Seamonkey uses too much memory

This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- including 4
for the application FACEBOOK.  

It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)

Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?


0
jrp
3/15/2019 3:54:22 PM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 13081 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

13 Replies
14 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 5

On 3/15/2019 8:54 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
> This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
> 2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- including 4
> for the application FACEBOOK.  
> 
> It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
> have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)
> 
> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
> 
> 

The amount of memory used by any browser reflect the following:
*	how many tabs are open
*	how complex are the Web pages
*	what scripts are running in the Web pages
*	what extensions are active

You had FOUR tabs open just of Facebook!  Did you really need all four?
How much memory is required if you have only one tab for Facebook and no
tabs for anything else?  How much memory is required if you have four
tabs open but none of them are for Facebook?  Were any of your tabs
streaming a video or sound?

I do not use Facebook, so I cannot test what happens with tabs open to
Facebook.  With two tabs open to Web pages that automicatically update,
however, I just launched a YouTube streaming video of Tchaikovsky's
Violin Concerto; the memory requirement immediately doubled (but still
less than 260 MB).

-- 
David E. Ross

Pharmaceutical companies claim their drug prices are
so high because they have to recover the costs of developing
those drugs.  Two questions:

1.  Why is the U.S. paying the entire cost of development while
prices for the same drugs in other nations are much lower?

2.  Manufacturers of generic drugs did not have those
development costs.  Why are they charging so much for generics?
0
David
3/15/2019 10:23:15 PM
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:23:15 -0700, "David E. Ross"
<nobody@nowhere.invalid> in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote:

>On 3/15/2019 8:54 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
>> This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
>> 2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- including 4
>> for the application FACEBOOK.  
>> 
>> It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
>> have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)
>> 
>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
>> 
>> 
>
>The amount of memory used by any browser reflect the following:
>*	how many tabs are open
>*	how complex are the Web pages
>*	what scripts are running in the Web pages
>*	what extensions are active
>
>You had FOUR tabs open just of Facebook!  Did you really need all four?
>How much memory is required if you have only one tab for Facebook and no
>tabs for anything else?  How much memory is required if you have four
>tabs open but none of them are for Facebook?  Were any of your tabs
>streaming a video or sound?
>
>I do not use Facebook, so I cannot test what happens with tabs open to
>Facebook.  With two tabs open to Web pages that automicatically update,
>however, I just launched a YouTube streaming video of Tchaikovsky's
>Violin Concerto; the memory requirement immediately doubled (but still
>less than 260 MB).


Let me splain that.  
I do not often use the main Facebook "newsfeed".
I use groups.  I am probably an active member of a dozen or so.

When i opened Usenet there were three groups available on my "subscribed"
main page.

I use faceook much the same way as i used Usednet for many years previous

The four tabs were 3 groups and my notifications.

(Glad to see someone besides my self who likes classical music -- through
the night i listen to KUSC or KDFC or any of several other choices i have
marked for bluetooth streaming)

Try this by Ravel for a few moments relaxation --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKkeDqJBlK8 


0
jrp
3/16/2019 12:08:57 AM
jrp@comcast.com wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:23:15 -0700, "David E. Ross"
> <nobody@nowhere.invalid> in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote:
> 
>> On 3/15/2019 8:54 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
>>> This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
>>> 2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- including 4
>>> for the application FACEBOOK.
>>>
>>> It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
>>> have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)
>>>
>>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The amount of memory used by any browser reflect the following:
>> *	how many tabs are open
>> *	how complex are the Web pages
>> *	what scripts are running in the Web pages
>> *	what extensions are active

That's always the case with memory usage.  In my own usage, I find hangs 
and slow response happening when there's a lot of scripting active. I 
admit that I run a lot of extensions, but some of them are likely to 
have memory leaks.  I've also found that if I leave Seamonkey open 
overnight, the following morning, the performance is sluggish enough 
that it's worth doing a restart.

>>
>> You had FOUR tabs open just of Facebook!  Did you really need all four?
>> How much memory is required if you have only one tab for Facebook and no
>> tabs for anything else?  How much memory is required if you have four
>> tabs open but none of them are for Facebook?  Were any of your tabs
>> streaming a video or sound?
>>
>> I do not use Facebook, so I cannot test what happens with tabs open to
>> Facebook.  With two tabs open to Web pages that automicatically update,
>> however, I just launched a YouTube streaming video of Tchaikovsky's
>> Violin Concerto; the memory requirement immediately doubled (but still
>> less than 260 MB).

I don't use Facebook either, so I've never seen how it behaves on an 
individual computer. However, I'm aware that Facebook's architecture is 
such that it makes massive consumption of available resources.

I have a friend used to be the IT services director for a college 
campus, and he noted to me that at their campus, most of the available 
bandwidth disappears between about 5:00 in the afternoon and 2:00 in the 
morning, and where most of that is being consumed by connections to 
Facebook servers.  In a similar way, I know of a particular developing 
country that has similar issues at the same times of day. Nearly 
everybody in the country (at least those with Internet access) are on 
Facebook, and where the saturation is enough that it's pretty much 
impossible to use the Internet for anything else.

> 
> 
> Let me splain that.
> I do not often use the main Facebook "newsfeed".
> I use groups.  I am probably an active member of a dozen or so.
> 
> When i opened Usenet there were three groups available on my "subscribed"
> main page.
> 
> I use faceook much the same way as i used Usednet for many years previous

What you're actually using Facebook for is mostly irrelevant. Facebook 
and Usenet have entirely different architectures. Usenet (and even now, 
there's portions that are still functioning) dates back to the late 
80's, where everything was simple text, and a significant amount of the 
activity was over dial-up modems. Facebook is decades newer, where it's 
built on the assumption of ubiquitous broadband, GUI in general, and the 
necessary infrastructure to support the World Wide Web. And where 
Usenet's model was collaborative and altruistic, Facebook is a 
for-profit operation. Perhaps there's a measure of merit in their stated 
goal of connecting the entire world together, but underneath that, the 
user-level interaction is what fuels an operation of data collection and 
analysis, which can be aggregated and analyzed, and subsequently resold 
for Facebook's profit.

Thus, when Facebook has been challenged on privacy issues, their 
response has, so far, mostly been window dressing, where they make some 
token updates as a way of trying to mute the criticism, but where 
there's no substantial changes in the way that they do business, and 
certainly not in a way that makes a significant change in their revenue 
streams.

At this point, further analysis of Facebook is very clearly off-topic 
for a discussion of Seamonkey. However, noting that as background helps 
explain why use of Facebook may impose performance issues on your use of 
Seamonkey.

For you, whether you're using Facebook as a logical replacement for 
Usenet, or any other Facebook service, it's all Facebook, and it may be 
that the only variable may be how many Facebook services you're 
currently accessing. Having more tabs open with Facebook services will 
definitely increase that, but you may have considerable usage on even 
one or two tabs.


Because I don't have first-hand experience of using Seamonkey, I'm only 
guessing, but I think it's probable that you're seeing evidence of what 
Facebook actually does while you're connected to it. It's not clear to 
me if your memory and CPU usage would go down if you close out some of 
those tabs, or not.  My experience is that when I get that kind of 
behavior that closing active tabs has minimal value, and the only 
effective remedy is in restarting Seamonkey.  But interacting with 
Facebook may be different in that way.

A couple of additional questions come to mind:

- How much RAM do you have in your system, and how many other things do 
you have open?  If you're operating on 4 GB, then Seamonkey is going to 
be taking most of that, especially with Facebook. If you have other 
things open, then you're likely hitting memory issues, and where your 
computer is doing serious amounts of swapping out to your hard drive. 
If you're doing swapping, a hard disk is much slower than RAM, and the 
result is going to be noticeable slowness.

- When is the last time you cleared your browser cache?  Sometimes that 
can help quite a bit, especially with stalled pages. Cache is something 
that also dates back to dial-up era, when it made sense to try to 
minimize the volume of traffic going over the wire, especially for 
content that had already been downloaded.

In modern usage, cache is much less important, partly because of the 
speed of connections, but also because of content that's being 
constantly updated, and where there's less content that can be re-used 
from the cache. In my own usage, I find no noticeable performance loss 
from running a much smaller cache than the default, nor of regular cache 
flushes.  And for hung processes, clearing the cache and reloading the 
entire page can make a real difference.

Although I'm not advocating for it, I do know that I've seen people note 
that they set browser caches to 0.  For you, you might try experimenting 
with a smaller cache.

- You might also want to consider what you might accomplish with 
NoScript.  That's not necessarily a trivial thing to do, because it 
takes tinkering to figure out what scripting you want running (and in 
fact, is essential) and where blocking scripting simply mutes stuff that 
doesn't need to be running, at least for your usage. With Facebook, 
there's a lot of scripting that they're doing with data collection and 
analysis, and it may be that blocking some of that may cut down on the 
demand for resources.

> The four tabs were 3 groups and my notifications.

Consider disabling notifications -- those are processes that do run, 
taking up memory and bandwidth. Not having them active reduces the 
demand on your resources.

With that in mind, one of the things that you probably need to be doing 
is prioritizing your use, so that you've decided what parts of Facebook 
are essential to you, and what are simply nice features that you could 
live without. For something like notifications, they may be nice to 
have, but it could be that turning them off might lower the demand that 
Facebook is making, and where the result is that you have more resources 
to apply to what you really want, and where you're wasting less on 
low-priority stuff.

A general principle of economics is that a resource that is perceived to 
be unlimited will tend to be abused. From what I've seen of Facebook 
that is applicable in this case, and if you're using Facebook, they'll 
use all the resources that you make available to them, especially if you 
tend use lots of features (or don't opt out of stuff that you don't need).


Smith
0
NFN
3/16/2019 3:52:11 PM
On 3/15/2019 8:54 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
> This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
> 2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- including 4
> for the application FACEBOOK.
> 
> It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
> have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)
> 
> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?

No. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. are the big memory and CPU hoggers in my 
SeaMonkey usages especially with multiple tabs. I always have to exit 
and relaunch SM to regain them after using these web sites. :(
-- 
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
3/16/2019 7:19:48 PM
Ant via support-seamonkey a écrit :
> On 3/15/2019 8:54 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
>> This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
>> 2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- 
>> including 4
>> for the application FACEBOOK.
>>
>> It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
>> have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)
>>
>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
> 
> No. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. are the big memory and CPU hoggers in my 
> SeaMonkey usages especially with multiple tabs. I always have to exit 
> and relaunch SM to regain them after using these web sites. :(

	Maybe. But I see that Facebook or Linkedin eat less memory when I open 
them on Firefox or Chromium...

	Best regards,

	JB
0
UTF
3/16/2019 7:27:59 PM
On 3/16/2019 12:27 PM, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
> Ant via support-seamonkey a écrit :
>> On 3/15/2019 8:54 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
>>> This morning, in less than 3 hours of running, Seamonkey had taken over
>>> 2.5 gig of memory and was climbing.  About 8 tabs were open -- 
>>> including 4
>>> for the application FACEBOOK.
>>>
>>> It had frozen and was past the point of graceful shutdown though i might
>>> have been able to do that with about 30 minutes work.  (I have before)
>>>
>>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
>>
>> No. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. are the big memory and CPU hoggers in my 
>> SeaMonkey usages especially with multiple tabs. I always have to exit 
>> and relaunch SM to regain them after using these web sites. :(
> 
>      Maybe. But I see that Facebook or Linkedin eat less memory when I 
> open them on Firefox or Chromium...

SeaMonkey v2.49.4 (basically Firefox v52) is still using old Gecko 
engine compared to the (new/lat)est Firefox web browsers that use 
Quantum. :(
-- 
"... Alice's honesty felt like fire ants on his skin..." --Dilbert's 
7/12/2015 comic strip's panel #4
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
3/16/2019 11:29:51 PM
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 08:52:11 -0700, NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> in
mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote:

>A couple of additional questions come to mind:
>
>- How much RAM do you have in your system, and how many other things do 
>you have open?  If you're operating on 4 GB, then Seamonkey is going to 
>be taking most of that, especially with Facebook. If you have other 
>things open, then you're likely hitting memory issues, and where your 
>computer is doing serious amounts of swapping out to your hard drive. 
>If you're doing swapping, a hard disk is much slower than RAM, and the 
>result is going to be noticeable slowness.
>
>- When is the last time you cleared your browser cache?  Sometimes that 
>can help quite a bit, especially with stalled pages. Cache is something 
>that also dates back to dial-up era, when it made sense to try to 
>minimize the volume of traffic going over the wire, especially for 
>content that had already been downloaded.
>
>In modern usage, cache is much less important, partly because of the 
>speed of connections, but also because of content that's being 
>constantly updated, and where there's less content that can be re-used 
>from the cache. In my own usage, I find no noticeable performance loss 
>from running a much smaller cache than the default, nor of regular cache 
>flushes.  And for hung processes, clearing the cache and reloading the 
>entire page can make a real difference.
>
>Although I'm not advocating for it, I do know that I've seen people note 
>that they set browser caches to 0.  For you, you might try experimenting 
>with a smaller cache.
>
>- You might also want to consider what you might accomplish with 
>NoScript.  That's not necessarily a trivial thing to do, because it 
>takes tinkering to figure out what scripting you want running (and in 
>fact, is essential) and where blocking scripting simply mutes stuff that 
>doesn't need to be running, at least for your usage. With Facebook, 
>there's a lot of scripting that they're doing with data collection and 
>analysis, and it may be that blocking some of that may cut down on the 
>demand for resources.


To answer the questions:

1.  I have 6 gig of RAM

2.   current about:cache reports:
memory
Number of entries: 	8
Maximum storage size: 	200000 KiB
Storage in use: 	122 KiB
Storage disk location: 	none, only stored in memory
List Cache Entries
disk
Number of entries: 	1550
Maximum storage size: 	51200 KiB
Storage in use: 	46501 KiB
Storage disk location:
C:\Users\xxxxxx\AppData\Local\Mozilla\SeaMonkey\Profiles\xxxxxxxxdefault\cache2
List Cache Entries
appcache
Number of entries: 	69
Maximum storage size: 	512000 KiB
Storage in use: 	6000 KiB

~~~~~~

In other words, cache is "hardly there at all".  Certain identifiable
information changed to "x" strings

jim

0
jrp
3/19/2019 11:30:48 AM
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:19:48 -0700, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> in
mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote:

>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
>
>No. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. are the big memory and CPU hoggers in my 
>SeaMonkey usages especially with multiple tabs.


Thanks.  I just wondered.

0
jrp
3/19/2019 11:32:41 AM
On 3/19/2019 4:32 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:19:48 -0700, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> in
> mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote:
> 
>>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
>>
>> No. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. are the big memory and CPU hoggers in my
>> SeaMonkey usages especially with multiple tabs.
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I just wondered.

No problems. I know the pain. It will take a while (years?) to get 
SeaMonkey onto the newer Gecko engines like Quantum to fix these issues. :(
-- 
"Where there is sugar, there are bound to be ants." --Malay Proverb
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
3/19/2019 3:27:27 PM
 > No problems. I know the pain. It will take a while (years?) to get SeaMonkey
 > onto the newer Gecko engines like Quantum to fix these issues. :(

There is no new Gecko engine. 56 is pretty close to 57 and not that much 
different from 60. Quantum is more of a marketing gag.

There are always some optimizations being made which reduce memory usuage. 
Much was because of ripped out functionality.

The biggest changes between 56 and 60 are the new style system named stylo. 
Only big component used and written in rust (which I don't care for because 
seems to be just another overhyped programming language). Also e10s is always 
on in Fx thanks to no more classic extensions so you will see a more 
responsive browser with s*cky websites like facebook. Memory comsumption here 
is up because of multiple processes.

webrender might become a thing in 68 but with so many half baked graphics 
drivers around we will see how it works on older PCs.

In reality the browsing component of 2.57 already on the "new" shiny quantum 
does not feel much different form the patched up unofficial 2.53. The only big 
difference here is missing e10s and this does not do anything to reduce menory.

Running 60 at work now and then and I still prefer SeaMonkey even with its 
limitations :)

There are a lot of good people still working on Gecko and doing good things 
but Fx will never again be my browser of choice. Porting SeaMonkey to the 
latest source would mean ripping out more things like themes and bookmark 
enhancements and and. The resulting product would probably be nothing I care 
about so I am just looking forward to get 2.57 done and see what happens then.

FRG


Ant wrote:
> On 3/19/2019 4:32 AM, jrp@comcast.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:19:48 -0700, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> in
>> mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote:
>>
>>>> Is there a way to make it use less memory?  If so, what would it be?
>>>
>>> No. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. are the big memory and CPU hoggers in my
>>> SeaMonkey usages especially with multiple tabs.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.  I just wondered.
> 
> No problems. I know the pain. It will take a while (years?) to get SeaMonkey 
> onto the newer Gecko engines like Quantum to fix these issues. :(
0
Frank
3/19/2019 7:41:54 PM
On 3/19/2019 12:41 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>  > No problems. I know the pain. It will take a while (years?) to get 
> SeaMonkey
>  > onto the newer Gecko engines like Quantum to fix these issues. :(
> 
> There is no new Gecko engine. 56 is pretty close to 57 and not that much 
> different from 60. Quantum is more of a marketing gag.

Oh. I thought that was the new Gecko engine, but v52 to v56 is a big 
change. SM needs that badly. :(


> There are always some optimizations being made which reduce memory 
> usuage. Much was because of ripped out functionality.
> 
> The biggest changes between 56 and 60 are the new style system named 
> stylo. Only big component used and written in rust (which I don't care 
> for because seems to be just another overhyped programming language). 
> Also e10s is always on in Fx thanks to no more classic extensions so you 
> will see a more responsive browser with s*cky websites like facebook. 
> Memory comsumption here is up because of multiple processes.
> 
> webrender might become a thing in 68 but with so many half baked  > graphics drivers around we will see how it works on older PCs.

That could be a problem for me since others and I use our decade old 
computers (Windows 7, Mac OS X, and Debian oldstable/Jessie v8)! :(


> In reality the browsing component of 2.57 already on the "new" shiny 
> quantum does not feel much different form the patched up unofficial 
> 2.53. The only big difference here is missing e10s and this does not do 
> anything to reduce menory.

Dang it. :(

> 
> Running 60 at work now and then and I still prefer SeaMonkey even with 
> its limitations :)

Ditto. I always loved the suite products, since Netscape days, even 
though people think I am crazy!


> There are a lot of good people still working on Gecko and doing good 
> things but Fx will never again be my browser of choice. Porting 
> SeaMonkey to the latest source would mean ripping out more things like 
> themes and bookmark enhancements and and. The resulting product would 
> probably be nothing I care about so I am just looking forward to get 
> 2.57 done and see what happens then.

Same here even though I do have and use it just in case since MS and 
many web sites don't support its IE11. I hate Google Chrome! :(
-- 
"Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what 
we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken 
over--'conquered', if you will--by a master race of giant space ants. 
It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume 
the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, 
there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, 
welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a 
trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to...toil 
in their underground sugar caves."--Kent Brockman in The Simpsons' Deep 
Space Homer (1F13) episode.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
3/19/2019 8:28:54 PM

Ant wrote:
> On 3/19/2019 12:41 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>  > No problems. I know the pain. It will take a while (years?) to get SeaMonkey
>>  > onto the newer Gecko engines like Quantum to fix these issues. :(
>>
>> There is no new Gecko engine. 56 is pretty close to 57 and not that much 
>> different from 60. Quantum is more of a marketing gag.
> 
> Oh. I thought that was the new Gecko engine, but v52 to v56 is a big change. 
> SM needs that badly. :(

Pick Bills build and backup your profile:
http://www.wg9s.com/comm-253/

Halfway to 2.57 and based on latest 56 with now around 1200 patches.

Uses my patch queue and we accept filing bugs against it.

FRG

0
Frank
3/19/2019 11:12:25 PM
On 3/19/2019 4:12 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> 
> 
> Ant wrote:
>> On 3/19/2019 12:41 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>  > No problems. I know the pain. It will take a while (years?) to get 
>>> SeaMonkey
>>>  > onto the newer Gecko engines like Quantum to fix these issues. :(
>>>
>>> There is no new Gecko engine. 56 is pretty close to 57 and not that 
>>> much different from 60. Quantum is more of a marketing gag.
>>
>> Oh. I thought that was the new Gecko engine, but v52 to v56 is a big 
>> change. SM needs that badly. :(
> 
> Pick Bills build and backup your profile:
> http://www.wg9s.com/comm-253/
> 
> Halfway to 2.57 and based on latest 56 with now around 1200 patches.
> 
> Uses my patch queue and we accept filing bugs against it.

Eh, I'll wait for the public stable version. :)
-- 
"Ants can attack with a grain of rice." --a Malagasy Proverb
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
3/20/2019 8:48:58 AM
Reply: