«

Hi everyone,
I've been a long time Mozilla/Netscape user (since about Netscape 2 or 3
and Mozilla 0.9.5). I love having my email and browser integrated, and
love the Mozilla, I honestly believe it's been the best browser/email
program since day 1 of Netscape. Although I have not contributed any
code to Mozilla yet (I have looked at it and got lost after about 5
lines, even though I'm at college studying computer and electronics
technology and have advanced programming courses), I still very much
know whats going on with Mozilla. But I'm totally confused over the
reasoning for Thunderbird and Firebird? Whats the point when you already
have Mozilla? I don't see the point of having two separate programs for
your browser and email, although it would be great if the browser or
email portion of the program would remain open if the other crashed, but
other than that i think they should be integrated.
If I am wrong should I switch? what would be the advantages and
disadvantages?

Thanks,
Daniel Steinberg
Student in 3rd year Computer Engineering Technology program at Seneca
College in Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Daniel Steinberg wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I've been a long time Mozilla/Netscape user (since about Netscape 2 or 3
> and Mozilla 0.9.5). I love having my email and browser integrated, and
> love the Mozilla, I honestly believe it's been the best browser/email
> program since day 1 of Netscape. Although I have not contributed any
> code to Mozilla yet (I have looked at it and got lost after about 5
> lines, even though I'm at college studying computer and electronics
> technology and have advanced programming courses), I still very much
> know whats going on with Mozilla. But I'm totally confused over the
> reasoning for Thunderbird and Firebird? Whats the point when you already
> have Mozilla? I don't see the point of having two separate programs for
> your browser and email, although it would be great if the browser or
> email portion of the program would remain open if the other crashed, but
> other than that i think they should be integrated.
> If I am wrong should I switch? what would be the advantages and
> disadvantages?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel Steinberg
> Student in 3rd year Computer Engineering Technology program at Seneca
> College in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>

Daniel,

Some links to peruse.

http://www.mozilla.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/charter.html
http://texturizer.net/firebird/faq.html
http://texturizer.net/thunderbird/faq.html

In general, the answer to your question "Why?" is:

1. Improve the efficiency of the code/programs
2. Bring the GUI up to date and more in line with standard Windows
practices
3. Give people an incentive to use Mozilla products without having to
commit to a whole suite and its large code size. This is especially
important for those users already commited to and prefering another
email, browser, composer, or chat client but who might like one of the
other Mozilla options.

Should you switch? Well, only you can ultimately answer that. The
birds are still pre-release versions so there are quirks, limitations,
bugs, etc. Still, they're pretty good for pre-release programs.

The good news is that you can install and have resident, even run, all
three (Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird, and Mozilla Thunderbird) at the same
time to try them out and see how you like them. The key is to NOT share
a user profile between any of them. Other than that, they all install
into separate directories.

You might want to check out some of the newsgroups listed here:

http://edmullen.net/moz.html

--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
If toast always lands butter-side-down, and a cats always land on their
feet, what would happen if you strapped a piece of toast on the back of
a cat & dropped it?

Ed Mullen wrote:

> Daniel Steinberg wrote:
>
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>I've been a long time Mozilla/Netscape user (since about Netscape 2 or 3
>>and Mozilla 0.9.5). I love having my email and browser integrated, and
>>love the Mozilla, I honestly believe it's been the best browser/email
>>program since day 1 of Netscape. Although I have not contributed any
>>code to Mozilla yet (I have looked at it and got lost after about 5
>>lines, even though I'm at college studying computer and electronics
>>technology and have advanced programming courses), I still very much
>>know whats going on with Mozilla. But I'm totally confused over the
>>reasoning for Thunderbird and Firebird? Whats the point when you already
>>have Mozilla? I don't see the point of having two separate programs for
>>your browser and email, although it would be great if the browser or
>>email portion of the program would remain open if the other crashed, but
>>other than that i think they should be integrated.
>>If I am wrong should I switch? what would be the advantages and
>>disadvantages?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Daniel Steinberg
>>Student in 3rd year Computer Engineering Technology program at Seneca
>>College in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>>
>
>
> Daniel,
>
> Some links to peruse.
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/charter.html
> http://texturizer.net/firebird/faq.html
> http://texturizer.net/thunderbird/faq.html
>
> In general, the answer to your question "Why?" is:
>
> 1. Improve the efficiency of the code/programs
> 2. Bring the GUI up to date and more in line with standard Windows
> practices
Whats not up to date about the GUI now? Not enough annimation in the
icons on the toolbars? Naw they are perfect, I much prefer the classic
skin to the modern, though I miss having the address bar being its own
bar rather than part of the navigation bar, and what ever happened to
the "Whats related" button that was in earlier Netscape 4 versions?
I thought this was done a few verisons ago when XP style buttons and
scroll bars were added?

> 3. Give people an incentive to use Mozilla products without having to
> commit to a whole suite and its large code size. This is especially
> important for those users already commited to and prefering another
> email, browser, composer, or chat client but who might like one of the
> other Mozilla options.
>
> Should you switch? Well, only you can ultimately answer that. The
> birds are still pre-release versions so there are quirks, limitations,
> bugs, etc. Still, they're pretty good for pre-release programs.
>
> The good news is that you can install and have resident, even run, all
> three (Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird, and Mozilla Thunderbird) at the same
> time to try them out and see how you like them. The key is to NOT share
> a user profile between any of them. Other than that, they all install
> into separate directories.

Why cant you share a profile between them? This would be a good thing
for someone whose been a long time use of Netscape/Mozilla and doesnt
know if they want to switch. And then I wouldnt have 3 branches to my email.

>
> You might want to check out some of the newsgroups listed here:
>
> http://edmullen.net/moz.html
>


Thanks,
Daniel

Daniel Steinberg schrieb:

> Hi everyone,
> I've been a long time Mozilla/Netscape user (since about Netscape 2 or 3
> and Mozilla 0.9.5). I love having my email and browser integrated, and
> love the Mozilla, I honestly believe it's been the best browser/email
> program since day 1 of Netscape. Although I have not contributed any

This:

> code to Mozilla yet (I have looked at it and got lost after about 5
> lines, even though I'm at college studying computer and electronics
> technology and have advanced programming courses),

Is one of the main reasons to start coding two independent programs.
Without DOM-inspector and other things that *end*users do not need
(mormally).

guido

--
Bei der Fußball-WM habe ich mir Österreich gegen Kamerun angeschaut.
Auf der einen Seite Exoten, fremde Kultur, wilde Riten - und auf der
anderen Seite: Kamerun! -- Dieter Nuhr

Guido Jurock wrote:

>Daniel Steinberg schrieb:
>
>
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>I've been a long time Mozilla/Netscape user (since about Netscape 2 or 3
>>and Mozilla 0.9.5). I love having my email and browser integrated, and
>>love the Mozilla, I honestly believe it's been the best browser/email
>>program since day 1 of Netscape. Although I have not contributed any
>>
>>
>
>This:
>
>
>
>>code to Mozilla yet (I have looked at it and got lost after about 5
>>lines, even though I'm at college studying computer and electronics
>>technology and have advanced programming courses),
>>
>>
>
>Is one of the main reasons to start coding two independent programs.
>Without DOM-inspector and other things that *end*users do not need
>(mormally).
>
>guido
>
>
>
No, the exclusion of some portions of the extant suite is simple. The
DOM inspector can be added in at a later date, as well as Composer. The
idea is to focus on one aspect in each 'module'.

Daniel Steinberg wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel Steinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi everyone,
>>>I've been a long time Mozilla/Netscape user (since about Netscape 2 or 3
>>>and Mozilla 0.9.5). I love having my email and browser integrated, and
>>>love the Mozilla, I honestly believe it's been the best browser/email
>>>program since day 1 of Netscape. Although I have not contributed any
>>>code to Mozilla yet (I have looked at it and got lost after about 5
>>>lines, even though I'm at college studying computer and electronics
>>>technology and have advanced programming courses), I still very much
>>>know whats going on with Mozilla. But I'm totally confused over the
>>>reasoning for Thunderbird and Firebird? Whats the point when you already
>>>have Mozilla? I don't see the point of having two separate programs for
>>>your browser and email, although it would be great if the browser or
>>>email portion of the program would remain open if the other crashed, but
>>>other than that i think they should be integrated.
>>>If I am wrong should I switch? what would be the advantages and
>>>disadvantages?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Daniel Steinberg
>>>Student in 3rd year Computer Engineering Technology program at Seneca
>>>College in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>>>
>>
>>
>>Daniel,
>>
>>Some links to peruse.
>>
>>http://www.mozilla.org/
>>http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/charter.html
>>http://texturizer.net/firebird/faq.html
>>http://texturizer.net/thunderbird/faq.html
>>
>>In general, the answer to your question "Why?" is:
>>
>>1. Improve the efficiency of the code/programs
>>2. Bring the GUI up to date and more in line with standard Windows
>>practices
>
> Whats not up to date about the GUI now? Not enough annimation in the
> icons on the toolbars? Naw they are perfect, I much prefer the classic
> skin to the modern, though I miss having the address bar being its own
> bar rather than part of the navigation bar, and what ever happened to
> the "Whats related" button that was in earlier Netscape 4 versions?
> I thought this was done a few verisons ago when XP style buttons and
> scroll bars were added?

The menu structure is being reorganized to be more consistent with
Windows. Customizing of the toolbars, something people have been asking
for, is already implemented to a certain degree. I'm not agreeing or
disagreeing with any of these changes, just making note.
>
>
>>3. Give people an incentive to use Mozilla products without having to
>>commit to a whole suite and its large code size. This is especially
>>important for those users already commited to and prefering another
>>email, browser, composer, or chat client but who might like one of the
>>other Mozilla options.
>>
>>Should you switch? Well, only you can ultimately answer that. The
>>birds are still pre-release versions so there are quirks, limitations,
>>bugs, etc. Still, they're pretty good for pre-release programs.
>>
>>The good news is that you can install and have resident, even run, all
>>three (Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird, and Mozilla Thunderbird) at the same
>>time to try them out and see how you like them. The key is to NOT share
>>a user profile between any of them. Other than that, they all install
>>into separate directories.
>
>
> Why cant you share a profile between them? This would be a good thing
> for someone whose been a long time use of Netscape/Mozilla and doesnt
> know if they want to switch. And then I wouldnt have 3 branches to my email.

The main reason is that it leaves the whole profile open to corruption.
Second reason is that, using separate profiles, you can run all the apps
simultaneously without conflict. With a shared profile there are
obvious file permission conflicts if two apps are trying to modify the
same set of files. Also, since the "Bird" apps are sepearate programs,
the preference files don't contain (and don't /need/ to contain) each
other's prefs, thereby keeping them more streamlined. Mozilla puts all
the prefs for browser, mail, composer, chatzilla, etc. in one prefs
file. Why have all that stuff in, for instance, a Firebird profile?

>
>
>>You might want to check out some of the newsgroups listed here:
>>
>>http://edmullen.net/moz.html
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>


--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
If you can survive death, you can probably survive anything.

Daniel Steinberg wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> 2. Bring the GUI up to date and more in line with standard Windows
>> practices
>
> Whats not up to date about the GUI now? Not enough annimation in the
> icons on the toolbars?

I think what's meant by that is that Mozilla currently is designed to be
cross-platform and have a neutral GUI. Firebird, on the other hand, is
designed to be cross-platform but look like a Windows XP program on all
platforms.

"Ed Mullen" <> wrote in message
news:bHFpb.74437$275.197829@attbi_s53...
> 3. Give people an incentive to use Mozilla products without having to
> commit to a whole suite and its large code size. This is especially
> important for those users already commited to and prefering another
> email, browser, composer, or chat client but who might like one of the
> other Mozilla options.

I agree.
In fact, I stopped using Opera because I was not happy with their new email
client. I they had had separate applications, I would have probably changed
only that, and wouldn't have discovered Mozilla

AS