Re: Seamonkey

On 11/14/25 9:21 AM, Vivaldi ([email protected] via blfs-support Mailing 
List) wrote:
> 
> On 11/5/25 8:41 AM, Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-support Mailing List) wrote:
>> As always, the last SA for Seamonkey reads like a horror-story.  But I still
>> like that package, not least because the whole suite builds in just ~14 minutes
>> with -j6 on my moderate systems.  Compare that to at least 30 minutes for
>> Firefox alone.
>>
>> This mail composed and sent with Seamonkey-2.53.22. ;)
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>
> I also installed Seamonkey at the last release due to its faster compiling.  And in 
> addition, it doesn't require node which saves more time.
> 
> Unfortunately, some addresses were modified when importing from Thunderbird.  I also 
> had some problems with filters.  Being somewhat spooked I continued with Thunderbird.
> 
> So I'm curios, you mention Seamonkey reads like a horror story. What are the 
> disadvantages of Seamonkey as it seems too good to be true?  I assume it's less 
> vibrant than Firefox/Thunderbird.

The big advantage of SM is that the mail and browser functions are well integrated 
and have similar look and feel.

The disadvantage is that they do not release as often as FF and TB and are slower to 
fix security vulnerabilities.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-support
Unsubscribe: See the above information page