61–70 of 79 posts
I love SeaMonkey, but I do wish it could handle more modern sites, maybe with Goanna?
Doesn’t it use the same engine as modern versions of Firefox?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the same thing dude. This interface is straight outta 2005. Chrome's interface has been being tweaked constantly over the years. It doesn't need an overhaul because it's not 15+ years out of date. But I mean, you do you man. There's nothing wrong with liking retro interfaces. I once tried to do everything to make my computer look like Windows XP just for nostalgia. Regardless, the product has nice features that w…
>Not the same thing dude. This interface is straight outta 2005. Chrome's interface has been being tweaked constantly over the years. It doesn't need an overhaul because it's not 15+ years out of date. You basically repeated my point. Change for change's sake. And it looks similar to 2009 Chrome, so yeah it's quite literally 15 years out of date. >look like it was there when 9/11 happened while everything else looks…
This still has the best SOCKS5 proxy abilities, even over normal Firefox. This browser + "ssh -D" has saved me many times working in highly restrictive networks.
I really like the concept of SeaMonkey, but the project needs some major UI updates and way more love to be relevant today.
Strong agree. Concept sounds great. The UI looks like something out of 2005 and that's just not okay. It simply cannot be relevant while looking like that and updating its UI would not have to cause any loss in functionality. It's honestly a waste of time for devs to be working on something that looks like that, since you're cutting out half your audience.
Why is that not OK? Wouldn't that mean that its UI has avoided the last ~15 years of general decline in structure and usability that we see commonly afflicting "modern" UI designs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I now understand the mentality of a Cybertruck buyer
Lmao. Nice roast but I'm not sure I'd get a Cybertruck even if I could afford one. It's sorta cool in its own way though. I respect the Cybertruck. #CybertrucksDeserveRespect Edit: I mean that it's cool in how it looks but yeah I would never buy Tesla because the products seem unreliable and dangerous as hell
I don't think that's a purely contingent association, either: with software, how the UI looks and how the functionality works are deeply intertwined, and I think there may be a more direct correlation between "modern" software being unreliable, unconfigurable, and insecure, and it having haphazard UI designs that lack underlying organizing principles or adherence to well-established conventions.
So your original complaint seems to imply almost the opposite of what you are saying here -- that superficial aesthetics are more important to you, even to the point where you'd accept poor functionality and user-hostile anti-patterns as a viable tradeoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And failing in weird abd obscure ways if your browser is slightly outside the mainstream. Like if it's SeaMonkey.
I highly doubt that that has anything to do with minification/tree shaking. My guess would be JavaScript feature and API support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn’t it use the same engine as modern versions of Firefox?
No, it's stuck with the engine at Firefox 68 (from 2019) with backported security fixes. A lot of the XUL removal stuff has meant that SeaMonkey basically needs to rewrite their UI to update to current versions
It seems like a lot of Firefox addons are not longer compatible with Seamonkey after Firefox changed their addon functionality and Seamonkey is still using a old Firefox version. The old addon system was more powerful so I guess they kept it also for backwards compatibility of existing addons. But now the new addons won’t work and the old ones are old and probably not longer maintained. Usually all email clients have…
Extensions explicitly designed for the old extension system still work. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy Also works with Pale Moon. There are even special builds of Pale Moon that will run on Windows XP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not the same thing dude. This interface is straight outta 2005. Chrome's interface has been being tweaked constantly over the years. It doesn't need an overhaul because it's not 15+ years out of date. You basically repeated my point. Change for change's sake. And it looks similar to 2009 Chrome, so yeah it's quite literally 15 years out of date. >look like it was there when 9/11 happened while everything else looks…
Nevermind man. Design is supposed to look nice and look like it goes together with the rest of the ecosystem. It is not mutually exclusive with functionality. But you clearly don't care about design that looks good. You are clearly not a design guy. You do not have an eye for design. You do not care about design. As I said, that's fine. It limits the audience of the product but it can be incredibly niche like that if…
You can prefer a style, you can customize it to your liking if themes are available (in this case, they are), but if you just replace the whole UI design field with "design is supposed to look nice", what you get might be an aberration. It might be pleasing to some people (but then still some, I really doubt you can find something that is universally pleasant?), but what good is that without being usable? Or if it makes usage much more difficult?