On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:51:23 +1000, Daniel <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>Why should SeaMonkey developers provide an easy means of using another
>program to do what SM can do?? If somebody wants a "Browser Only"
>application, why not use a "Browser Only" application in the first place??
Because afaik Seamonkey was simply a continuation of a tradition that began with
Mozilla and then Netscape. Netscape also offered an email client that could be
used or not, as the user wished. This same philosophy of 'choice' has continued
right up to today with the current version (v1.18) of Seamonkey.
As an open source initiative I would wonder why anyone would want to remove
choices and force an 'all or nothing' approach? That's more typical of companies
like A$$ple, Micro$$oft and Ado$$e who use that to lock users into using only
their product and make themselves wealthier as a result. It would be sad if the
final release of SM 2.0 did not offer the same tradition of choice as in the
And there are many users like myself who simply do NOT like the look and feel of
Firefox. Perhaps it's the interests of the Firefox developers that's behind this
move? Not permitting Seamonkey to work without hijacking the system email will
certainly reduce its user base (I would leave as will many others I know) and
drive Seamonkey even more quickly into oblivion. That would be a shame.
support-seamonkey mailing list