interface is a bit less gaudy.
7. Menus are organized better.

By #4, I am referring to what happens when I press Ctrl+F, although I like being able to find links as I type too. It helps me use the mouse less (I hate using the mouse).

Also, I like using Composer as a simple and convenient word processor for documents that are going to end up online.

---

Joseph Kiser

I've been using the suite off and on since Milestone 14, and it's been my default browser since version .9 something. It is sad to see the Mozilla Foundation turn its back on the product that spearheaded this movement for so long. I love the new features in 1.8b; the startup time is much better than previous versions, virtual folders are a godsend, and the program feels so much more mature than Firefox. That's not to say that Firefox isn't a good browser, it's just that I've been using the suite for so long and appreciate integrated e-mail (new message notifications when the email client is closed) without having to load two separate programs.

There are only a few features I can think of which would, in the future, make this program (whatever its name ends up being) even better. First of all, the default theme should be changed. I'm not sure to what yet, but the old Netscape purple icons are dated, and reminiscant of the Windows 95 days. Nothing over the top (like Modern), just something that blends in with the operating system (using the system scrollbars/fonts/colors) and has aesthetically pleasing icons. I like the icons on the Camino browser; maybe we could use these as a reference point.

Another thing that I would like to see is that the Bookmarks menu be redone in such a manner that when one scrolls through the list, the bookmark options (Bookmark this Page, File Bookmark, etc) stay at the top of the list. I have hundreds of bookmarks saved, and it would be nice to be able to scroll through them without having these options disappear.

Finally, it would be nice to have an option to block images on certain pages, but keep them loaded on others. This would be very helpful for those of us who use tabs. Maybe a toolbar icon, or an option in the right-click menu would help. When I have several tabs open, it's counterproductive to have to go to Edit>Preferences and switch images off on one page, and then have to go through the motions again to turn them on in a new tab.

Administrators

Wolfgang Wiese

As an administrator in an university I have to install and support software for web, mail, news and so on. Unlike the combination of Firefox and Thunderbird, the suite is much more admin-friendly, cause its more userfriendly: Users get an intergrated suite and cause of long years Netscape4 and after that Mozilla, they are known to it. Its much easier for users and administrators to set up the proferences of the suite for workstations. Unlike administrators or developers a normal user can't even understand how to call "about:config" or even use it! Firefox is only helpful for public surfstations, where we dont wan't to provide many functions.

Also as administrator I cannot argue against users why to install a combination of firefox and thunderbird until they dont show up with the features of the mozilla suite. I have to give my users something that is an improvement against the previous version (what ever its name is). But with firefox - how many plugins will I have to install until I get the features the users already have with mozilla suite? In case of making a choice, i would either stay on mozilla 1.8beta or have a turn to opera...

Felix Miata

When you buy a car, you don't buy an engine one place, a body somewhere else, and an interior still somewhere else. You buy an integrated package that efficiently combines all you need for road surfing. The same concept of integration applies to web surfing.

The web suite concept made sense when Netscape first became one, and it still does today. Integration makes many things easier, and easier is something quite popular among PC users.

Windoze users bring me their trojan, virus and spyware ridden puters to fix. I fix them, then make it easier for them to not break them again by installing one swiss army knife, Mozilla Web Suite. It enables me to install and show them one single program that prevents or reduces a multitude of continued M$ sins. Mozilla mail follows standards by not inducing Jeopardy writing style, providing standard email quote markers, and creating and retaining references, among other things. Since I use it myself, when they ask questions, I generally know the answers, or where to point them to find them. To ask their questions, if they want they can just click the CZ icon on the statusbar to catch me on moznet. To use their personal web space, they can just click the composer icon on the statusbar, and create a page far more compliant than anything Word or Frontpage have ever done.

Netscape and Mozilla users who use them because they are an integrated suite don't deserve an end to further development, or the complications of extensions and what to/not to install to get back what they're accustomed to after a supposed "upgrade".

Mark Dowling

We transitioned from Netscape 4.79 to Mozilla over the last while. The FF/TB effort, as previously noted, has concentrated on each application separately, with little attention to synergy between them. Projects such as Sunbird are tucked in a corner and Composer has been outsourced to nvu. A Mozilla-Win32 based on MSIs is a very attractive prospect, but this must be accompanied by full documentation on how to lock down both default preferences and ongoing enforcement via policy. This documentation should not be left to enthuasiasts but an integral part of the Mozilla product. It is ironic to me that the company I work for will not use Mozilla beyond end 2005 as we have embraced a groupware scenario coupled with Firefox but for companies who wish to look at IMAP/iCal as a solution, the lack of progress in decoupling Gecko from individual apps to reduce resource usage and encourage links between each MoFo application will leave an ongoing gap for MAS to fill. It would be interesting to see MAS have links to other OSS projects to extend the feasibility of single source supply for small and medium enterprises.

---

Marketing and UI

Vitor Domingos

As marketing and UI engineer, i must say there are a couple of reasons that we'll like to see going on the Mozilla Suite:

• All-in-one wonder (mozilla+addressbook+mail)
• Perfectly integrated with all the plugins and extensions avaiable
• Faster than FF
• Good UI, preferences in place
• Good marketing value so far
• It's my browser since i remember :)

For the future, I'd like to see more integration with OpenOffice.org, maybe joining efforts in one "true and full" office suite.