On 12/20/2008 01:04 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Hi all,
> 7 weeks ago, I started a thread on long-term SeaMonkey project goals on 
> the mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey newsgroup, trying to gather opinions from 
> the community on a vision for future of the project surrounding the 
> long-standing Internet suite from the Mozilla community.

Actually I think that the followup should be set to here rather than the
dev group... Afterall, this is the *community* not
So I've set this reply to mozilla.support.seamonkey accordingly.

> The thread spanned 202 posts, below you find a collection of snippets 
> from 18 of those, written by Ed Mullen, David E. Ross, Simon Paquet, 
> Tony Mechelynck, Georg Maaß, Sledge Hammer, Robert Kaiser, Michael 
> Ströder, Jens Hatlak, Karsten Düsterloh, Evan Davidson, Dominique, 
> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk and Stanimir Stamenkov (ordered by the 
> timestamp of the first post of each person that I took any snippet from).
> The excerpts below are intentionally not annotated, I want to have them 
> as a base for further work on a "final" vision without being biased by 
> who wrote any of this.

I primarily killed/ignored that thread on dev becuase: 1) it was on dev
rather than on mozilla.support.seamonkey where the 'users' actually are,
2) the post/request seemed to rapidly degrade into emotional posts
rather than logical posts & seemed to be a 'tilt at windmills' subject
to begin with. So, I'll sumarize my thoughts about SeaMonkey here.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Integration
> Multiplicity of application
> Availability of user configuration
> Customization

None of the above is new/important as those have always been the path of
SeaMonkey. They are IMO SeaMonkey so why try to define them?

What I wish to see in SeaMonkey 2.x and beyond is:

A solid, well produced, and fully supported integrated (meaning that I
can install it on multiple OSs with certainty) application that can be
used in commercial environments. Screw the old 'Netscape this, SeaMonkey
that' individual user (of which I am one); give me an application that I
can take into a commercial environment, be it a mom & pop shop, or an
Oracle, and install with both pride and knowledge that it will just
work, and be supported properly.

Both Thunderbird and Firefox are approaching that status, but they still
have away to go before they will become commercial standards - marketing
& $$ are probably the biggest issues. That and the fact that their $$
benefactor (Google) has decided to launch their own competing Chrome
  However, if I introduce 'SeaMonkey' to a new client, their first
reaction is: "Say what? What the hell is a 'SeaMonkey'?" and why should
I even consider it?
  Once I do install SeaMonkey (same for non-commercial users) they tend
to like it and use it consistently over Thunderbird & Firefox. It's just
'easier' to launch from a single icon and have both email and browser
open. Now of course if you and the 'devs' pay attention to the ability
of allowing '-email -browser' launch commands in SM 2.x and fix the mail
notification and multiple password issues you might have a 'reasonable'
SM 2.x.

Point being is that all of the 'can we do this, we should do this with
SM 2.x' ignores ever having SM accepted as an standard application in at
*commercial* enviroment. Until SM does this (1.x, 2.x, 3.x) does this,
SeaMonkey is simply yet another email/browser/whatever alternative. I'll
forgo in any future commercial installations of SeaMonkey until/unles SM
addresses this issue.

Sorry, but I've resorted to installing TB & Fx into commercial sites;
give me a SM that I can install in those sites instead!

support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to