Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:05:10AM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote: > > If it's really looking for "Firefox" then the only thing I can imagine > is an anti-IE website done so on purpose. > You would be surprised. A large number of websites check user-agent strings so that only "supported" browsers are allowed in. The most generally "supported" browsers are IE, Mozilla, Netscape, Safari and now Firefox. That is why some sites will give you an "unsupported browser" error page instead of useful content if you visit with something like lynx, dillo or Opera. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Paul Johnson wrote: > Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > >> There is actually an operational difference. In the about:config page >> the setting general.useragent.extra.firefox is set to >> "Iceweasel/2.0.0.1". Looks harmless, but it stopped me from logging >> on to a website. It would only let me in when I set it to >> "Firefox/2.0.0". >> > > Might want to let the webmaster know about W3C standards and explain why > following them strictly is a better idea than anal-retentive User-Agent > string checking, while you're at it. Bonus points if you know the direct > email address to that webmaster's boss. > If it's really looking for "Firefox" then the only thing I can imagine is an anti-IE website done so on purpose. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Paul Johnson wrote: > Angelo Bertolli wrote: > > >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>> Angelo Bertolli wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I just figured it was for upgrades.) >>> Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork >>> makes it free? >>> >>> >> No, I mean a non-free firefox package in addition to iceweasel. >> > > I understand that is what you intended, though I think my question is still > valid even in that circumstance. Why put something in non-free if a > trivial change makes it free? > Because some users may want to use the canonical Firefox. And it may solve some arguments. Anyway, as long as it's in non-free, why not as long as someone is willing to do it? Although I'll admit, even though it's very little effort, it's a bit more effort than it's worth when you can just download Firefox off the website. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Angelo Bertolli wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: >> Angelo Bertolli wrote: >> >> >>> I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I >>> just figured it was for upgrades.) >>> >> >> Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork >> makes it free? >> > No, I mean a non-free firefox package in addition to iceweasel. I understand that is what you intended, though I think my question is still valid even in that circumstance. Why put something in non-free if a trivial change makes it free? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
yea, verily, Angelo Bertolli sayith: > No, I mean a non-free firefox package in addition to iceweasel. I know > it sounds redundant, but I bet someone will start doing it eventually > since all it takes is using Mozilla's Linux binary and putting it in deb > format. I've done this already for two clients, to sooth ruffled feathers - it's not difficult at all (or I wouldn't have done :P). Perhaps something along the lines of java-package? Ciao, Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Paul Johnson wrote: > Angelo Bertolli wrote: > > >> I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I >> just figured it was for upgrades.) >> > > Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork > makes it free? > No, I mean a non-free firefox package in addition to iceweasel. I know it sounds redundant, but I bet someone will start doing it eventually since all it takes is using Mozilla's Linux binary and putting it in deb format. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:28 -0600, Dave Patterson wrote: > yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith: > > >..trivial changes to the name and artwork > > makes it free? > > > It's still a fork. The differences will grow. The only real changes since its inception are; The Logos, the name and some variables (and of course those settings). I've not found a single extension that was written for FireFox v2.0.0+ and without any intent to support IceWeasel. I guess, you can read the intent of IceWeasel project if you want *MORE* clarification. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith: >..trivial changes to the name and artwork > makes it free? > It's still a fork. The differences will grow. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Angelo Bertolli wrote: > I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I > just figured it was for upgrades.) Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork makes it free? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: > The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least. > But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point. > The only potential valid point I saw coming out of it was that maybe "transitional" wasn't the way to go. I don't know what other options there are, can we have a replacement package without using transitional packages? > Debian IMHO should carefully weigh the advantages and > disadvantages of adhering --uncompromisingly-- to the letter of > its doctrine. > I think this problem is about the spirit of the doctrine: using Mozilla-trademarked packages breaks the freedom that people expect from Debian. Yes, the Debian logo itself is a problem in this regard. Personally, this is making me want to go back to Epiphany, but then I'd miss out on all those extensions. > The renaming of the programs certainly did have disadvantages to > users. In the first place (in my experience) it introduced various > problems with customised menus and window managers. > Yeah, I think customized menus has always given me a problem on GNOME. Not so much if I just put my launches on a panel. > Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an > "Iceape"? How should this beast be pronounced? Webster's does not > say, nor does the Concise Oxford, because it does not occur there. > The logos are hideous (especially the Iceape one); they seem > designed to frighten users away. My eternal project of converting > "Aunt Tilly" types to Debian has just been set back again. The new > names by themselves also isolate Debian from the rest of the Linux > world (including the Debian clones like Ubuntu, Mepis). Is this a > good thing? I doubt it very much. > What exactly is a "Firefox"? IceApe might be a little bit more confusing to pronounce because of the consecutive vowels, but I'm sure you won't find Firefox in the Oxford dictionary either ;) I think a lot of distros (except probably SuSE and RH) are going to go the way of gnuzilla when there is more development on it. > But the worst result of this unwillingness to "negotiate until the > problem is solved" surely is in the human/psychological field. We > may consider it a given that the relationship between the Mozilla > people and the Debian people has received some serious blows. This > will certainly have a negative influence on the smooth technology > transfer between the two sides. The quality of the Debian versions > of the Mozilla products can only suffer from this. Most likely it > already has. > I think Mozilla has been at least as unwilling to negotiate on the issue of their trademarks as Debian has been on the issue of letting users modify Debian without restrictions. I think that what is happening with gnuzilla is the most appropriate thing to happen. All Debian wanted to do was to make modifications to Firefox, which is open source. But Mozilla has said that those modifications need approval by them in order to make it something called "Firefox"... so what would you advocate? Debian needs to just keep the Firefox package as produced by Mozilla and can't modify it? I can't blame either side really. It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just doesn't sound right to me. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:52:51PM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote: > > I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I > just figured it was for upgrades.) > Probably because of portability. I don't think mozilla provides official binaries for s390 and probably hppa and some of the other less common architectures that Debian supports. The means that Debian must choose to alienate some of its users in order to favor the "official" Mozilla packages. I suppose that they could do something like with rar (or is it unrar), where Debian has both free and non-free versions. There could be iceweasel and firefox-nonfree, with firefox-nonfree being unsupported from a security standpoint, but still carrying the official name and artwork. Personally, security support is more important to me than pretty artwork. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > I think that automatically upgrading people to Iceweasel is better than > leaving the stagnant Firefox package since: > > - The security team can't support > - Debian is not allowed to continue redistributing > - People may not know to go looking for it > Not to mention the fact that you can't leave Firefox there as enforced by Mozilla. Mozilla has stated their terms, and under no circumstances is the older package that "slipped by them" going to be allowed to stay in Debian. The problem with using more than the free part of Firefox is that... it's not free. Not only does it put restrictions on Debian to submit patches to Mozilla, use their trademarks as-is, and go through an approval process if wanting to make any security changes, but it passes these same restrictions onto anyone who wants to use Debian to construct their own OS or packages. I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I just figured it was for upgrades.) Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Ron Johnson wrote: > On 01/26/07 23:18, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > On Friday 26 January 2007 23:19, Angelo Bertolli wrote: > >> Piotr Dziubinski wrote: > >>> Ex-Debian user... > >>> ... back to the Gentoo > >> If going to the Mozilla website to download and install Firefox is > >> too much work for you, Debian is definitely not a good choice for > >> you. You might try another OS called Windows--I hear it's got its > >> own browser that's pretty popular. > > Now that's just mean. See my earlier response about rudeness being a > > weak man's imitation of strength. You've made good points in your > > other posts on this thread, but there is no reason to be that mean to a > > frustrated user. It just pours fuel on the fire and justifies those > > who say that Linux people are more concerned about acting superior > > because they think they're smart than in helping others. > > I can see where some would call it rude. Others would say, "direct > and unvarnished". There was no cursing, no name calling. The last > sentence was a little snide, and prudence suggests it shouldn't have > been written, but I won't call it mean. Sorry guys, I was going more for sarcastic/funny. (I'm even composing this from Windows, myself!) The point is: having a package replaced is not a big deal, especially when there is a distro-neutral installer for it. Womeone who has been using Linux for 8 years should not take what I said seriously. However, I'll apologize because I didn't mean for it to be an "F U" post. Piotr Dziubinski, I'm sorry. I don't think you should give up on Debian just because Firefox got renamed to Iceweasel: you can still do all the same stuff with it. And if you want, you can download Mozilla's Firefox from here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:25:20PM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote: > > I took the time to read through the whole discussion that lead to > Iceweasel being required for the next release of Debian. The main point > of contention seems to have been the graphics. Debian wants to My impression was that while the graphics situation was lamentable, that could be "fixed" by shipping the whole Firefox or just the graphics in non-free. However, the policy of Mozilla requiring that if you use their graphics, you use their binaries, made security support effectively impossible. Of course, Debian is not going to knowingly release something that they know the security has no legal way of supporting. Rrgards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Piotr Dziubinski wrote: > Answers: > Etch > apt-get > > I was informed by apt-get that Iceweasel package will be installed, > but I wasn't informed that instead of Firefox and it is a problem! > If I would like to uninstall (even current version of) Firefox I would > do it myself. > 1) It is a replacement package, the binary (executable) name is STILL firefox for compatibility purposes. So you can't have both on your system. 2) What is the difference? Have you noticed anything different? Did you also notice that when you got Iceweasel, it asked you if you'd like to replace your stuff in your plugins/js? You had to say yes to that. If you said no, you should have EXACTLY the same functioning browser as you did before. 3) If you really want to, you can download the Linux package from Mozilla and install Firefox in something like ~/pkg/ and just use that. I do this on systems at work that are a few versions behind. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 05:49:17PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > >> Roberto writes: >> >>> Debian policy requires that all packages be built on Debian autobuilders >>> (there are rare exceptions, but they are extremely few) >>> >> There is no such policy. Debian maintainers build their packages on their >> own machines and then upload them. >> >> > True. Perhaps that was poorly stated. The requirement is that all > packages *can* be built on an autobuilder. You are correct that there > are binary uploads. There is also some non-free stuff which is not > built at all since it is distributed in binary form. > > Of course, even if Debian decided to accept the binaries provided by > Mozilla, that would necessitate architectures which are not supported by > Mozilla. > I took the time to read through the whole discussion that lead to Iceweasel being required for the next release of Debian. The main point of contention seems to have been the graphics. Debian wants to distribute an operating system in which the users can be confident that they can reuse and redistribute the contents of that operating system. The Mozilla graphics are not Free. Since both Firefox and the associated icons are trademarked, somehow they can require Debian to use both together, or neither. (In other words: if you want to use the name Firefox, you have to make it LOOK like Firefox.) I can understand Mozilla's position on this, and I think I prefer Debian with Iceweasel anyway. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
