Re: New version
Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 03/06/11 10:48, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release Yeah, with IE it's always broke whatever you do, so fixin' it don' make it any better. :-P Best regards, Tony. -- FIGHTING WORDS Say my love is easy had, Say I'm bitten raw with pride, Say I am too often sad -- Still behold me at your side. Say I'm neither brave nor young, Say I woo and coddle care, Say the devil touched my tongue -- Still you have my heart to wear. But say my verses do not scan, And I get me another man! -- Dorothy Parker ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Need recommendations for Search Engines to be featured on Addons.Mozilla.Org (Bug 659088)
Philip Chee wrote: On 03/06/2011 07:12, Gerald Ross wrote: Philip Chee wrote: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659088 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/search-tools/ looks empty because we have no featured search engines set. Someone needs to select those I went through the Sort by rating and sort by Downloads links and came up with a few: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wikilook/ (Extension) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/youtube-10423/ (OpenSearch plugin) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/mycroft-project/ (OpenSearch plugin) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/longman-english-dictionary/ (OpenSearch plugin) Please report any problems with installing/using these addons in SeaMonkey 2.1pre. Also any additional suggestions welcome (must be listed on A.M.O. of course) Phil Ask.com Please provide a link to the A.M.O. hosted Ask.com search engine. Thanks. Phil I'm completely lost. I just know it was available on 2.0.14 and I used it all the time. I upgraded to 2.1 and it is not available. I looked for search engines under the addons.mozilla.org and there are none. How can I give a link to something that is not there? -- Gerald Ross Cochran, GA ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release Where did you get that information? I don't see any faster changes, upgrades, etc. than Firefox. It has been very stable for me, since I started using it again with a SM 2.0.x version. WLS ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Seamonkey hangs under Mac OS X with multiple dialog boxes
Running SeaMonkey 2.0.14 under Mac OS X 10.6.7 If I am in the process of dealing with a dialog box such as the Save box for a download request AND another dialog box pops up then I am unable to continue. Trying to click Cancel or Save/OK/Whatever on either dialog box does not work (i.e. cannot dismiss either dialog box) and the only solution is to switch to another application (like the Finder) and use Force Quit to kill SeaMonkey. -- = Dr. Frank J. Nagy[Applied Scientist] = Fermilab Computing Division/Lab and Scientific Core Services = Service Operations Support Dept/Engineering Support Group = n...@fnal.gov (Alt: f.n...@clear.net) = Web page: http://home.fnal.gov/~nagy/ = Feynman Computing FCC394 630-840-4935 FAX 840-6345 = USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/369 Batavia, IL 60510 = ICBM: 40d 51m 34s N, 88d 12d 29d W, 651 ft ASL + This seat. It warms your ass. Wonderful. -- Dr. Bishop ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Need recommendations for Search Engines to be featured on Addons.Mozilla.Org (Bug 659088)
Gerald Ross schrieb: I'm completely lost. I just know it was available on 2.0.14 and I used it all the time. I upgraded to 2.1 and it is not available. I looked for search engines under the addons.mozilla.org and there are none. How can I give a link to something that is not there? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/search-tools/?sort=updated has a long list and search field ;-) -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release I have never used IE. Previously I used Thunderbird, which is still set up on my computer as a back up system. I realise that there is no stable release, but if my current version works for me, which it does, where's the problem with staying with it? Neil ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Need recommendations for Search Engines to be featured on Addons.Mozilla.Org (Bug 659088)
Robert Kaiser wrote: Gerald Ross schrieb: I'm completely lost. I just know it was available on 2.0.14 and I used it all the time. I upgraded to 2.1 and it is not available. I looked for search engines under the addons.mozilla.org and there are none. How can I give a link to something that is not there? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/search-tools/?sort=updated has a long list and search field ;-) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/askcom/ -- Gerald Ross Cochran, GA If you don't make the rules, you don't have to keep them. If you do make the rules, you won't ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Neil Winchurst wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release I have never used IE. Previously I used Thunderbird, which is still set up on my computer as a back up system. I realise that there is no stable release, but if my current version works for me, which it does, where's the problem with staying with it? Neil Ray, Your idea of If it ain't broke, don't fix it until it is broke is a good idea. Until it comes to upgrading security problems. IE still has security problems that are years old, but the Mozilla Team (SeaMonkey included) grabs any and all reported security problems and corrects them within a few days, and then issues an update to the current version. Neil, You might elaborate on what you mean by no stable release for SeaMonkey. As far as I know when the SeaMonkey Team releases a version for public release it is a Stable Release. Any versions rleased before the public release are testing release versions and they are not considerred as Stable, but used for testing for bugs. Michael G ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Michael Gordon wrote: Neil, You might elaborate on what you mean by no stable release for SeaMonkey. As far as I know when the SeaMonkey Team releases a version for public release it is a Stable Release. Any versions rleased before the public release are testing release versions and they are not considerred as Stable, but used for testing for bugs. Michael G Perhaps I misunderstood a previous comment in this thread that there is no stable release of SM. I probably was thinking that there seem to be new versions coming out very regularly. There also seem to be some comments about Internet Explorer. I have never used this so Know nothing about it and care less. I know that a new version of SM is due out soon, but as I am happy with my version 2.0.14 I will stay with it for now. I do have Thunderbird installed and kept up to date as a fall back. I have used quite a few email clients over the years and I think SM is one of the best. Neil ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 11-06-03 4:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release IE updates are distributed via Windows Update. And every SeaMonkey version is stable. :-) Your post is a good example of why some developers want to do automatic updates in the background and not market every update with a version number. -- Chris Ilias http://ilias.ca Newsgroup moderator ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Seamonkey hangs under Mac OS X with multiple dialog boxes
Frank J Nagy wrote: Running SeaMonkey 2.0.14 under Mac OS X 10.6.7 If I am in the process of dealing with a dialog box such as the Save box for a download request AND another dialog box pops up then I am unable to continue. Trying to click Cancel or Save/OK/Whatever on either dialog box does not work (i.e. cannot dismiss either dialog box) and the only solution is to switch to another application (like the Finder) and use Force Quit to kill SeaMonkey. ...I've been complaining about this problem since 1.1.17. This, and the seemingly random occurance of asking for the Master Password even though the Pref is set to only ask the first time its needed - the above usually happens to me when an unnecessary Master Password dialog is presented. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Chris Ilias wrote: On 11-06-03 4:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote:.. I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke I suspect we have all felt the same as you do at one time another :-) If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release Actually, I find the seemingly CONSTANT IE upgrades quite annoying, and i am glad that SM deVelopers have chosen the path they have. IE updates are distributed via Windows Update. And every SeaMonkey version is stable. :-) Yes, in the sense that it doesn't crash. But users should realize that the software and hardware environment changes (new Flash, OS security fixes..) frequently, all too frequently, require new versions. Your post is a good example of why some developers want to do automatic updates in the background and not market every update with a version number. Perhaps the top level goals of the ongoing project could be articulated to 'whet the appetite. ? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Tony Mechelynck wrote: On 03/06/11 10:48, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release Yeah, with IE it's always broke whatever you do, so fixin' it don' make it any better. :-P FALSE ! I use IE AND SM - no problem with both except the constant changes with the SM versions. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Chris Ilias wrote: On 11-06-03 4:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release IE updates are distributed via Windows Update. And every SeaMonkey version is stable. :-) Your post is a good example of why some developers want to do automatic updates in the background and not market every update with a version number. I agree ... ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
WLS wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release Where did you get that information? I don't see any faster changes, upgrades, etc. than Firefox. It has been very stable for me, since I started using it again with a SM 2.0.x version. I agre with you ... 2.0.X have a good stability, better than with the 1.x ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Email Filter/Search behavior like Seamonkey 1.x
I've never liked the change in filtering for SM 2.0. Previously when I typed in a name or word in the filter/search field above the mail list, it would only search the sender and subjects of the email. Now the results include the search data from from other area's. Is this something can revert in a preference or about:config? I know I can click the column headers for sorting, but there are more clicks involved getting the view back to normal than I care for every time I want to search for something. -- Mike ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Chris Ilias wrote: On 11-06-03 4:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release IE updates are distributed via Windows Update. And every SeaMonkey version is stable. :-) Your post is a good example of why some developers want to do automatic updates in the background and not market every update with a version number. That thought about doing updates in the Background. Is dangerous. If You are a PC User you may not aware of the Mac scare-ware deal on the internet where some virus developers have found away bypass Apple's security system where you Must provide a User name and password before your allowed to install software. Your going back to the days of turning on a PC and AOL automatically taking over the computer not allowing any other activity while installing software. Your going to allow The bad guess the ability to use techniques used 10 years ago or more to add virus, and malware steal passwords, and such. The Mac OS will end up not allowing SM or FF or TB updates because they are doing not what they are supposed to Bypassing install safeguards. So if they don't want Apple to Ban Mozilla Products they had better not go there. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 03.06.2011 20:08, PhillipJones wrote: --- Original Message --- Chris Ilias wrote: On 11-06-03 4:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release IE updates are distributed via Windows Update. And every SeaMonkey version is stable. :-) Your post is a good example of why some developers want to do automatic updates in the background and not market every update with a version number. That thought about doing updates in the Background. Is dangerous. If You are a PC User you may not aware of the Mac scare-ware deal on the internet where some virus developers have found away bypass Apple's security system where you Must provide a User name and password before your allowed to install software. Your going back to the days of turning on a PC and AOL automatically taking over the computer not allowing any other activity while installing software. Your going to allow The bad guess the ability to use techniques used 10 years ago or more to add virus, and malware steal passwords, and such. The Mac OS will end up not allowing SM or FF or TB updates because they are doing not what they are supposed to Bypassing install safeguards. So if they don't want Apple to Ban Mozilla Products they had better not go there. If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move,ie., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 03.06.2011 20:49, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I can only go by example since Mozilla hasn't enabled this feature yet so there isn't any history yet. However, as long as Microsoft hasn't had any problems with their auto-updates I would have to assume that MS would be a prime target for malware authors to invade. AFAIK there hasn't been any malware attached to MS updates. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Interviewed by CNN on 04/06/2011 00:14, Jay Garcia told the world: On 03.06.2011 20:49, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I can only go by example since Mozilla hasn't enabled this feature yet so there isn't any history yet. However, as long as Microsoft hasn't had any problems with their auto-updates I would have to assume that MS would be a prime target for malware authors to invade. AFAIK there hasn't been any malware attached to MS updates. Actually, Firefox 4 by default auto-updates: when online, it checks periodically with the Mozilla servers if there's a new minor version or a patch. If there is one, it will download it and install on next Firefox restart. It's a complicated equation. Google auto-updates even major versions of Chrome. The downside of it is that yes, you are giving them the privilege to install stuff on your machine. And new major versions might break compatibility with stuff you need -- for instance, I ran into an odd problem with Flash ads that only appeared in IE9 (downgrading to IE8 solved the issue), and Firefox 4 is incompatible with the current version of a (required) plugin used by several Brazilian banks. The upside? Well... Some 10-20% of IE users are still using IE6 -- which is *three* major versions old, and has been superseded by IE7 almost *five years* ago. That's a very long lingering tail of old versions. Even Microsoft is concerned. Things are slightly better on the Mozilla front -- but I still find LOTS of users using FF 3.6.x (and not always the latest update), a fair number using FF 3.5, a few using FF 3.0, and now and then one using FF 2. So, there's quite a bunch of old Mozilla around. Not as much or as old as IE, but still a lot. Meanwhile, most Chrome users are already using Chrome 11. You will still find some with Chrome 10, a few with Chrome 9 but hardly anyone with Chrome 8 -- which was superseded just *four months ago*.(*) So, auto-update does have its points: it turns over users very quickly to the latest version. (*)There's exceptions, of course. The main ones are people who deliberately turned off auto-updates, and people who installed via MSI package instead of using the default Google Update installer. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Constitution Class Starship. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.0.14 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
