...
(This being cross-posted reminds me I still waiting on the Mark
Cross-posts as Read bugzilla to be fixed, Bug 43278. Worked in NC up
till about 4.7 but then not.)
I don't recall cross-posts ever being marked as read, but I may not have
been using NC back in 2000.
That would be nice to
Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Edmund Wong wrote:
I've been dedicating most of my time working on getting builds on Win32
running. I know it isn't much and there are a lot of other stuff I was
hoping to do (particularly Sync).
I do apologize for the lack of updates; but, as it is, we're really
down
A Williams wrote:
I think most - but not all - Seamonkey users have no problems with the
features coming a bit later, as long as the security holes are fixed.
Let the Firefox/Thunderbird users beta-test new features for us.
The problem is that it is difficult to have one without the other. The
On 08/07/2015 14:42, Marisa Ciceran wrote:
I just had a quick look at the URL you gave and it refers to an
upcoming Seamonkey version 2.35 that is based on Firefox 38. In
yesterday's emails also came the newsletter from US-CERT which
states:
Original release date: July 07, 2015
Mozilla
In
news:mailman.1932.1436376898.14172.support-seamon...@lists.mozilla.org,
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org,
Paul Bergsagel pbergsa...@shaw.ca wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the
On 8/07/2015 11:37 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
On 07/08/2015 09:01 AM, Daniel wrote:
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org,
Paul Bergsagel pbergsa...@shaw.ca wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If
On 08/07/2015 05:05, Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Maybe the time has come to reconsider how often SeaMonkey needs to be
updated. Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update schedule
would the net benefits be greater than
Mason83 wrote:
On 08/07/2015 05:05, Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Maybe the time has come to reconsider how often SeaMonkey needs to be
updated. Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update schedule
would the net benefits be
Danny Kile wrote:
Mason83 wrote:
On 08/07/2015 05:05, Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Maybe the time has come to reconsider how often SeaMonkey needs to be
updated. Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update schedule
would
Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Edmund Wong wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org,
Paul Bergsagel pbergsa...@shaw.ca wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
schedule would the net benefits be greater
Edmund Wong wrote on 7/7/2015 8:32 PM:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad since
On 07/08/2015 09:01 AM, Daniel wrote:
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org,
Paul Bergsagel pbergsa...@shaw.ca wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
Rainer Bielefeld wrote on 7/8/2015 2:22 AM:
Hi Ed,
you find some thoughts here
https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2015/07/08/how-dead-is-seamoneky/
Best regards
Rainer Bielefeld
Thanks, Rainer. Good to know.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Can you buy anything specific at a general
Philip Chee wrote on 7/8/2015 2:35 AM:
On 07/07/2015 14:43, Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org,
Paul Bergsagel pbergsa...@shaw.ca wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
schedule would the net benefits be greater
Danny Kile wrote:
I would agree! Why does everyone think that a new version should come
out every month or two?
Overall, I'm quite content with less frequent updates.
However, knowing that Seamonkey follows development of Gecko, Firefox
and Thunderbird, and that those are on a 6-week
Ray_Net wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 08/07/2015 01:08:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that
I'm nearing the point
where I cannot any longer stick with
Ray_Net wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 08/07/2015 01:08:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that
I'm nearing the point
where I cannot any longer stick with
Miles Fidelman wrote:
For what it's worth - I HATE rapid update cycles.
Well, I also hate that there are so many security issues causing rapid update
cycles. But at the end I appreciate if those security issues get fixed quickly.
Wherever I can, I run 2-4 years behind the current release
On 07/07/2015 14:43, Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad since I've been
Hi Ed,
you find some thoughts here
https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2015/07/08/how-dead-is-seamoneky/
Best regards
Rainer Bielefeld
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
I just had a quick look at the URL you gave and it refers to an upcoming
Seamonkey version 2.35 that is based on Firefox 38. In yesterday's
emails also came the newsletter from US-CERT which states:
Original release date: July 07, 2015
Mozilla has released security updates to address
Ray_Net wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 08/07/2015 01:08:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of development of
SM. Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that I'm nearing
the point
where I cannot any longer stick
Edmund Wong wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad since I've been with it
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
How can I change my UA string
from: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0
SeaMonkey/2.32
to: Mozilla/9.0 (Windows NT 10.1; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/99.0
?
You can either install an extension, there are several or in
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
How can I change my UA string
from: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0
SeaMonkey/2.32
to: Mozilla/9.0 (Windows NT 10.1; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/99.0
?
You can either install an
John Duncan wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I'm curious -- I was browsing around looking at keys containing the
string useragent and came to one named
general.useragent.site_specific_overrides
Does that mean there's a way to lie to specific dysfunctional sites
while retaining the normal
On 2015-07-08 1:34 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
Since the last SeaMonkey release, there have been over 40 MFSAs, many
of them critical. IMO (and it's only that) if SM decided out of policy
*not* to issue security updates in a timely manner, that would mark
the
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 08/07/2015 01:08:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that
I'm nearing the point
where I cannot any longer stick with SM.
(snip)
Jonathan N. Little wrote on 08/07/2015 23:32:
Ray_Net wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 08/07/2015 01:08:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that
I'm nearing
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad since I've been with it since Netscape back in, about, 1995.
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:07:19 +0200, Ray_Net
tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote on 07/07/2015 15:48:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:43:58 -0400, Ed Mullen ejemo...@edmullen.net
wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of development of
SM.
Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that I'm nearing
the
point
where I cannot any longer stick with SM.
(snip)
Thoughts?
Why bother
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad since I've been with it since Netscape back in,
Ray_Net wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote on 07/07/2015 15:48:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:43:58 -0400, Ed Mullen ejemo...@edmullen.net
wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of development of
SM. Also,
haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm beginning to feel that I'm nearing
the point
where I cannot any longer stick with SM.
(snip)
Thoughts?
Why bother updating?
Just change your
cmcadams wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Same, but I do manual scans once a week, for form's sake. First and only time I ever
got
got was a Java update that changed its own settings, and I stupidly didn't
check. No more
Java, here.
Yah, I do a full scan once per week
Edmund Wong wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any longer
stick with SM.
Kind of sad since I've been with it
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote on 07/07/2015 15:48:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:43:58 -0400, Ed Mullen ejemo...@edmullen.net
wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing
In news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org,
Paul Bergsagel pbergsa...@shaw.ca wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
schedule would the net benefits be greater than if SeaMonkey
continued with
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Same, but I do manual scans once a week, for form's sake. First and only time I
ever got
got was a Java update that changed its own settings, and I stupidly didn't
check.
No more
Java, here.
Yah, I do
cmcadams wrote:
I keep multiple partition backups on an external disk, and if something happens,
usually because of something I did, I can revert without much angst. Saves
needing to
get fancy. I've never had anything get beyond a boot partition, that I know of.
But
if it did having the
Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Maybe the time has come to reconsider how often SeaMonkey needs to be
updated. Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update schedule
would the net benefits be greater than if SeaMonkey
cmcadams wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Same, but I do manual scans once a week, for form's sake. First and only time I
ever got
got was a Java update that changed its own settings, and I stupidly didn't
check.
No more
Java,
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I keep multiple partition backups on an external disk, and if
something happens,
usually because of something I did, I can revert without much angst.
Saves needing to
get fancy. I've never had anything get beyond a boot partition, that
I know of. But
Ed Mullen wrote:
I've seen several sort of oblique mentions here of the lack of
development of SM. Also, haven't seen an update in a while. So, I'm
beginning to feel that I'm nearing the point where I cannot any
longer stick with SM.
Kind of sad since I've been with it since Netscape back
47 matches
Mail list logo
