The more observant ones among you will've noticed that I haven't posted on these 'groups for the last few days.

The main reason is that SeaMonkey has died on me.  I've been trying to install various recent builds, but it's just been crashing on me every single time.  The first time, it had even destroyed my existing version before crashing.

I also tried one binary distribution without installer, but had no luck.

Meanwhile, I'm posting this from the web interface.  I think I'll try a few more things to try and get SeaMonkey back; failing that, maybe try Thunderbird, failing that....

Stewart.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:20:56 -0500, Stewart Gordon wrote:

> The more observant ones among you will've noticed that I haven't posted on these 'groups for the last few days.
> 
> The main reason is that SeaMonkey has died on me.  I've been trying to install various recent builds, but it's just been crashing on me every single time.  The first time, it had even destroyed my existing version before crashing.
> 
> I also tried one binary distribution without installer, but had no luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm posting this from the web interface.  I think I'll try a few more things to try and get SeaMonkey back; failing that, maybe try Thunderbird, failing that....
> 
> Stewart.


There's always Pan... it's good.  In fact, it's great! :)

-JJR

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:59:24 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:20:56 -0500, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
>> The more observant ones among you will've noticed that I haven't posted on these 'groups for the last few days.
>> 
>> The main reason is that SeaMonkey has died on me.  I've been trying to install various recent builds, but it's just been crashing on me every single time.  The first time, it had even destroyed my existing version before crashing.
>> 
>> I also tried one binary distribution without installer, but had no luck.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, I'm posting this from the web interface.  I think I'll try a few more things to try and get SeaMonkey back; failing that, maybe try Thunderbird, failing that....
>> 
>> Stewart.
> 
> 
> There's always Pan... it's good.  In fact, it's great! :)
> 
> -JJR

I agree here, I always found Mozilla too bulky, when I found mention of pan, tried it and it is great.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:59:24 +0000 (UTC)
John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:20:56 -0500, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
> > The more observant ones among you will've noticed that I haven't posted on these 'groups for the last few days.
> > 
> > The main reason is that SeaMonkey has died on me.  I've been trying to install various recent builds, but it's just been crashing on me every single time.  The first time, it had even destroyed my existing version before crashing.
> > 
> > I also tried one binary distribution without installer, but had no luck.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, I'm posting this from the web interface.  I think I'll try a few more things to try and get SeaMonkey back; failing that, maybe try Thunderbird, failing that....
> > 
> > Stewart.
> 
> 
> There's always Pan... it's good.  In fact, it's great! :)
> 
> -JJR

I'm using Sylpheed-Claws on my laptop (64MiB RAM .. ;\), and it's surprisingly comfortable, yet fast, for NG viewing - and writing, obviously.

Pan is a newsreader only, aye?

Best regards,
Alex

Jesse Phillips Wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:59:24 +0000, John Reimer wrote:
<snip>
>> There's always Pan...  it's good.  In fact, it's great!  :)
>> 
>> -JJR
> 
> I agree here, I always found Mozilla too bulky, when I found mention of pan, tried it and it is great.

I tried searching for reviews of Pan, but didn't get far.  Guess I'll just have to try and see.

Of course, the trouble with switching newsreaders is all the archived messages to do something with.  But with news.digitalmars.com never expiring stuff, I guess itwon't be too bad.

Stewart.

John Reimer Wrote:

<snip>
> There's always Pan... it's good.  In fact, it's great! :)

Either I'm missing something, or the Pan website (at least the one I've found)

http://pan.rebelbase.com/

gives no indication of the system requirements.  Not until I tried to run the installer did it come clean with: "Pan can not be installed on Windows 9x/ME"

Stewart.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:37:10 -0500, Stewart Gordon wrote:

> John Reimer Wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> There's always Pan... it's good.  In fact, it's great! :)
> 
> Either I'm missing something, or the Pan website (at least the one I've found)
> 
> http://pan.rebelbase.com/
> 
> gives no indication of the system requirements.  Not until I tried to run the installer did it come clean with: "Pan can not be installed on Windows 9x/ME"
> 
> Stewart.

Wow, I had no idea that was a limitation (didn't know there were that many people still using win98). You do need to install the Gtk+ 2 shared libraries first, which you can find here:

http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html

(win98 ones are listed the third section down)

Just a word of caution... Pan is great, in fact better than most other newsreaders I've played with but on win32, it has crashed a couple of times.  No loss or bother, really.  But it's only fair to be honset about that.  Of course, after looking at the "requirements" section at the site you listed above (where on downloads win32 pan), I notice I didn't download a few of the libraries indicated there.  Not sure why that's not flagged when loading the sofware (I don't think I have pcre, gmime, or gtkspell on my system... unless gtk+ 2 includes those automatically).  So maybe the rare crashes are due to that?

I also notice, like you mention, that system requirements are not mentioned.  This is very wrong.  Maybe the source indicates whether it can built for win98/ME?  I'm not sure.

-JJR

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:37:10 -0500, Stewart Gordon wrote:

> John Reimer Wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> There's always Pan... it's good.  In fact, it's great! :)
> 
> Either I'm missing something, or the Pan website (at least the one I've found)
> 
> http://pan.rebelbase.com/
> 
> gives no indication of the system requirements.  Not until I tried to run the installer did it come clean with: "Pan can not be installed on Windows 9x/ME"
> 
> Stewart.


Another thing... which version are you downloading?  The 0.14.2 stable or the 0.121 beta?  I'm using the beta one on winxp.

It seems the windows versions of the installer/binaries
are compiled by outside "unofficial" sources... these fellas might just
have not bothered to indicate the system dependencies on there packages.
One could also compile the package themselves...but that's likely more
work than it's worth.

Pan, unfortunately, is not windows "oriented" software... it's
appears to be more there as a side effect of gtk+ 2 being available on
win32 (it certainly still looks good, however). I use the beta one
effectively on winxp and still prefer it to all others because of it's
size, speed, simplicity, and fairly comprehensive functionality... But, of
course, it seems to work much better on linux, where it's pratically
native.  It's your call whether or not you can put up with such software:
not everybody tolerates things being beta.

-JJR

John Reimer Wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:37:10 -0500, Stewart Gordon wrote:
<snip>
>> Not until I tried to run the installer did it come clean with: "Pan can not be installed on Windows 9x/ME"
>> 
>> Stewart.
> 
> Another thing...  which version are you downloading?  The 0.14.2 stable or the 0.121 beta?  I'm using the beta one on winxp.

0.121

> It seems the windows versions of the installer/binaries are compiled by outside "unofficial" sources...  these fellas might just have not bothered to indicate the system dependencies on there packages.

In that case, it wouldn't be throwing anyone out, surely?

> One could also compile the package themselves...but that's likely more work than it's worth.
> 
> Pan, unfortunately, is not windows "oriented" software... it's appears to be more there as a side effect of gtk+ 2 being available on win32 (it certainly still looks good, however). I use the beta one effectively on winxp and still prefer it to all others because of it's size, speed, simplicity, and fairly comprehensive functionality...  But, of course, it seems to work much better on linux, where it's pratically native.  It's your call whether or not you can put up with such software: not everybody tolerates things being beta.

And even fewer people would tolerate things being nightly builds, which are what most versions of Mozilla/SeaMonkey I've used are.

Maybe going back to 'stable' releases would do something about _this_ problem....

Stewart.