The Firemonger Project

licenses??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-09 23:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

no linux distribution on earth includes those plugins, how are they getting away with it?
why don't the linux distro makers adopt their strategy?

Re:licenses??? by Stian+Engen · 2005-10-10 00:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Many distros doesn't include these plugins because of politics. (only GPL software)
Re:licenses??? by MadFarmAnimalz · 2005-10-10 00:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

no linux distribution on earth includes those plugins

The obvious stares you in the face, Anonymous Coward, and yet you refuse to accept it. Do you know of a reason why only earthbound beings can make linux distributions?

how are they getting away with it?

Well, before this /. frontpage story they were small and obscure and the risk of getting their asses hauled into court were negligible. Now...

why don't the linux distro makers adopt their strategy?

I'm not sure that "License? What license? We're too small and this project is too dumb to bother with that. Dude, Chill!" qualifies as an actual strategy.

--
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Re:licenses??? by Florian+Weimer · 2005-10-10 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

no linux distribution on earth includes those plugins, how are they getting away with it?

Sun's Java license forbids distribution together with competing technology, like the GNU Compiler Collection. For obvious reasons, most GNU/Linux distributions choose GCC over Java.
Re:licenses??? by JonJ · 2005-10-10 00:33 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, I think SUSE 9.3 Pro chose java, and they also included flash and acrobat reader(Yes, the one from adobe). GCC and the likes available through YaST.

--
-- Linux user #369862
Re:licenses??? by agraupe · 2005-10-10 00:42 · Score: 1

The problem with that is I don't, when compiling some obscure GPL'd project, want to search through YaST (or apt-get... I'm looking at you, ubuntu) trying to guess which packages I'll need. GCC is the obvious one, but what about autoconf, automake, nasm, etc...? Either make sure you have a meta-package that installs *all* of the things I might need to compile something, or have it there by default.
Re:licenses??? by cortana · 2005-10-10 01:04 · Score: 1

You don't need autoconf/automake installed to compile things--that's the reason they are used so much. :)

Are you sure you want a metapackage that depends on everything necessary to compile something? ;)

$ aptitude search 'lib.*-dev' | wc -l 2130

According to grep-dctrl, that's 1.2 gigabytes of development libraries alone! You might be more interested in using a tool called 'auto-apt'. It detects when the compilation process tries to open a file that does not exist, and prompts you to install the package that contains that file--very useful.
Re:licenses??? by cloudmaster · 2005-10-10 01:16 · Score: 4, Informative

No, the "home" version they had for a while - when they did separate personal and professional versions - just didn't install gcc by default, because home users didn't need gcc typically. Neither one installed the Sun JDK, but I'm pretty sure there was a JRE on there (which would be within the license). Then again, at that time there was no useful gcj, either, so gcc would not have been a competing tech at the time. It's just barely a competing tech now, for that matter... :)
Re:licenses??? by mshiltonj · 2005-10-10 01:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Sun's Java license forbids distribution together with competing technology, like the GNU Compiler Collection. For obvious reasons, most GNU/Linux distributions choose GCC over Java.

How 'bout the Google Toolbar? Can I distribute Java with that??

--
Software Wars
Re:licenses??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 01:51 · Score: 0

Regarding sun's license (http://www.java.com/en/download/license.jsp)
I think the bigger issue is the indemnification clause. I typically won't agree to defend or 'imdemnify' a firm larger than mine....
... >you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages,
>costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
>incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises
>or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
Re:licenses??? by zootm · 2005-10-10 02:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Either make sure you have a meta-package that installs *all* of the things I might need to compile something, or have it there by default.

If you're talking about libraries, that seems pretty extreme — "all of the things I might need to compile something" is a crazy target. I've found that for many or most things, the "build-essentials" package on Ubuntu is fine, possibly with some of the libraries you need also (which is a matter of searching Synaptic for them, and that's fine with me — they're certainly not something which is useful to the average target user).
Re:licenses??? by agraupe · 2005-10-10 02:09 · Score: 1

I don't mean all the libraries, I mean all the tools. build-essentials has been missing a few things in the past when I've tried it, and it's a real pain in the ass trying to track down the package name of whatever keeps causing the compile error because it isn't there.
Re:licenses??? by zootm · 2005-10-10 02:14 · Score: 1

I'd ask what the problem is but we're probably veering wildly off-topic here. Generally the packages tell you what they're missing (and what they require) and searching in synaptic/apt should get you these. I have to say I can understand why many modern distributions leave them out, though — they're just not useful for most people.
Re:licenses??? by LightForce3 · 2005-10-10 03:45 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about Sun and Java, but Macromedia gives out licenses to redistribute their player plugins. There's an application process, so they probably don't hand them out to anyone that asks, but it can't be too difficult to get one if you can do it on the Web.
Re:licenses??? by bgramkow · 2005-10-10 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

If this trend continues with other open source software Linux could gain a serious foothold. Another /. post commented that what linux really needs is applications to rival windows compatible apps. (sorry, couldn't find the link) I agree, and if this is true then open source software like firefox/thunderbird (that can easily be dl'ed for linux) gaining popularity over MS versions will someday lead to "average" user realizing: 'hey, I all the apps I'm using are available for any FREE linux OS I choose.' Then on that magical day, linux will rule the world and we'll all live happily ever after.

--
... IMHO, of course.
Re:licenses??? by Florian+Weimer · 2005-10-10 05:28 · Score: 1

I think the bigger issue is the indemnification clause.

I don't think so. Postfix (aka "IBM Secure Mailer") is shipped by quite a few distributions, and the IBM Public License contains an indemnification clause which is very much like Sun's.
Re:licenses??? by Rick+and+Roll · 2005-10-10 06:22 · Score: 1

Sun's Java license forbids distribution together with competing technology
Let me rephrase that.
Distribution of Java with competing technology is verboten by Sun.
Re:licenses??? by agraupe · 2005-10-10 08:51 · Score: 1

I don't see how they aren't useful... that's like saying most programs are in apt-get. The truth is, although many people will never feel comfortable doing a make on a source package, that a distro gains a lot of its legitimacy through the sort of user who would. The GNU/Linux landscape is one that, at this point, requires a compiler and dev tools; as far as I know, even OS X includes them by default. It has been a historical part of a UNIX-based system, and I see no reason why that should change; there is no harm in including it and having people not notice whether it's there or not, but it can create a more negative image if someone goes looking for it and can't find it easily.
Re:licenses??? by zootm · 2005-10-10 10:02 · Score: 1

Unless they can be made easy to use, they have no real place (as default) in a user-oriented system, in my opinion. In a source-based system (like BSD or Gentoo's portage) that makes sense, but if it's a user-oriented system there's little point for them being there. The target user has no use for them, but they're easily available (as easily available as they are usable, in fact) if one needs them.

That said, there's always the argument that there's no good reason to omit them, I suppose. Hooray for going on forever :).
Re:licenses??? by agraupe · 2005-10-11 15:18 · Score: 1

Well, exactly what constitutes "easily available" is the question at the heart of the debate. It is not enough that they exist somewhere in a package management system; I should be able to apt-get/yum/etc. a single package to set up a basic build environment with the standard tools required to build a basic source package. I also object to the fact that I have to find the -dev version of every package I've already installed, and install it as well; surely there should be an option to install -dev packages based on what's already on the system.
Re:licenses??? by zootm · 2005-10-11 21:12 · Score: 1

The -dev idea is interesting. I think it might actually be a semantic limitation of apt (I don't "do" RPM) rather than anything else. It might be possible to write a script to do it though.
Re:licenses??? by dlichterman · 2005-10-13 05:34 · Score: 1

Yes, I hold the licenses for Flash and Shockwave

What? by RedNovember · 2005-10-09 23:58 · Score: 5, Informative

You mean to tell me that this has never been covered before on Slashdot? Are you kidding?

Or am I just being naive? I guess the slogan is true - Slashdot. The News 24 Hours After Everyone Else Or Your Money Back!

As an aside - why not mention Portable Firefox or FFDeploy? They fit the same category of spreading firefox.

--
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com

Re:What? by MaestroSartori · 2005-10-10 00:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

Interestingly, a quick straw poll of ~30 or so programmers here in the office reveals no-one that had heard of it. So I'd say it's a fair bet that it's not *that* widely known...

More to the point, it's a decent idea. Firefox isn't hard to install, but why not make packaged versions with all the handy things in it? Thanks for the links to those other two, I'll have a longer look at all three of these options later :)

--
Game dev and music blog
Re:What? by Steinfiend · 2005-10-10 00:54 · Score: 3, Informative

I can't tell you how much I have to recommend PortableFirefox, not only for use on a USB key, but also for use on machines without admin privilages. Take for instance a work machine locked down so tightly and with IE only installed. As long as you have the abillity to run an exectuable you can run PortableFirefox.

If you are used to running IE6/Firefox on your latest uber Quad Processor 12GHz Pentium 7 machine, you don't really get the full difference between the two. However, run IE6 and Firefox on a slightly older machine (P3 128mb etc) and you'll soon realize what you thought was a slow network connection is in fact a slow rendering engine.

If you couldn't guess, this is exactly what happened to me!
Re:What? by kcb93x · 2005-10-10 01:41 · Score: 1

I've been mirroring said project since basically day 1, but now that mozdev is mirroring it, well, they don't list the other mirrors, but I still maintain mine :D

Quite the handy project, I don't use it myself (my flash drive contains most of my stuff, more obscure than the ones included)

But it is useful for those who do lots of installs for new users.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:What? by jp10558 · 2005-10-10 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative

If that's the case, you likely would be amazed by Opera.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 10:17 · Score: 0

And not to forget the MOOX builds optimized for your machine...

Excuse me by cached · 2005-10-09 23:59 · Score: 0

Excuse me for asking but if someone is going to use firefox, they should already have internet connection, in which case there should be no reason for making this on a CD unless I am missing something.

--
+1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.

Re:Excuse me by Stian+Engen · 2005-10-10 00:06 · Score: 1, Informative

I's rather give friends / family / coworkers a CD, than giving them a list of URLs and installation instructions. Not to mention the convinience of having all this software on an easy to share CD
Re:Excuse me by Bongoots · 2005-10-10 00:08 · Score: 0

The purpose is for those who currently use Firefox to download this CD and show friends the true path to enlightenment.

I'm sure not all your friends will find out about Firefox/Thunderbird/etc without someone telling them about it face-to-face -- if the opposite is true, you really need to get out more! :p

In such a face-to-face situation, this is what you need to be wielding ;)
Re:Excuse me by cronotk · 2005-10-10 00:10 · Score: 1, Informative

Sure they have an internet connection, but this CD offers a few more advantages:
1. Some ppl just don't find the things that they're looking for - that's not a problem anymore
2. You definetely won't have any problems with the copatibility of the extensions and themes
3. Some ppl who never used Firefox or Thunderbird before may try them out now, since they have everything they want on the CD

I think this is a great Idea. It's especially easier for ppl who were unable to find all needed extensions on the Mozilla-homepage or just had stress with incompatibilities.
Re:Excuse me by malkavian · 2005-10-10 00:24 · Score: 5, Informative

Modem connections? They're still around, and it's a pain in the derriere to download Firefox, plus extensions, plus thunderbird.
All on one CD, chuck it in the drive and go. Much better solution.

I think you're missing something. by bigtallmofo · 2005-10-10 00:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

they should already have internet connection, in which case there should be no reason for making this on a CD unless I am missing something.

The idea behind this is to encourage more people to use Firefox. Giving a CD with everything needed is preferable to sending a link to certain friends/family because a CD sitting on your desk is a constant reminder to install Firefox. Also, some people don't think software is real unless they're given real media to install it with. Why does AOL go to all the expense to send out their CDs? Because it's more effective to get people to install it than many other techniques (giving out a phone number or link for instance).

--
I'm a big tall mofo.

Re:I think you're missing something. by value_added · 2005-10-10 00:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

It could be the folks at the Firemonger Project are also missing something.
The extensions listed as Most Popular on the Firefox page aren't necessarily included. To wit:
FlashGot (yes)
CustomizeGoogle (NO)
NoScript (NO)
Tabbrowser Preferences (yes)
Adblock (yes)
Forecastfox (yes)
IE View (yes)
PDF Download (NO)
StumbleUpon (yes)
Gmail Notifier (NO)
Re:I think you're missing something. by jmweirick · 2005-10-10 11:12 · Score: 1

We don't necessarily choose extensions on existing user popularity because we aim at new users and most existing users are on a more technicall level than most users. We try to only include extensions that will be usefull and easy for newcomers. For example Gmail Notifier isn't necessarily that usefull because only a small number of internet users use Gmail and those people are likely to already be using Firefox and Gmail Notifier. Of course, there is forum on the website to recommend extensions that you think are missing.

This is a great strategy! by michaelzhao · 2005-10-10 00:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Although Firefox is meant to be liteweight, there are some people on this planet that don't use it because it is too lightweight. Enter my grandparents. Old Chinese folk with no knowledge of computers. They don't know how to download extentions, definitely don't know how to download and install Thunderbird. Suites like this make their life easier. My life will be eased as well because I won't have to tell them how to download everything over the phone.

This is a great piece of software.

Re:This is a great strategy! by TheSpoom · 2005-10-10 00:11 · Score: 1

I've seen this argument before and my response has always been: They consider IE to be featureful by comparison?

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:This is a great strategy! by pjbgravely · 2005-10-10 00:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, When you parents call, have a bookmark setup so they can find their IP address.
Then SSH into their box, and install the software. Much easier than phone tech support.

--
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Re:This is a great strategy! by customiser · 2005-10-10 00:37 · Score: 1

Why wait for this then and not use the Mozilla suite instead?
Re:This is a great strategy! by orasio · 2005-10-10 01:41 · Score: 1

It seems difficult for you, because you have to speak chinese.
Maybe it's Chinese that is difficult, and not Firefox!
Tell your father to learn English, and your support calls will be much more pleasant!
Re:This is a great strategy! by jp10558 · 2005-10-10 05:42 · Score: 1

So, which do they use? Opera or Mozilla Seamonky?

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:This is a great strategy! by mrmeval · 2005-10-11 08:41 · Score: 1

Have the machine tell you with dyndns.org's service and an autoupdate client then just SSH to mymomanddadarecluelessbutpjbgravely.is-a-geek.net :)

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

Why Fire[xxx...]? by bogaboga · 2005-10-10 00:10 · Score: 0

What I see is that a number of project releases based on Firefox in some way, have "Fire" in their name. Are these going way of KDE which have "K" emphasized in their name?

Re:Why Fire[xxx...]? by ShieldW0lf · 2005-10-10 00:27 · Score: 1, Funny

What I see is that a number of project releases based on Firefox in some way, have "Fire" in their name. Are these going way of KDE which have "K" emphasized in their name?

They spend too much time in the company of people who think this is cool. They're kind of like a group of small town guys disco guys who tell each other how hip they all are, but never talk to enough girls to find out the truth.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Why Fire[xxx...]? by computerdude33 · 2005-10-10 00:39 · Score: 3, Funny

No, the reason is that if you get the Firemonger CD and you don't install FF or TB, it'll catch fire.

In your computer.

--
computerdude33's stuff: My blog of wonder.
Re:Why Fire[xxx...]? by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2005-10-10 00:41 · Score: 1

Once long ago there was Phoenix, this turned into FireBird and later to FireFox. People had become used to these name changes and felt disappointet about the longevity of the latest change. Thus some bright soul created FireSomething, that gave you a new Fire* every day.

The FireMonger name is propably a part of this meme.

--
- These characters were randomly selected.
Re:Why Fire[xxx...]? by famebait · 2005-10-10 02:43 · Score: 1

Yup. Next up is tthe "Fireman Project", which is just like this onse, only optimized for pr0n-viewing (i.e. without the adblock).

--
sudo ergo sum
Re:Why Fire[xxx...]? by jmweirick · 2005-10-10 11:04 · Score: 1

The name Firemonger means "a dealer of fire." The name is appropriate for the project because we try to deal, or spread, firefox to the masses.

Why not Improve it first? by Famatra · 2005-10-10 00:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is still a lot of features lacking in Thunderbird, partly because I do not see many people incorporating other GPL software into it (are there still licensing issues, or is it fully GPL/LGPL now?).

Things that Thunderbird lacks is:
*Any type of attachment based filters (if it has an attachment, size, etc.). For fuck sakes, even outlook *express* has attachment based filters.
*Auto compacting of folders. When you delete something it really isn't deleted and your folders can grow to huge sizes unless it is 'compacted'.
*Auto expirary of mail. Kmail has it (http://kmail.kde.org/features.html) why not Thunderbird?
*A lot more, just look at some features that have been requested over the past few *years*.

A little less self congradulations, especially with regards to Thunderbird, is in order I think.

Re:Why not Improve it first? by nooby_god · 2005-10-10 00:27 · Score: 2, Informative

There is still a lot of features lacking in Thunderbird, partly because I do not see many people incorporating other GPL software into it (are there still licensing issues, or is it fully GPL/LGPL now?). Thunderbird and Firefox like most of the Mozilla Foundation's projects are licenced under a GPL/LGPL/MPL tri-licence. You can pick whatever licence that fits your needs.
Re:Why not Improve it first? by dumdumdum · 2005-10-10 02:06 · Score: 1

*Any type of attachment based filters .... I have achieved this by creating a Filter based on CONTENT-TYPE=multipart/mixed. Yeh its not the *easiest* thing to do, but I guess someone should be able to create extension for this very easily
Re:Why not Improve it first? by oogoliegoogolie · 2005-10-10 02:52 · Score: 1

Any type of attachment based filters

You mean like "View->Messages->Has Attachments"?

Auto compacting of folders.

You mean like "Compact folders when it will save over xxx kb"?
Re:Why not Improve it first? by Spetiam · 2005-10-10 06:04 · Score: 1

I concur. Thunderbird has also needed, for a very long time, an option "do not delete from remote server until message is emptied from trash" and an easier way to put in multiple SMTP servers and link them to their proper email address.
Re:Why not Improve it first? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 12:40 · Score: 0

>>Any type of attachment based filters.

>You mean like "View->Messages->Has Attachments"?

If message has attachment do x.

The licenses aren't the problem, the content is. by fishdan · 2005-10-10 00:17 · Score: 1

It's easy enough to put in an "I agree to everything" on the installation script.

But why would anyone want flash pre-installed, unless it were to come with Adblock also installed and defaulted flash blocked. I'd be interested if people's experiences are similar my own, but my "primary" browser does not have flash installed on it, and I've been VERY happy with that. I have an "alternate" browser on my windows boxes, so that if I have to see something Flashy, I can hit the KVM, and get there in IE.

I just think that people are divided enough on Flash that a distro with Flash in it is alienating too many of the Mozilla evangelists who are responsible for the rapid spread.

--
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm

Re:The licenses aren't the problem, the content is by blindcoder · 2005-10-10 00:21 · Score: 1

Actually, I have the flash plugin installed on all of my browsers.
The thing I install directly after the flash plugin is FlashBlock.

--
See my blog for my free opinions.

AdBlock? by CdBee · 2005-10-10 00:27 · Score: 4, Informative

AdBlock represents a possible problem as it hasn't been updated in quite a while and in its current iteration doesn't work with Firefox 1.5.

There is a spin-off project called AdBlockPlus which would make a more logical choice.

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

Re:AdBlock? by DeepThoughts · 2005-10-10 00:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Umm... Does Firefox 1.5 beta1 qualify as "Firefox 1.5"? Becaus if so AdBlock works just fine. I upgraded to Firefox 1.5 beta1 from 1.0.7 and AdBlock never stopped working.
Re:AdBlock? by cronotk · 2005-10-10 00:54 · Score: 1

and in its current iteration doesn't work with Firefox 1.5.

Well, I use the 1.5 Beta 2 and AdBlock at least works half. If you activate it (I installed the extension "Nightly Tester Tools") it will not show the "AdBlock"-Image unter e.g. Flash-objects and it will not show anything useable when clicking on the word "AdBlock" in the lower right corner.

BUT if you go to "Tools -> AdBlock -> Preferences" you can still add new blockable elements which WILL be blocked. It has just gotten a bit more difficult to block objects, since you have to che the source code to know where a specific page gets its advertisement-banners from.

Have fun!
Re:AdBlock? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 04:33 · Score: 0

Adblock also doesn't work correctly with flash if the flash movie is sized percentage-wise.

If you use Windows MUI by phoebe · 2005-10-10 00:29 · Score: 1

you will find that the Mozilla installer immediately exist so no Firefox or Thunderbird for you!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16236 1

In zee interest ooff oooor Svedeesh freeends: by halleluja · 2005-10-10 00:29 · Score: 4, Funny

IZ Relueded vreetes "Zee Furemunger Pruject is un ettempt tu creete-a a mooltileengooel iesy-tu-use-a cumpeeleshun CD veet Fureffux, Thoonderburd und un ixcellent selecshun ooff ploogeens (Mecrumedeea Flesh, Mecrumedeea Shuckvefe-a und Soon Jefa), ixtenseeuns (Edbluck, Guugleber, Hutmeeel tebs, SesseeunSefer, ScrepBouk und mure-a Bork Bork), Fureffux und Thoonderburd zeemes, releted prugrems (Furetoone-a und Beckoopffux) und a cumprehenseefe-a begeenner's gooeede-a. Iferytheeng yuoo need tu stert up veet und get zee must oooot ooff Fureffux und Thoonderburd. Zeere's elsu a leete-a ferseeun fur doonlued."

Use-a zee Prefeeoo Boottun! Check thuse-a URLs! Bork Bork Bork!

Re:In zee interest ooff oooor Svedeesh freeends: by Jerf · 2005-10-10 09:46 · Score: 1

Wrong browser for that joke.
Re:In zee interest ooff oooor Svedeesh freeends: by halleluja · 2005-10-10 21:37 · Score: 1

Wrong browser for that joke.
Check http://www.snert.org/downloads/bork-current.xpi.

Lite CD by m0nstr42 · 2005-10-10 00:29 · Score: 1

There should also be a lite CD. Or at least make sure the installer for the CD lets people know the extra stuff is optional. The physical media helps with people who aren't comfortable with downloading software. If you put all this stuff on it and make people think they NEED it, then it gets overwhelming. "Geeze... I need to install all of this extra stuff just to use Firefox? I don't have to install *anything* to use IE."

--
m0nstr42.blogspot.com

Re:Lite CD by RemovableBait · 2005-10-10 01:13 · Score: 1

There is a lite version of the CD.

It's on the downloads page, right below the full version CD image.

Wrong ! by CdBee · 2005-10-10 00:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thunderbird supports auto-compacting of folders and has for several releases now. It's an option, unticked by default, in the Options panel.

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

Re:Wrong ! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 00:55 · Score: 0

"It's an option, unticked by default, in the Options panel."

There is no 'Options panel', there is Tools->Options which leads you to:

Tools->Options->General
Tools->Options->Display
Tools->Options->Composition
Tools->Options->Attachments
Tools->Options->Fonts
Tools->Options->Advanced

Feel free to point out where auto-compaction can take place for folders. Doesn't make much sense to me since right clicking on a folder is where I'd put it but hey, let's see where this leads.
Re:Wrong ! by dumdumdum · 2005-10-10 01:38 · Score: 1

Well there are 2 ways to do it 1. Right Click on Folder. Its 5th option in the popup menu 2. Goto Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Offline & Disk Space Near the bottom there's a checkbox "Compact folders when it will save over" XXX kb

Re:The licenses aren't the problem, the content is by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 00:33 · Score: 0

Wouldn't it be safer to install FlashBlock first, then install Flash?

Why Macromedia with Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 00:42 · Score: 0

My laptop was overheating (cpu 80+).
Finally tracked down the problem.
I had Slashdot and The Register open constantly and the Macromedia adverts from both pages were making the cpu spin a lot.
Uninstall macromedia, cpu 50-60.
Problem solved.

Re:Why Macromedia with Firefox? by darkitecture · 2005-10-10 02:12 · Score: 1

My laptop was overheating (cpu 80+).
Finally tracked down the problem.
I had Slashdot and The Register open constantly and the Macromedia adverts from both pages were making the cpu spin a lot.
Uninstall macromedia, cpu 50-60.
Problem solved.

Dude, I don't care how bloated a flash ad is, if it's making your CPU run 30 degrees hotter, I think you have other more serious problems on your hands than a plugin.

Translation by pipingguy · 2005-10-10 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

All the automated translation efforts "yo mamma, sup, homey, you mammo dogface to the bananapathch?" need to be based on local lingo.

I speak fairly good French, but translating this to something that could be understood by a second-language French learner is quite the challenge.

But that's OK, because the language is always devolving and marketing is our friend.

Firetune? What about Fasterfox? EOM by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 01:23 · Score: 0

Firetune? What about Fasterfox? EOM

Thanks for Replying... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 01:48 · Score: 0

"Well there are 2 ways to do it 1. Right Click on Folder. Its 5th option in the popup menu 2."

Well, the discussion was *auto*compaction, not simply compaction. If I wanted to sit there compacting 50 folders manually I'll be sure to do it that way.

"Goto Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Offline & Disk Space Near the bottom there's a checkbox "Compact folders when it will save over" XXX kb"

Yes I see it, fully layed out with clicks is:

Tools->Options->Advanced->Offline and Connection Settings->Offline Settings...[box]->Disk Space->Compaction [Based on disk size saved].

On top of the features it lacks add 'user interface' problems to the list.

Of all the fiery stuff by cciRRus · 2005-10-10 01:51 · Score: 0, Redundant

Does it comes with a fire wall?

--
w00t

Feature request: Portability and Syncing by jbarr · 2005-10-10 01:54 · Score: 1

Now, if it could only be released in a "Portable" version. While I certainly love the current concept, to me, having an option of installing these apps as "portable" versions simply rocks. Yes, many users want Firefox and Thunderbird to be installed so that they become the "default" apps, but having it available in a completely transportable format has been invaluable to me.

Specific to Firefox, one thing I would love to see developed is some sort of "web-syncable profile". I simply love the current implementation of the Bookmark Synchronizer extension, and I would like to see a similar concept developed that would let me sync my profile (less the cache) with an FTP site. Build this concept into the Firefox core (that would securely sync, manage, and clean up after itself), and you would have a reasonably secure, truely portable "Web Workspace" wherever you are. I have several PC's located at both work and home, and synchronizing everything is often a pain. I end up just moving around with a Portable Firefox installation. having an online profile sync would be wonderful!

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!

Re:Feature request: Portability and Syncing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 06:43 · Score: 0

This is for the 1.5 release. It will be based on a live version of Firefox and extensions/themes will be installed one click style without having to install Firefox and then open Firemonger up in Firefox to install extensions.

Rip OFF!! by donnacha · 2005-10-10 02:18 · Score: 0

This a blatant rip-off of my FireMinger Project which aims to provide FireFox, Thunderbird, Half Life 2 and a host of useful extensions on a single 1.44mb floppy.

It hasn't been going very well.

Shockwave? by BHearsum · 2005-10-10 02:29 · Score: 1

Must be Windows then. I don't know of any Linux Shockwave plugin.

Re:Shockwave? by ianmassey · 2005-10-10 02:34 · Score: 1

yeah congratulations on that observation, galileo. your average linux user would have no use whatsoever for this CD. The idea here is to steal marketshare from IE and OE by making Firefox and Thunderbird a turnkey solution, and not just a 10 minute web-romping joyride of sequential installs for geeks.

Games? by andrewman327 · 2005-10-10 02:30 · Score: 1

I wodner why they didn't include any games. I got my mother to start using FireFox by showing her Blockfall (Tetris clone). If they had included a few game extenstions, it would take up very little space and would show off the power and flexibility of FireFox.

--
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.

Firefox distrib by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 02:44 · Score: 0

This is the first firefox distrib.

stable fox by DavidBartlett · 2005-10-10 02:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Before we start making souped up versions of Firefox, why not try to make a stable version? I've resorted to using a less capable browser (Safari) because Firefox is always crashing on me.

--

-DB-
E-mail is like a prison: a prison with no walls... and no toilet. -Strong Bad

Who distributes GPL-only software? by jbn-o · 2005-10-10 03:01 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know of any free software operating system that includes only software licensed under the GNU GPL. Which free software operating system does this? Not even the GNU Project advocates for distributing only GPL-covered software. Part of GNU is made up of software licensed under the MIT X11, new BSD, and other free software licenses.

--
Digital Citizen

Re:Who distributes GPL-only software? by MooUK · 2005-10-10 03:28 · Score: 1

I believe the GP meant to say "free software licenses" or "GPL-compatible licenses" rather than specifically GPL. And then his point is valid.
Re:Who distributes GPL-only software? by Aeiri · 2005-10-10 03:52 · Score: 1

I don't know of any free software operating system that includes only software licensed under the GNU GPL. Which free software operating system does this?

Debian & Debian derivatives. Since that covers 3/4ths of all distros, I'm just going to stop there.
Re:Who distributes GPL-only software? by aardvarkjoe · 2005-10-10 04:18 · Score: 1

Debian & Debian derivatives. Since that covers 3/4ths of all distros, I'm just going to stop there.
Debian includes lots of stuff under other licenses in the base (for instance, BSD-licensed software.) There's also a fair amount of software under more restrictive licenses available, though it gets relegated to the non-free section. And, of course, the Debian-derived distributions include anything they want, including non-GPL / non-"free" programs.
In other words, you're wrong. I'm not aware of any full distribution that includes only GPL software.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Who distributes GPL-only software? by Stian+Engen · 2005-10-10 07:19 · Score: 1

Ups.. I stand corrected. What I meant was "doesn't include non-free software"

A Great Project by asa · 2005-10-10 03:05 · Score: 1

Firemonger is an amazing community project and it's good to see them getting more widespread coverage. Firemonger is and will continue to be a key driver of Firefox adoption. Congratulations to the whole team!

- A

Firemonger stats by dlichterman · 2005-10-10 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey this is Daniel, one of the origional helpers in the Firemonger project. If you would like to see some stats on hits.....heres a link!
http://my.statcounter.com/project/standard/stats.p hp?project_id=444253&guest=1

Re Licenses??? by NorwBlue · 2005-10-10 03:42 · Score: 0

Could Google with their new friend Sun make a distro? Sun has a lot of nice sw, Google has cash and muscle.

How about a keychain(or free bootable CD) Google/Sun/Linux that boots with all java shi^H^Htuff, a working dvd player, flash, plugins, (No mailclient, just a link 2 gmail) Office? yea sure... just not the MS kind

There would be no use for any dev-tools, since it would be a mum&dad distro. But this time it might actually work.

Good idea/Bad idea?

My mum would use it, and when u consider how many mums there are in the world i guess this would make even good old Bob Gates throw chairs about. (My mum calls him bob)

Re:The licenses aren't the problem, the content is by mboverload · 2005-10-10 03:53 · Score: 1

*cough*

http://mboverload.no-ip.org/tech/mboverloadpak.htm l

Drop TBE! by DrIdiot · 2005-10-10 04:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Drop Tabbrowser Extensions from the package.

Honestly, if they're going to put together a compilation of Firefox extensions, they might want to choose good ones that don't add bloat.

Tabbrowser Extensions is NOT recommended by the MozDev team. I've used it, and I've actually noticed that it slowed down my browser. This isn't a thing where I got a timer and timed it. This is a thing where I sat there thinking "wow, am I really on cable?"

Next thing you know, people are going to install this package and come to the Firefox team complaining how slow Firefox is.

The alternative: Tab Mix Plus

Re:Drop TBE! by dlichterman · 2005-10-10 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Thats what our forums are for http://firemonger.org/forums/
Re:Drop TBE! by amber_of_luxor · 2005-10-10 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
The alternative: Tab Mix Plus

Last time I looked t Tab Mix Plus it didn't have nerly as many tab options as Tabbrowser Extensions.
- Close tabs left
- Close tabs right
- Close other tabs
are probably the extensions I use the most, that are missing from your suggestion.
Amber
--
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
Re:Drop TBE! by DrIdiot · 2005-10-10 09:28 · Score: 1

I guess you should look more recently then, because those three that you listed are included.
Re:Drop TBE! by fxt_ethan · 2005-10-11 06:35 · Score: 1

It has already been decided not to include Tabbrowser Preferences in the next release, Firemonger 1.5. It will be replaced by Tab Mix Plus.

Customized installations by snib · 2005-10-10 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I personally prefer FFDeploy (http://home.comcast.net/~ifrit/FFDeploy.html), even though it hasn't been updated in months, I believe it still works. It allows you to pick your own extensions and settings, and it's easy enough to burn them to a CD.

--
This message will self-destruct in 5, 4, 3...

Adblock as part of the Firefox OOB Experience. by 787style · 2005-10-10 05:06 · Score: 1

This is exactly not the way to help their cause. Selling a browser as "See fewer ads" sends a nasty message to content providers. They already aren't enthused enough about the ease of blocking ad content, but making this part of a default distro would put an even worse taste in their mouth.

No Pimpzilla theme?! by Chiisu · 2005-10-10 05:39 · Score: 1

Come on, you gotta include that.....

Maybe because... by boomgopher · 2005-10-10 07:05 · Score: 1

It's too fucking hard to build that behemoth??

Look, I love TBird, been using it for over 2 years, but I tried to fix an issue once, and it was such a PAIN IN THE ASS to even build, let alone actually understand the code...

--
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.

Re:Grow up by VJ42 · 2005-10-10 07:10 · Score: 1

I hate too feed the troll, but if I use Adblock, and if I like the site, and I visit regularly I'll ctrl-shift-b, hit refersh, and click on the ads now and then. If and when a whitelist is added I'll use it. However the rest of the time I don't like Ads stoping me from enjoying the web.

--
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me

Mozilla Suite? by tarogue · 2005-10-10 08:54 · Score: 1

OK, so they went to all that work to take apart the browser from the mailer and from the extensions, and now they're going to put it all back together? Why not just go back to work on the mozilla project?

--
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp

Don't miss this! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 11:04 · Score: 0

Be sure to include in the CD all the FireFox's security vulnerabilities.

Thanks for your comments by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-10 11:56 · Score: 0

Hi, This is Andy, another of the Firemonger Project Developers. I actually host the project and it's interesting to see some of the comments, including the slightly negative one's. Rest assured we'll work harder to address those issues.
All feedback is appreciated, including critism and I noticed particularly the mention of Linux. We have been trying to address this issue for some time and if anyone would like to volunteer they'd be more than welcome.

As mentioned though, the main object of the project is to provide the alternative to downloading, especially for slower, dial-up users. Here, a friend with a faster connection can download the .iso, burn it to disc and share with the friend with the slower connection.

As for the choice of extensions, plug-ins etc, these are constantly reviewed and some may/may not appear in future versions. Licences we take particular care with and all third party plug-ins are fully licenced by there respective owners.

Again, many thanks for your comments and thanks for the mention on /.

Nomad - Firemonger Project Host and Developer

Removing Extensions like Google that you dislike? by billstewart · 2005-10-10 13:28 · Score: 1

I don't want to install Google Toolbar on my browser. Is it easy to remove if you've installed this package? Extensions are typically harder to remove than themes or other simple stuff.

The current features for entering search terms in the address bar work just fine for me, and I'm concerned about the privacy implications of any deeper connection to Google or Yahoo or other search engines.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Removing Extensions like Google that you dislik by fxt_ethan · 2005-10-11 06:19 · Score: 1

All of the extensions included are not automaitcally installed, the user decides which extensions to install.

117 comments