Re: SM 2 instead of 1.x

[Benoit Renard]

INFO WG wrote:

Sadly, another reason all efforts should have been long ago placed on
SM 2.


1) You're assuming that effort on SeaMonkey 1.1.x releases takes away 
from efforts on SeaMonkey 2.0.


2) You really want SeaMonkey 1.1.x to not get security releases, leaving 
us without a stable, up-to-date SeaMonkey? This is madness.



Frankly, experience like that has shown the futility of beating an older
software horse when it was almost folly to get involved with it


What a load of crock. When SeaMonkey 1.1.x came out, there was nothing 
better.



especially as more modern code and people (staff) were available.


Excuse me?! The SeaMonkey project consists entirely of volunteers, and 
those haven't changed. Many people who work on Firefox are being /paid/ 
to do so. No such thing with SeaMonkey.



I think my efforts here in SM land were more to start pointing out the
futility of engaging SM 1.x when SM 2 code was already past being on the
drawing board, and that I felt and still do that SM 2 only would have
been the far more prudent course.


Efforts? Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. Your ignorant 
complaints bring nothing to the project.


Again, patches welcome.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM 2 instead of 1.x

[INFO WG]

In response to Robert Kaiser's:

From: Robert Kaiser 
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:35:44 +0100  >>

Robert Kaiser (RK) wrote:

> Is the above the ravings of a madman or one who is not in the know?

RK: Not a madman, but someone who doesn't have a good view into how we 
actually are spending our time on, where we spend what amount of time, 
and how much work the replacement of the whole platform SeaMonkey is 
built upon really requires.>>

Sadly, another reason all efforts should have been long ago placed on SM 2.


RK: << I fully understand that things might look the way you are talking from 
the outside. >>

Having been in the technology and computer industry since 1970 (egad, the DEC 
and others!), I am all too aware of hardware and software alpha and Beta 
testing, technical groups and management, et al.  Frankly, experience like that 
has shown the futility of beating an older software horse when it was almost 
folly to get involved with it, especially as more modern code and people 
(staff) were available.

 
RK: << That said, the final SeaMonkey 2.0 is planned for the second quarter of 
2009, and we are working as much on it as we can.>>

Clearly understood, and believe me when I say that I truly understand, more 
from being on the inside for years, and now from being more on the outside too. 
 It's not easy, agreed, nothing of value, and SM IS very much a positive value, 
IMHO, cones easy or fast.


RK: << Remember that the whole SeaMonkey development team consists of 
volunteers though, who work on this project exclusively in their free time. >>

Agreed and so noted, as I too have been involved on OpenSource testing, UI and 
commentary, even from an "outsider" perch, especially the OpenOffice series 
from 1.x to 2.x and now the 3.01 OpenOffice.

I think my efforts here in SM land were more to start pointing out the futility 
of engaging SM 1.x when SM 2 code was already past being on the drawing board, 
and that I felt and still do that SM 2 only would have been the far more 
prudent course.

But SM 2 is already here, and the SM 2 Alpha and Pre looks and looked superb.
 

We all stand ready to do whatever we can to assist in the final SeaMonkey 2.0.

Joe
WindowGroup
Knoxville, TN
USA
USA

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey