On 09/04/2015 01:10, Ronnie wrote: > I didn't pull the modifications out of no where. When investigating > SeaMonkey as a possible replacement for Firefox in our lightweight OS I > read in many different forums, articles and such the most common > complaints of the suite. None of which were so much that SeaMonkey > wasn't a capable browser, most issues were about the relatively dated > look, some common features in firefox that were missing in SeaMonkey and > screenspace was probably the biggest gripe considering all the filemenu, > toolbars and inclusion of the statusbar as well. This is what I based a > majority of the modifications off of, because I wanted it to be > successful in our Distribution. I didn't want people to start it up only > to remove it in a couple minutes and install their regular browsers.
This is great actually. > some common features in firefox that were missing in SeaMonkey Can you list the top five (or more) features missing in SeaMonkey. Not making any promises but if you already have an implementation we could look into adding those into our codebase. Phil -- Philip Chee <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
