Is there a good reason to choose Sea Monkey over Firefox
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Is there a good reason to choose Sea Monkey over Firefox
I just noticed that I have Firefox and Thunderbird installed. There is also Sea Monkey installed as well. Is there any reason to choose Sea Monkey over the combination of Firefox and Thunderbird? I assume they are performing the same tasks of browsing and emailing. Seems that Sea Monkey does both while you need the combo with Firefox/Thunderbird. Don't know anything about Sea Monkey as to its capabilities so is it essentially the same as the other two or are there differences which would cause preferring one to the other.
I use Epiphany 95% of the time, but I also have Iceweasel, Konqueror, and Seamonkey installed. When it's reasonable, I try to avoid bloat, but Internet interfaces are critical. Furthermore, since I run AMD64, I occasionally need Konqueror for Java applets. Gnash provides everything I need in all the browsers for Flash viewing.
If I encounter a problem viewing a specific page or interfacing with a merchandising or business page, it's nice to be able to try a few different options.
I use seamonkey (and previously mozilla, both w/o using mail or chat)
because it supports user profiles. That way I can access more than
one account on a site; and if one instance of seamonkey sh*ts itself
I don't loose all my open tabs.
I use seamonkey for historic reasons for email only. I was looking for something that handled html email composition and didn't break using html templates (which TB was doing at the time, and still is I think). I thought that I'd just use seamonkey-browser in place of FF but couldn't get used to it and couldn't use all the extensions I wanted to.
It gets the alterations that thunderbird gets, but later on, as far as I can tell.
I expect that Seamonkey should be more stable in addition to the benefits mentioned above, YMMV!
I usually use Iceweasel, with Ice Dove. Sometimes I'll use Ice Ape as well. Opera is nice, but sometimes I've found it to be a bit buggy when I need to connect to my Oracle data base. Having a lot of choices is grand.
There are at least four reasons to use Seamonkey over FireFox/Thunderbird.
1) Pat V. uses the Mozilla Foundation branded binary of both FireFox and
Thunderbird which requires an i686 cpu. He complies Seamonkey from
source code which will run on an i486 or better machine. Not many
i486's around but the AMD k6 and for those into efficiency the Via C3
will only run Seamonkey.
2) Seamonkey includes a wysiwyg html editor. Alternatively you can
add NVU, which is still based on Mozilla 1.0 source code, to FF/TB.
3) The memory footprint of Seamonkey with browser window, email window
and html editor window is much smaller that FF,TB and NVU. For that
matter Seakonkey with Web/Email uses less memory than FF + TB. You
only see a performance advantage if you compare Seamonkey browser
4) On older versions of Slackware (11.0) Seamonkey provided the
spidermonkey component needed by gxine and a former chat client.
For many users of Slackware 11.0 that was seamonkey's only function.
Remove seamonkey and break gxine and the chat client.
Last edited by shepper; 08-28-2007 at 10:34 PM.
Reason: spelling correction
Thanks. Just was not sure of how close Seamonkey was to the combination of Firefox and TB. I have been using them since my days on (**spit**) M$ and on into using them on Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, Sabayon, Wolvix, PCBSD and now Slackware. Never thought much about Seamonkey at all and just wondered why it and the combination were both installed on Slackware.
Also, a full installation of moz/seamonkey with all the stuff(including chat, PIM, browser, e-mail and html editor is barely larger than any one of the components installed individually. If you have firefoy and thunderbird installed, the size of the two is nearly twice what seamonkey takes. seamonkey can still be compiled against GTK-1.2!
I keep mozilla around just for the html editor since I use sylpheed as e-mail client and usually opera as browser.
Location: Northeastern Michigan, where Carhartt is a Designer Label
Distribution: Slackware 32- & 64-bit Stable
Along with all the above -- particularly the built-in HTML editor -- you can use both Seamonkey and Firefox/Thunderbird as you see fit; they do not interfere with one another (well, you probably don't want Thunderbird running at the same time as Seamonkey) and by simply copying your abook.mab and bookmarks.html files from one to the other you'll have those available in both. You can install the same plug-ins in both; e.g., mplayerplugin, the link to Java, the Acrobat Reader plugin, etc., etc. -- just a matter of copying files from one plugins directory to the other (and one components directory to the other).
Personally I like Seamonkey. I've been using Netscape Navigator since in was in beta -- I think my first was the 0.8 beta. Since then (then being 1992, I think) I upgraded through 2, 3, 4, and then to 6. Over time, I think with version 3, Netscape added the e-mail, WYSIWYG HTML editor, and other goodies.
Seamonkey is the direct descendant of the Netscape programs I liked and used so much for the past 15 years. In short, I think it's a mature and well-rounded set of programs.
Having said that, I primarily use Firefox and Thunderbird. I think Firefox has a slight usability edge over Seamonkey's browser -- but I do like the thumbnail previews of a page that Seamonkey gives when the mouse pointer hovers over a tab -- something that Firefox doesn't do by default.
Seamonkey's mail is pretty close to Thunderbird in terms of look and function.
The HTML composer is actually pretty darned good for simple web pages or for quickly generating code that will be incorporated into more complex sites.