On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:51:23 +1000, Daniel <[email protected]> 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 past. 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. Russell _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
