
SeaMonkey 2.53.1 - XzetaU8
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/
======
whalesalad
> Web-browser, advanced e-mail, newsgroup and feed client, IRC chat, and HTML
> editing made simple—all your Internet needs in one application.

emacs on xul

In all seriousness though I have a hard time imagining why anyone would want
this ... both from a developer standpoint and a user standpoint. The recent
change history is a bunch of "most of ABC other Mozilla product's code has
been pulled in for X.Y.Z version, go read those notes to see what is new" and
describes cherry-picking bugfixes from arbitrary versions of Firefox (60, 72,
...?)

Sounds like an absolute maintenance nightmare (or perhaps a labor of
masochistic love, depending on how you look at it) of constantly cherry
picking other upstream stuff into one single app for what looks like a
relatively small gain. If you had no choice (ie, what linux distribution
maintainers spend a lot of time on) sure, go for it, but I can use Firefox,
Thunderbird, etc... as standalone apps and still have them connected using my
local OS and regular old open web technologies.

------
untog
> The current Mozilla Gecko codebase has seen a flow of constant major changes
> and api removals in the last 2 years and is no longer really usable for our
> needs. By the end of the year the SeaMonkey project is expected to be
> completely independent of Mozilla

Wow, that’s... something. Keeping a browser engine of that size maintained
independently is going to be quite a task.

~~~
TingPing
It's simply not possible without a large well funded team.

~~~
rubidium
I really don’t understand this. All my current browsers don’t need more
features. They didnt 5 years ago either.

~~~
untog
There are security updates, for one.

Plus there are a bunch of CSS improvements and the like in the last five
years. If you don’t keep up with the competition your users are going to see
broken sites eventually.

------
smhenderson
Always glad to see interest in SeaMonkey spread! I am writing this from an
instance installed on Slackware. I use it as my daily driver at work,
switching to Firefox occasionally when I need to sync with things I do on
other machines.

I don't really use it often but I love that it still comes with Composer for
WYSIWYG html. It's been a while but when I used it a lot about 5-7 years ago
it wrote really clean, standard compliant html which made it great for quickly
prototyping look and feel before diving into writing any code for new
pages/sites.

Having used the stock Slackware version, which is usually just a bit behind,
I'm excited to see what " _our biggest release in a few years and incorporates
many changes and fixes from the underlying platform code_ " looks like!

~~~
wott
> I don't really use it often but I love that it still comes with Composer for
> WYSIWYG html.

I tried it for the first time a few weeks ago (I never do web/HTML stuff).
Seamonkey Composer crashed when I tried inserting a <video> element.

> Having used the stock Slackware version, which is usually just a bit behind,
> I'm excited to see what "our biggest release in a few years and incorporates
> many changes and fixes from the underlying platform code" looks like!

According to the release notes ([http://www.seamonkey-
project.org/releases/seamonkey2.53.1/](http://www.seamonkey-
project.org/releases/seamonkey2.53.1/)) it is mainly features removal and
breakage :-/ The least one can cay is that they are not chatty about the
positive changes and features those underlying changes may have brought.

~~~
smhenderson
Yeah, I went and read some stuff on Wikipedia about it after posting.
Apparently Composer is considered unsupported now and only gets occasional
updates because it's used as the underlying html editor in Mail.

And yes, I was mildly disappointed when I downloaded and ran this as I saw no
real visual difference or changes to the UI and preferences.

So I guess Composer is not much of an option for "real" work these days. Still
cool to see an alternative browser out there that's at least mostly capable of
handling the "modern" web...

------
unicornporn
Just installed. _Looks_ like it's still in the xul/xpi era. Was hoping that
this could be reasonably secure alternative to Waterfox and that I'd be able
to install xul/xpi extensions. Seems not.

EDIT: I was able to convert xul/xpi addons with:
[https://addonconverter.fotokraina.com/](https://addonconverter.fotokraina.com/)
which is quite awesome. Info here:
[http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2834855](http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2834855)

~~~
smacktoward
_> Was hoping that this could be reasonably secure... and that I'd be able to
install xul/xpi extensions._

These two objectives pull in opposite directions. The more you get of one, the
less you're going to get of the other.

~~~
unicornporn
Care to elaborate? I still mourn the death of XUL. The extensions that really
meant something are now gone or available in versions that are much worse than
their predecessors.

~~~
danudey
Here's a random writeup I found after some googling. I'm pretty sure that I've
recently read a better description of how and why they removed XUL, but I
can't find any specific overviews that seem better than this one:

[https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-browser-
architecture/blob...](https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-browser-
architecture/blob/0b353dfe69765d8357079f6f4f9425e4c03e4b7f/text/0003-problems-
with-xul.md)

The short version is that XUL is a mozilla-specific implementation of
functionality that can be accomplished with standard html5/CSS/etc., and thus
using specifically XUL to handle the UI is inefficient from a developer
standpoint, which can also introduce bugs, etc. as developers are forced to
work on/use a technology with which they're not familiar.

XUL is being replaced with (was replaced with?) the standard HTML5 engine,
which is continually being improved, updated, secured, optimized, etc. IIRC,
there's no reason that an extension couldn't do what it did in XUL, so the
likelihood is that the lack of those extensions isn't directly related to
Mozilla removing XUL, but rather extension developers re-implementing their
extensions in HTML5 for Chrome, which is a vastly more common platform for
browser extensions in my experience, instead of re-implementing their
extensions in HTML5 for Firefox.

~~~
WorldMaker
> IIRC, there's no reason that an extension couldn't do what it did in XUL

XUL extensions were given full access to the XUL DOM for the entire browser,
whereas WebExtensions are limited in their sandbox to known extension points
rather than having full HTML DOM access to the entire browser.

Also, while WebExtensions still have access to messaging channels to
websites/native code/outside applications, it is indirect (and
permissions/sandbox mediated). XUL extensions' XPCOM (like Microsoft's COM)
gave a much direct path both in to the HTML DOM of individual websites and
outward for native platform code to be written in languages like C/C++.

(All of the above of which include additional reasons why XUL/XPCOM may be
security liabilities if your goal is a secure browser: free reign of the
browser DOM, website DOM, and easier access to native code.)

------
themodelplumber
Wait, so SeaMonkey has a mail client that's based on Thunderbird but not
Thunderbird?

~~~
palant
It's complicated. Initially there was Mozilla Suite. Mozilla Suite consisted
of a browser, a mail and an IRC client. Then Firefox came out as a simpler
browser, without all that unnecessary stuff. And the mail component from
Mozilla Suite became Thunderbird. But the Mozilla community liked the old
Mozilla Suite, so they kept developing it after Mozilla gave up on it, under
the name SeaMonkey. So today SeaMonkey Mail and Thunderbird still share lots
of code, but technically speaking they aren't the same thing.

~~~
smacktoward
Nitpick: initially there was Netscape Communicator/Netscape 4
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communicator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communicator)),
which got open-sourced as Mozilla Suite when Netscape went out of business.

(Confusingly, there were many more versions of Netscape after 4, but Mozilla
Suite didn't really derive from them. Netscape 6 and 7 were just contemporary
versions of Mozilla Suite with some Netscape badging slapped on. Netscape 8
was based on early versions of Firefox, dropped the other non-browser "suite"
components, and was only released for Windows. Netscape 9 was also a browser-
only thing, but went back to being cross-platform.)

~~~
nineteen999
> but Mozilla Suite didn't really derive from them

I think it would be just slightly more accurate to say, that it didn't derive
from them at all, as the original Netscape codebase was scrapped.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application_Suite#Rewriting_from_scratch)

------
kdtsh
I’ve never been a SeaMonkey user but I’ve always been impressed that it’s
still being developed and used, it’s really cool in a time when we’re moving
to a new age of browser engine monoculture.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22085934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22085934)

~~~
XzetaU8
The previous discussion was for the beta release, this one is the final
release.

~~~
dang
Yup, got it. But from a internet forum perspective, it's going to be the same
discussion. Submissions about incremental releases almost always turn out to
be generic discussions about the project in general. Certainly the distinction
between a beta and a final release doesn't show up as significant in threads,
though of course it's quite significant from the project's point of view.

------
LeoPanthera
I wonder how difficult it would be to compile this for Classic MacOS, given
the abandonment of Classilla.

------
antiquark
Windows Defender doesn't like it:

Trojan:Win32/Detplock

Alert level: Severe

Status: Active

Category: Trojan

Details: This program is dangerous and executes commands from an attacker.

~~~
findthewords
The 64-bit installer passes.

------
jakearmitage
Oh, man. This is so good.

------
m4r35n357
Navigator rools!

------
Bambo
My windows defender indicates this has malware in the download.

~~~
michaelmrose
So your malware guard by a giant known corrupt company indicates that you
shouldn't install the competition. That's ... interesting.

~~~
babypuncher
No need for the tinfoil hats, it's probably an unintentional false positive.

