MozillaZine

The future of Seamonkey?

Discussion of general topics about Seamonkey
pcfan1234
 
Posts: 6
Joined: August 17th, 2017, 7:23 am

Post Posted July 4th, 2018, 1:14 am

I only use Dillo with Lubuntu 18.04 on my Pentium 3 600 Mhz Computer.
SM is better, because it supports JavaScript.

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 501
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 4th, 2018, 6:11 am

Definitely NOT a knock on the great job the developers are doing, but SeaMonkey is such a great package (the whole suite), it just makes no sense that it might somehow be allowed to fritter away.
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20102
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted July 4th, 2018, 5:46 pm

Peter Creasey wrote:... it just makes no sense that it might somehow be allowed to fritter away.

Yet that is precisely what will happen, but then again, I already knew that with 100% certainty over a year ago now.

However, there is a way to safely get another, at an estimate, 4 to 5 years use out of it. Lateral thinking is the salvation here, something that geeks are notoriously poor at.

Certainly it's going to be the route I'll be taking, having confirmed for myself that Firefox 60+ is totally unsuitable for my needs.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

frg
 
Posts: 655
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Post Posted July 5th, 2018, 6:15 am

> Yet that is precisely what will happen, but then again, I already knew that with 100% certainty over a year ago now.

Nothing is 100% certain. If it were just security updates this should be manageable. But web standards evolve and this is where I see the other forks stumble too. Anyway we will shoot for 2.57 and then see what happens afterwards. TB does try to create xul replacements now. If they are successful we could dock here for mail news. Browser is mostly js and css anyway. The end product might shed features but should at least be useable and not looking like a toy browser.

> Certainly it's going to be the route I'll be taking, having confirmed for myself that Firefox 60+ is totally unsuitable for my needs.

Well it gets "better" with the followup releases. You just need to make up a new definition for "better" :)

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 501
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 5th, 2018, 7:09 am

Frank Lion wrote:
Peter Creasey wrote: there is a way to safely get another, at an estimate, 4 to 5 years use out of it. Lateral thinking is the salvation here, something that geeks are notoriously poor at.
Certainly it's going to be the route I'll be taking


Frank, please explain your "lateral thinking" concept for extending the usefulness of SeaMonkey.
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

tonymec

User avatar
 
Posts: 725
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 2:58 am
Location: Ixelles (Brussels Capital Region, Belgium)

Post Posted July 5th, 2018, 7:42 am

"Lateral thinking" means "thinking out of the box".
Best regards,
Tony

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20102
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted July 5th, 2018, 2:27 pm

Peter Creasey wrote:
Frank Lion wrote: there is a way to safely get another, at an estimate, 4 to 5 years use out of it. Lateral thinking is the salvation here, something that geeks are notoriously poor at.
Certainly it's going to be the route I'll be taking


Frank, please explain your "lateral thinking" concept for extending the usefulness of SeaMonkey.

Yeah, sometime I will, probably.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 501
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 5th, 2018, 3:41 pm

tonymec wrote:"Lateral thinking" means "thinking out of the box"


Tony, right...so how does that relate to extending the usability of our great SeaMonkey Suite?
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 501
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 5th, 2018, 3:42 pm

Frank Lion wrote:
Peter Creasey wrote:
Frank Lion wrote: there is a way to safely get another, at an estimate, 4 to 5 years use out of it. Lateral thinking is the salvation here, something that geeks are notoriously poor at.
Certainly it's going to be the route I'll be taking


Frank, please explain your "lateral thinking" concept for extending the usefulness of SeaMonkey.

Yeah, sometime I will, probably.


Frank, good...I hope I get to see it.
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20102
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted July 19th, 2018, 1:19 pm

Peter Creasey wrote:Frank, good...I hope I get to see it.

Hi Pete, I haven't forgotten about this. It's just a time thing, will take a while to write and I've been busy with other stuff.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

Peter Creasey

User avatar
 
Posts: 501
Joined: October 26th, 2007, 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post Posted July 20th, 2018, 6:30 am

Frank, thanks for the update. Your "lateral thinking concept" is still of interest.
. . . . . . . . . . Pete

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20102
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 8:05 am

viewtopic.php?p=14804301#p14804301

...to continue...

I'm going to attempt to keep this short, knowing in advance that I will fail miserably to do that. :)

Preamble - I've tested Firefox 57 - 60 and I've found it no faster than SM. In fact on my older PC it is actually slower. It has no new features that appeal to me and has removed many that did. It is also stuffed with 'telemetry' these days, which is another word for data collection. I am as unpersuaded by Mozilla's claims that this is mainly anonymous as I am by a Peeping Tom perp saying it's OK to spy on women because he doesn't actually know their names! Of less importance, but worth mentioning, is that Mozilla no longer has the Open Source philosophy of, say, Linux, and is actually a profit making operation, with all the pitfalls that inflicts on users. So, all in all, no good for me at all.

Meantime, SM lacks the resources to do anything other than to follow Firefox up this blind ally.

********

Lateral thinking is simply about looking at problems from many directions and asking questions, so we begin.

#1. Why do we upgrade a computer program, in particular, a browser program? -

a. Bug fixes.
b. New features.
c. Web standards compliance.
d. Security fixes.

OK? Well, let's take the general concept of computer programs first. I have around 8 or so graphics programs and none are less than 4 years old and the main one, the one that made 80% of the graphics in my theme stuff is from 2004 ! - must say, I was surprised to find it was quite that old when I checked, but there you go.

What does this tell us? Simply that not only is newer is not always better, but often it's just not better at all. 4 of those graphics programs are commercial software and I could have easily afforded to update each every year, but there was no need.

Turning to browser programs and, in particular, SM - a. and b. above are pretty easy. I'm sure, like all computer programs, SM is stuffed with bugs, but none seem to affect me at all, so I discount that one.

New features? - SM, both browser and email already work as I want, once a couple of extensions and themes have been added. Plus, if I want new features, there are existing pathways to add them. So, I discount that one as well.

c. - web standards compliance is hard to work around, possible, but tricky. That's why I wrote about 5 years future use with SM, as that seems to be how long it is before that side catches up with you.

So, do I have to ever upgrade SM from its 2.49.* series? Well, no, providing I can find an alternative route for d. Security fixes and luckily such a route/s exists.

I started a while back by looking at this lot - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/ ... #firefox60 and all the ones in the versions before that.

I don't pretend to understand much of that, but I can see that JavaScript is often involved and that most are potential threats, not actual ones. More importantly, there are people around who do understand that stuff and I find that in addition to anti-virus software, that there are also anti-exploit, anti-ransomware, etc. programs around that will protect a browser program. My original idea was to use a 'sandbox', but I now feel that approach is no longer necessary.

As for JS - JavaScript, I confess that for 14 years I had that turned on and nothing bad ever happened. I sometimes used YesScript, but that was really to speed up loading on some JS heavy media sites. So, recently, I turned it off - world didn't end and I'm surprised how well many sites work without it. You soon learn which sites need it and when and I just use a simple JS toggle toolbar button to turn it back on, as needed. I rejected other JS methods around, simply because I don't want to waste hours on this that aren't needed (despite what Georgio thinks.)

Although not essential, I don't like Google's anti-phishing/malware stuff being in my browser, simply because I don't trust Google, and even found an extension from BitDefender to do that.

But, the main security protection comes from the 3 small programs I installed that monitor that side.

Perfect solution? Possibly not, but it's a damn sight more perfect than the upgrading alternatives around.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

alexyu
 
Posts: 12
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:07 am

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 11:01 am

Frank Lion wrote:<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=14804301#p14804301">viewtopic.php?p=14804301#p14804301</a><!-- l -->

...to continue...

I'm going to attempt to keep this short, knowing in advance that I will fail miserably to do that. :)

Preamble - I've tested Firefox 57 - 60 and I've found it no faster than SM. In fact on my older PC it is actually slower. It has no new features that appeal to me and has removed many that did. It is also stuffed with 'telemetry' these days, which is another word for data collection. I am as unpersuaded by Mozilla's claims that this is mainly anonymous as I am by a Peeping Tom perp saying it's OK to spy on women because he doesn't actually know their names! Of less importance, but worth mentioning, is that Mozilla no longer has the Open Source philosophy of, say, Linux, and is actually a profit making operation, with all the pitfalls that inflicts on users. So, all in all, no good for me at all.

Meantime, SM lacks the resources to do anything other than to follow Firefox up this blind ally.

********

Lateral thinking is simply about looking at problems from many directions and asking questions, so we begin.

#1. Why do we upgrade a computer program, in particular, a browser program? -

a. Bug fixes.
b. New features.
c. Web standards compliance.
d. Security fixes.

OK? Well, let's take the general concept of computer programs first. I have around 8 or so graphics programs and none are less than 4 years old and the main one, the one that made 80% of the graphics in my theme stuff is from 2004 ! - must say, I was surprised to find it was quite that old when I checked, but there you go.

What does this tell us? Simply that not only is newer is not always better, but often it's just not better at all. 4 of those graphics programs are commercial software and I could have easily afforded to update each every year, but there was no need.

Turning to browser programs and, in particular, SM - a. and b. above are pretty easy. I'm sure, like all computer programs, SM is stuffed with bugs, but none seem to affect me at all, so I discount that one.

New features? - SM, both browser and email already work as I want, once a couple of extensions and themes have been added. Plus, if I want new features, there are existing pathways to add them. So, I discount that one as well.

c. - web standards compliance is hard to work around, possible, but tricky. That's why I wrote about 5 years future use with SM, as that seems to be how long it is before that side catches up with you.

So, do I have to ever upgrade SM from its 2.49.* series? Well, no, providing I can find an alternative route for d. Security fixes and luckily such a route/s exists.

I started a while back by looking at this lot - <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/#firefox60">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/ ... #firefox60</a><!-- m --> and all the ones in the versions before that.

I don't pretend to understand much of that, but I can see that JavaScript is often involved and that most are potential threats, not actual ones. More importantly, there are people around who do understand that stuff and I find that in addition to anti-virus software, that there are also anti-exploit, anti-ransomware, etc. programs around that will protect a browser program. My original idea was to use a 'sandbox', but I now feel that approach is no longer necessary.

As for JS - JavaScript, I confess that for 14 years I had that turned on and nothing bad ever happened. I sometimes used YesScript, but that was really to speed up loading on some JS heavy media sites. So, recently, I turned it off - world didn't end and I'm surprised how well many sites work without it. You soon learn which sites need it and when and I just use a simple JS toggle toolbar button to turn it back on, as needed. I rejected other JS methods around, simply because I don't want to waste hours on this that aren't needed (despite what Georgio thinks.)

Although not essential, I don't like Google's anti-phishing/malware stuff being in my browser, simply because I don't trust Google, and even found an extension from BitDefender to do that.

But, the main security protection comes from the 3 small programs I installed that monitor that side.

Perfect solution? Possibly not, but it's a damn sight more perfect than the upgrading alternatives around.
So, if I understood correctly, you intend to keep on using SM (2.49 and possibly 2.50+) with the current XUL extensions for 5+ years, and expect that your existing 'infrastructure' (AV, AM, etc.) will be enough to keep you going, with 'common sense' personal safety attitude? That's about what I've been thinking, and if you think so, that's encouraging!

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20102
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 12:18 pm

alexyu wrote:So, if I understood correctly, you intend to keep on using SM (2.49 and possibly 2.50+) with the current XUL extensions for 5+ years, and expect that your existing 'infrastructure' (AV, AM, etc.) will be enough to keep you going, with 'common sense' personal safety attitude? That's about what I've been thinking, and if you think so, that's encouraging!

Correct...almost. Except there'll be no 2.50+ option for me. I understand that SM 2.49.* is based off of Firefox 52, which is also an ESR version. This means it would receive similar security fixes that later Firefox versions did, probably right up to 59 or 60. A SM version based off, say, Firefox 55 or 56 is not going to have those, so I figured I might as well make my SM cutoff point with this current version.

Normal AV is not enough on its own, you do need those extra programs as well and I may add even more.

You're right to make the point about 'common sense' personal safety attitude. I don't click any link without already knowing exactly where it's going. If in doubt, then copy the link and use it as a search term and Search - that'll soon tell you.

We hear a lot about browser security, but people are FAR more likely to get compromised on the Email side. Don't trust anything on Email, use Simple Text and don't click any links, even ones in messages from known contacts.

In case it's not obvious, the 'above' are my personal views and intentions on this subject. That doesn't mean other people should do the same. Here endth the token 'disclaimer' bit.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

alexyu
 
Posts: 12
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:07 am

Post Posted July 29th, 2018, 1:59 pm

Frank Lion,
Sorry for copying your whole quote; I posted before editing it down... :-(

Frank Lion wrote:Correct...almost. Except there'll be no 2.50+ option for me. I understand that SM 2.49.* is based off of Firefox 52, which is also an ESR version. This means it would receive similar security fixes that later Firefox versions did, probably right up to 59 or 60. A SM based off, say, Firefox 55 or 56 is not going to have those, so I figured I might as well make my SM cutoff point with this current version.


I'm not too clear on all the relationships of SM/FF/FFESR versions, but using the same way of thinking, I intend to use the 52.9 ESR FF for those '5+ years life-extension', since that should have security updates up to FF 61 (If I understood right); I had imagined that SM 50+ might still be based on 52.9 esr, too...

Frank Lion wrote:I don't click any link without already knowing exactly where it's going. If in doubt, then copy the link and use it as a search term and Search - that'll soon tell you. We hear a lot about browser security, but people are FAR more likely to get compromised on the Email side. Don't trust anything on Email, use Simple Text and don't click any links, even ones in messages from known contacts.


I use 'simple html', because it has more of the original message, while still being safer, but the intent is the same as yours -- and, for any message which doesn't pass the 'instant sniff test' (based on "sender"/"To"/Subject), I first look at the 'message source', which won't trigger anything. Of course, actually clicking on any link in the message depends on that "knowing exactly where it's going", as you outlined above.

I have been considering installing a copy of FF post-60 when it seems to have lots of Web Extensions, but those aspects you related in the previous post may make this not worthwhile.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!

Return to SeaMonkey General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests