On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:41:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mozilla plugins is usually a euphemism for proprietary crap, most often
Flash. We cannot package that in Fedora.
So if there is the easy installability of proprietary crap like Mozilla
plugins why aren't also the repositories like
On 10.4.2012 08:04, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
So if there is the easy installability of proprietary crap like Mozilla
plugins why aren't also the repositories like RPMforge pre-configured
automatically? What is the difference between RPMforge and Mozilla plugins
database?
a) there is no
On 9.4.2012 16:06, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to package Mozilla plugins in Fedora so that they are
trusted? And then disable Firefox plugins downloads the same way as there is
Firefox updater disabled (--disable-updater) as it would conflict/duplicate
the rpm packaging of
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
On 9.4.2012 16:06, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to package Mozilla plugins in Fedora so that they
are
trusted? And then disable Firefox plugins downloads the same way as there
is
Firefox updater disabled
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:40:14 +0200, drago01 wrote:
rpm packages do not magically fix security issues. A vulnerability in
a plugin can be exploited by an attacker regardless how the plugin got
installed. (rpm or not).
This is still unrelated to the point whether Fedora is a Free distro or not
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:32:38 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
Yes, it would be nice ... except there are so many addons to package
Fedora also does not have about 2 packages that Debian has. Does it mean
we should give up on Fedora and switch to Debian because we would have to make
2 packages
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:37:58 +0200, drago01 wrote:
We don't even have a package installation gui that does not suck i.e
is usable for most users.
Going to a website and click install this addon is way easier from a
users pov.
Keeping pre-installed MS-Windows on the computer is also way
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
This is still unrelated to the point whether Fedora is a Free distro or
not (it is not due to Linux firmwares - this part is known). So why isn't
Flash + acroread etc. also installed by default or be available in
repositories?
Because Fedora IS a Free Software
drago01 wrote:
We don't even have a package installation gui that does not suck i.e
is usable for most users.
Neither gnome-packagekit nor Apper suck. They're perfectly usable for most
users. We just have a vocal minority of users who grew so accustomed to
using the yum command line that they
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:07:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
This is still unrelated to the point whether Fedora is a Free distro or
not (it is not due to Linux firmwares - this part is known). So why isn't
Flash + acroread etc. also installed by default or be available in
On 04/10/2012 09:24 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:07:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
This is still unrelated to the point whether Fedora is a Free distro
or not (it is not due to Linux firmwares - this part is known). So why
isn't Flash + acroread etc.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, drago01 wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to package Mozilla plugins in Fedora so that they are
trusted?
rpm packages do not magically fix security issues. A vulnerability in
a plugin can be exploited by an attacker regardless how the plugin got
installed. (rpm or not).
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, drago01 wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to package Mozilla plugins in Fedora so that they
are
trusted?
rpm packages do not magically fix security issues. A vulnerability in
a plugin can be exploited
On 04/10/2012 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, drago01 wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to package Mozilla plugins in Fedora so that
they are trusted?
rpm packages do not magically fix security issues. A
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:56:06 +0200, Paul Wouters wrote:
Only if you man the helpdesk for answering why users cannot install
adblock in firefox.
Do you mean mozilla-adblockplus-1.3.10-4.fc16.noarch? And if it is so wanted
feature let it be installed in default Fedora installation and nobody will
15 matches
Mail list logo
