Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
But related not to Java-script.
A quick Google search suggests otherwise:
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
But related not to Java-script.
A quick Google search suggests otherwise:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
But related not to Java-script.
A quick Google search suggests otherwise:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Isn't there an early build out there that supports Gecko 1.9.1.x but
still has the SeaMonkey 1.1.x UI ?
And btw, now that wqe have a newer release, 1.1.18 is badly insecure,
80% of all security holes fixed in Gecko 1.9.1.1 to 1.9.1.4 do exist
in SeaMonkey
On Oct 28, 4:26 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
I've used Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey 1.x for awhile and never once had a
security problem so I'm really not concerned about this.
I've never seen that volcano spit fire, so it surely must be perfectly
safe to wander its
Benoit Renard wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Isn't there an early build out there that supports Gecko 1.9.1.x but
still has the SeaMonkey 1.1.x UI ?
And btw, now that wqe have a newer release, 1.1.18 is badly insecure,
80% of all security holes fixed in Gecko 1.9.1.1 to 1.9.1.4
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
They make Java work in Sandbox (whatever that is). Why can't Java-script.
Look up what a sandbox in the context of computers is first so you know
what you're talking about.
I sort of know what it is I am just not a developer and technically
versed
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
But related not to Java-script.
A quick Google search
Phillip Jones wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
They make Java work in Sandbox (whatever that is). Why can't
Java-script.
Look up what a sandbox in the context of computers is first so you know
what you're talking about.
I sort of know what it is I am just not a developer
Benoit Renard wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Isn't there an early build out there that supports Gecko 1.9.1.x but
still has the SeaMonkey 1.1.x UI ?
And btw, now that wqe have a newer release, 1.1.18 is badly insecure,
80% of all security holes fixed in Gecko 1.9.1.1 to 1.9.1.4
Interviewed by CNN on 29/10/2009 13:01, asmpgmr told the world:
On Oct 28, 4:26 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Feel free to try building this version, I'll try to continue our project
meanwhile, OK?
Clearly you couldn't care less what anyone else thinks if they don't
agree with
Robert Kaiser ha scritto:
asmpgmr wrote:
Well the tiny round buttons aren't good. I've never seen any app have
buttons like that, it needs normal buttons. Also what do you perceive
as wrong with the 1.x design ? It looks perfectly fine to me. People
who don't like dialogs can use the download
NoOp wrote:
On 10/29/2009 05:25 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
But related not to Java-script.
A quick
On 10/29/2009 06:02 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 10/29/2009 05:25 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users.
Then it's good that SeaMonkey is being developed by users.
Classifying people who code as users, just because they do use the code
they write is avoiding the issue, don't
asmpgmr wrote:
Isn't there an early build out there that supports Gecko 1.9.1.x but
still has the SeaMonkey 1.1.x UI ?
Not one that is nearly secure. And btw, now that wqe have a newer
release, 1.1.18 is badly insecure, 80% of all security holes fixed in
Gecko 1.9.1.1 to 1.9.1.4 do exist in
On Oct 28, 5:31 am, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Isn't there an early build out there that supports Gecko 1.9.1.x but
still has the SeaMonkey 1.1.x UI ?
Not one that is nearly secure. And btw, now that we have a newer
release, 1.1.18 is badly insecure, 80% of all
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 10/27/09 06:21 pm, Phillip Jones wrote:
Active-X will never, ever be safe. Java-script could be is some would
take the time. They make Java work in Sandbox (whatever that is). Why
can't Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:31 am, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Isn't there an early build out there that supports Gecko 1.9.1.x but
still has the SeaMonkey 1.1.x UI ?
Not one that is nearly secure. And btw, now that we have a newer
release, 1.1.18 is badly insecure,
asmpgmr wrote:
I've used Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey 1.x for awhile and never once had a
security problem so I'm really not concerned about this.
I've never seen that volcano spit fire, so it surely must be perfectly
safe to wander its crater any day in the future as well, right?
And we never
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:26:13 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
And nobody ever came up with the idea to fly a passenger jet into a
skyscraper, so you surely wouldn't ever be concerned about that, right?
Actually Tom Clancy came up with exactly that idea in one of his novels
but (at that time) all
On 10/28/09 10:26 am, Phillip Jones wrote:
Java-script. Must not be too dangerous Adobe acrobat uses it
extensively.
Acrobat also has a lot of security exploits (!).
But related not to Java-script.
A quick Google search suggests otherwise:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Daniel wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has
had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast
Bill Davidsen wrote:
mailing links to pages which have the js doesn't make thing more secure,
just less convenient.
It does make it more secure. With no JavaScript in the e-mail message,
you can't get exposed to the JavaScript just by opening the message. You
have to choose to visit the
asmpgmr wrote:
Perhaps someone will take an old pre-alpha 1 build of SeaMonkey 2.0 which
supported early Gecko 1.9.1 before any of these UI changes were added, drop in
the current version of Gecko 1.9.1 and release that as a user-supported custom
build, a sort of SeaMonkey 1.5.
If you're
On Oct 27, 5:36 am, Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Perhaps someone will take an old pre-alpha 1 build of SeaMonkey 2.0 which
supported early Gecko 1.9.1 before any of these UI changes were added, drop
in the current version of Gecko 1.9.1 and release that as a user-supported
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Hell, that was a joke! Am I the only person in the world who uses some
humor in blog posts now and then?
It would seem that you poorly communicated that it was a joke, as
asmpgmr isn't the only one who thought you were being serious.
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:01 +0100, /Benoit Renard/:
Plus, with tabs, I can rearrange them with dragdrop. Something that
Windows couldn't do with its taskbar until Windows 7!
For this I'm using Taskbar Shuffle http://www.freewebs.com/nerdcave/ -
very handy.
Holy
Daniel wrote:
I don't know about this Dead Link feature being in Communicator, but
maybe it was. I've used AM-Deadlink for the last ten years or so, and,
as far as I can see, there would only be a link to a Spammer page in my
address book if I put it there.
So AM-Deadlink (or the
Benoit Renard wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Hell, that was a joke! Am I the only person in the world who uses some
humor in blog posts now and then?
It would seem that you poorly communicated that it was a joke, as
asmpgmr isn't the only one who thought you were being serious.
Two things:
The question still remains: are users who like the way things work in
SeaMonkey 1.x in the target audience for SeaMonkey 2.0 ?
As it stands I'm going to stick with SeaMonkey 1.1.x, for me there are
several show stoppers in SeaMonkey 2.0: awfulbar, extremely intrusive
infobars, bad password
asmpgmr wrote:
The question still remains: are users who like the way things work in
SeaMonkey 1.x in the target audience for SeaMonkey 2.0 ?
As it stands I'm going to stick with SeaMonkey 1.1.x, for me there are
several show stoppers in SeaMonkey 2.0: awfulbar, extremely intrusive
infobars,
Ray_Net wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
And if I were to use Thunderbird I actually like Postbox better
because the last one I downloaded still allowed javascript in email.
You do realise that JavaScript in mail is a big security risk, right?
It
Daniel wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
For example I've always thought Tabs was not what most users wanted,
because it was a gee-whiz-bang feature that was in IE. we had to have
it.
You're wrong.
OR, how about killing javascript, in Thunderbird.
Security risk, as
Daniel wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Daniel wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast majority of users love tabs,
Phillip Jones wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Daniel wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
/snip/
So did you just forget to re-set your header info last time??? (Now it
is correctly showing you are using a Mac!)
Daniel
???
I don't even
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 25, 4:52 pm, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Now I realize this is subjective and that you think progress dialogs
are soo backwards, only really old software uses such a thing.
That's not what I think but you seem to be so
Benoit Renard wrote:
Daniel wrote:
I don't know about this Dead Link feature being in Communicator, but
maybe it was. I've used AM-Deadlink for the last ten years or so, and,
as far as I can see, there would only be a link to a Spammer page in
my address book if I put it there.
So
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users.
Then it's good that SeaMonkey is being developed by users.
Classifying people who code as users, just because they do use the code they
write is avoiding the issue, don't you think. And the set
Phillip Jones wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think
they no more how a program should look like than the users that have
to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or something? I am a
On 10/26/09 11:56, Phillip Jones wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
And if I were to use Thunderbird I actually like Postbox better
because the last one I downloaded still allowed javascript in email.
You do realise that JavaScript in mail
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think
they no more how a program should look like than the users that
have to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or
On 10/26/09 14:26, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think they
no more how a program should look like than the users that have to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or
Phillip Jones wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think
they no more how a program should look like than the users that
have to use it.
Good God, have you
Phillip Jones wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users.
Then it's good that SeaMonkey is being developed by users.
Or did you complain that different users have different opinions about
what they want?
Robert Kaiser
Its
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast majority of users love tabs, please accept that while you
might be one of our
asmpgmr wrote:
Granted but why do things like change the download progress dialog UI
to be less usable because you don't like dialogs (Your words:
Download progress dialogs ? Eww!). There really is no reason why
this can't look more or less the same as SeaMonkey 1.x
If you love ugly, then you
Leonidas Jones wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think
they no more how a program should look like than the users that have
to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or
Daniel wrote:
---snip---
Phillip, if you painted your house Green, because you liked Green, would
it matter to you if someone suggested you should have painted it Blue??
Or even a slightly different shade of Green??
The Guys that are doing the development are
Daniel wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast majority of users love tabs, please accept that while you
might
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Granted but why do things like change the download progress dialog UI
to be less usable because you don't like dialogs (Your words:
Download progress dialogs ? Eww!). There really is no reason why
this can't look more or less the same as SeaMonkey 1.x
If
Phillip Jones wrote:
Tabs waste resources. Each page in a tab as cache and use memory to
store. While I have 2 GB Memory in current Laptop with today's web
pages that can be easily filled up is I have a bunch of Tabs open.
What are you talking about? I only have 160 MB of RAM, and I can easily
Phillip Jones wrote:
And if I were to use Thunderbird I actually like Postbox better because
the last one I downloaded still allowed javascript in email.
You do realise that JavaScript in mail is a big security risk, right? It
doesn't have a place in e-mail messages in the first place. It's a
Robert Kaiser wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
If I remember correctly, Maxthon was first with tabs, but that was a
shell for IE. Opera was the first web browser to be shipped with tabs
asmpgmr wrote:
I don't like tabs either and see them as a pointless waste of screen
space when the OS already has window management and its own taskbar
which can be hidden
The taskbar becomes less efficient the more buttons it has. Having tabs
means that your taskbar is not cluttered with
Phillip Jones wrote:
For example I've always thought Tabs was not what most users wanted,
because it was a gee-whiz-bang feature that was in IE. we had to have it.
You're wrong.
OR, how about killing javascript, in Thunderbird.
Security risk, as pointed out above.
There was a Feature in
asmpgmr wrote:
Granted but why do things like change the download progress dialog UI to be
less usable
As with the loss of the About dialog, this was fallout from the
conversion from XPFE to Toolkit, which (surprise) has no progress
dialogs either, so from my point of view you should be
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has
had them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast majority of users love tabs, please accept that while
you might be one of our
Phillip Jones wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Granted but why do things like change the download progress
dialog UI to be less usable because you don't like dialogs (Your
words: Download progress dialogs ? Eww!). There really is no
reason why this can't look more or less the same
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:01 +0100, /Benoit Renard/:
Plus, with tabs, I can rearrange them with dragdrop. Something that
Windows couldn't do with its taskbar until Windows 7!
For this I'm using Taskbar Shuffle
http://www.freewebs.com/nerdcave/ - very handy.
--
Stanimir
On Oct 25, 8:14 am, Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Granted but why do things like change the download progress dialog UI to be
less usable
As with the loss of the About dialog, this was fallout from the
conversion from XPFE to Toolkit, which (surprise) has no progress
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I think it's dysfunctional to have a download process complete silently
without telling me it succeeded, or worse yet, stall silently without
telling me there's a problem. I don't know when I can go open the file,
or if it's even there.
I agree that the new design has
On Oct 25, 10:02 am, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I think it's dysfunctional to have a download process complete silently
without telling me it succeeded, or worse yet, stall silently without
telling me there's a problem. I don't know when I can go open the
asmpgmr wrote:
Well the tiny round buttons aren't good. I've never seen any app have
buttons like that, it needs normal buttons. Also what do you perceive
as wrong with the 1.x design ? It looks perfectly fine to me. People
who don't like dialogs can use the download manager and that's great,
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Well the tiny round buttons aren't good. I've never seen any app have
buttons like that, it needs normal buttons. Also what do you perceive
as wrong with the 1.x design ? It looks perfectly fine to me. People
who don't like dialogs can use the download
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Tabs waste resources. Each page in a tab as cache and use memory to
store. While I have 2 GB Memory in current Laptop with today's web
pages that can be easily filled up is I have a bunch of Tabs open.
What are you talking about? I only have 160 MB of
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
And if I were to use Thunderbird I actually like Postbox better
because the last one I downloaded still allowed javascript in email.
You do realise that JavaScript in mail is a big security risk, right? It
doesn't have a place in e-mail messages in
Benoit Renard wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
I don't like tabs either and see them as a pointless waste of screen
space when the OS already has window management and its own taskbar
which can be hidden
The taskbar becomes less efficient the more buttons it has. Having tabs
means that your taskbar is
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:02 am, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I think it's dysfunctional to have a download process complete silently
without telling me it succeeded, or worse yet, stall silently without
telling me there's a problem. I don't know when I can
On Oct 25, 10:37 am, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Well the tiny round buttons aren't good. I've never seen any app have
buttons like that, it needs normal buttons. Also what do you perceive
as wrong with the 1.x design ? It looks perfectly fine to me. People
who
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Well the tiny round buttons aren't good. I've never seen any app have
buttons like that, it needs normal buttons. Also what do you perceive
as wrong with the 1.x design ? It looks perfectly fine to me. People
who don't like dialogs can use the download
Phillip Jones escribió:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Granted but why do things like change the download progress dialog UI
to be less usable because you don't like dialogs (Your words:
Download progress dialogs ? Eww!). There really is no reason why
this can't look more or less the
Paul B. Gallagher wrote
I think it's dysfunctional to have a download process complete silently
without telling me it succeeded, or worse yet, stall silently without
telling me there's a problem. I don't know when I can go open the file,
or if it's even there.
I think neither the Download
Phillip Jones wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
And if I were to use Thunderbird I actually like Postbox better
because the last one I downloaded still allowed javascript in email.
You do realise that JavaScript in mail is a big security risk, right?
It doesn't have a place
Phillip Jones wrote:
Daniel wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast majority of users love tabs, please accept
Benoit Renard wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
For example I've always thought Tabs was not what most users wanted,
because it was a gee-whiz-bang feature that was in IE. we had to have it.
You're wrong.
OR, how about killing javascript, in Thunderbird.
Security risk, as pointed out above.
asmpgmr wrote:
Now I realize this is subjective and that you think progress dialogs
are soo backwards, only really old software uses such a thing.
That's not what I think but you seem to be so convinced that I do that
you ignore anything I'm saying anyhow, it seems.
Robert Kaiser
On Oct 25, 4:52 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Now I realize this is subjective and that you think progress dialogs
are soo backwards, only really old software uses such a thing.
That's not what I think but you seem to be so convinced that I do that
you ignore
Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users.
Then it's good that SeaMonkey is being developed by users.
Or did you complain that different users have different opinions about
what they want?
Robert Kaiser
___
asmpgmr wrote:
- download progress dialog was apparently intentionally hobbled (and a
patch to improve it rejected)
To be fair, it was rejected based on review criteria instead of
developer opinion. Neil (who reviewed my patch) doesn't like the new
download progress dialog either.
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users.
Then it's good that SeaMonkey is being developed by users.
Or did you complain that different users have different opinions about
what they want?
Robert Kaiser
Its being being developed by
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think they
no more how a program should look like than the users that have to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or something? I am a developer and I
certainly do listen to what end
With patience akin to a cat's, Neil, on 10/23/2009 12:43 PM typed:
D. K. Kraft wrote:
In SM 1.1.x, there was a non-UI pref to have about:SeaMonkey display
in a modal window (IMO, *not* stupid, but useful; YMMV):
browser.show_about_as_stupid_modal_window. This pref is no longer
functioning in
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think they
no more how a program should look like than the users that have to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or something? I am a developer and I
certainly do
Neil wrote:
D. K. Kraft wrote:
If SM 2 is using Toolkit, why would it be so difficult to port FF's
about modal window to SM 2?
Sorry, but I can't really answer this because I've never seen FF's about
dialog, but at the time we were preparing to make the switchover from
XPFE to toolkit and
Phillip Jones wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think
they no more how a program should look like than the users that have
to use it.
Good God, have you a bone to pick or something? I am a developer
Phillip Jones wrote:
For example I've always thought Tabs was not what most users wanted,
because it was a gee-whiz-bang feature that was in IE. we had to have it.
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser,
On Oct 24, 5:40 pm, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
1) Tabs were not in IE until very recently (IE7) while Mozilla has had
them for ages (Opera was the first tabbed browser, though).
2) The vast majority of users love tabs, please accept that while you
might be one of our users, you are
On a previous occasion I did ask, but I got the impression from the
negative reactions that even if I wrote a patch, it would be
unceremoniously turned down.
Therein lies the problem. There seems to be somewhat of a lack of
regard for user choice on the part of the developers for things they
Robert Kaiser wrote:
asmpgmr wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the problem that some of the developers have
with modal dialogs anyway ?
They get in our way even in cases when you don't need them.
To expand on that somewhat short statement: I think the most prominent
case is a modal dialog
D. K. Kraft wrote:
In SM 1.1.x, there was a non-UI pref to have about:SeaMonkey display
in a modal window (IMO, *not* stupid, but useful; YMMV):
browser.show_about_as_stupid_modal_window. This pref is no longer
functioning in SM 2.
This dialog was provided as part of XPFE. The new toolkit
asmpgmr wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the problem that some of the developers have
with modal dialogs anyway ?
They get in our way even in cases when you don't need them.
To expand on that somewhat short statement: I think the most prominent
case is a modal dialog that is triggered
asmpgmr schrieb:
To expand on that somewhat short statement: I think the most prominent
case is a modal dialog that is triggered by a page that is loaded in a
background tab or other window.
I've honestly never had that happen. I would think that if you goto a
site which does something
D. K. Kraft schrieb:
Using SM 2.0 RC2 with a migrated profile from 1.1.18, Win XP Pro SP3:
In SM 1.1.x, there was a non-UI pref to have about:SeaMonkey display in a
modal window (IMO, *not* stupid, but useful; YMMV):
browser.show_about_as_stupid_modal_window. This pref is no longer
On 10/22/09 16:50, Martin Freitag wrote:
D. K. Kraft schrieb:
Using SM 2.0 RC2 with a migrated profile from 1.1.18, Win XP Pro SP3:
In SM 1.1.x, there was a non-UI pref to have about:SeaMonkey display in a
modal window (IMO, *not* stupid, but useful; YMMV):
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:20:28 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/22/09 16:50, Martin Freitag wrote:
D. K. Kraft schrieb:
Using SM 2.0 RC2 with a migrated profile from 1.1.18, Win XP Pro SP3:
In SM 1.1.x, there was a non-UI pref to have about:SeaMonkey display in a
modal window (IMO, *not*
On 10/22/09 18:12, Philip Chee wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:20:28 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/22/09 16:50, Martin Freitag wrote:
D. K. Kraft schrieb:
Using SM 2.0 RC2 with a migrated profile from 1.1.18, Win XP Pro SP3:
In SM 1.1.x, there was a non-UI pref to have about:SeaMonkey
97 matches
Mail list logo
