Slashdot Mirror
IceWeasel — Why Closed Source Wins
engtech writes, "There's been some hype about the Debian fork of FireFox called IceWeasel. Politics aside, this is a bad idea because it fragments the user base, divides the focus, and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare."
Just like how Firefox fragmented the Mozilla userbase?
Exactly *how*, is Microsoft going to capitalize on a fracture of Firefox... within *Debian*? This doesn't touch the userbase that is competing with IE etc whatsoever.
Honestly, is IE7 going to make up that much marketshare just because Debian users start using a different browser? Just because there's another option for one small tiny part of the population doesn't mean a great mass are going to be affected.
Either it's forked with a new name, or the Mozilla foundation has to deal with a version that's significantly diverged from the original, with its own bugs and issues. Perhaps Debian could live with using the mainline codebase, and contributing patches to Mozilla rather than going out on its own?
The point of open source software is to allow users the freedom to modify the code to meet their needs. If you restrict users to one single unmodified browser for the sake of unity then we have met the enemy and he is us.
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
It's true. Because some lamer says so on his blog, then sumbits it to slashdot to increase his ad-hits.
Nobody have warned me as such ? When did that happen ?
Read radical news here
After stepping back for a moment, however, I realized that the problem isn't as complex as it seems. In fact, I think it highlights something I've been saying for a while: Package systems under Linux are a broken concept.
When I was working on the Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future article, I received quite a bit of criticism for calling the package management systems a major source of breakage. In the follow-up, I was forced to point out that complete system packaging creates a massive, monolithic code base:
What we're seeing here is a legal extension of that same problem. By integrating the software into the codebase, Debian is attempting to take legal responsibility for the software. Yet the software provider (Mozilla) is already handling that responsibiity, and does not wish to give it up. On any other operating system, the binaries would get bundled (or not at all, if they're too untrustworthy) as a self-contained application, and the software provider would be allowed to continue handling updates. End of story.
In this case, Debian wants this software to be managed like all the other software they manage. Which means that taking responsibility becomes easier for them, rather than allowing the software producer to handle their own software. While this theoretically allows for a more cohesive system, that cohesiveness only goes as far as the packages checked into Debian's repository. Mozilla should be outside of that repository, but any software that's not in the repository is not well supported by the packaging system. Ergo, the process breaks down.
That's just my thoughts, anyway. I'm sure many will disagree. Loudly. And rudely. Oh well.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
So, some dumbass thinks that debian trying to avoid being sued is going to help IE? Based on his complete lack of understanding of the situation? And we want to advertise he stupid blog with his stupid opinion why exactly? How much does it cost to get whatever crap I want on the front page, and who do I have to contact?
With two versions of Firefox there will be twice as many opportunities not to use IE. The Open Source market share will double.
How does this make Debian users use IE?
Great Intellect...
The article brings up an interesting question: to what extent does having multiple choices "split the vote" (as the article put it)? Let's take two scenarios:
Is someone more likely to choose IE in scenario 2 than scenario 1?
Possibly yes, if the paradox of choice holds true. If the number of options paralyze your decision, you'll be more likely to stick with the status quo... which for Windows users means Internet Explorer."
Should proponents of alternative browsers pick one to rally behind? If so, should it be Firefox? Would it be worth voting third-party (so to speak), but pooling resources to campaign for the lead challenger?
Yeah, what he said...
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
No, the problem will be relegated to people who use Linux, and more specifically, Debian and derivatives (I guess). Issues with extensions and themes not working for whatever reasons and so on are possible, I suppose, but people who use Firefox on other platforms wouldn't even see Iceweasel at all.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Exactly.
'nuff said. Next article please.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
This whole argument is stupid. Firefox isn't going to lose market share or open the way for IE7 by being forked. The only people who will use IceWeasel are LINUX users. LINUX users aren't the target for IE7 (as they can't run it) and quite frankly, aren't a large enough demographic for anyone to care. I highly doubt IceWeasel is going to go out of their way to get people running windows to switch. It will be used by those who have Debian and Debian derivitives and perhaps some idealists. This whole debate is perhaps the stupidest shit I've read in years, and it's been everywhere.
To sum up: IceWeasel is a Debian thing. Debian isn't targetting Windows. IE7 is Windows only. Firefox will not lose anything in the Windows environment because of this. People who use Linux probably use a multitude of browsers anyway.
Can we kill this fucking story already? Seriously?
If you switch to IceWeasel, the terrorists^Wmonopolists win!
People who run a linux desktop, likely dont use debian anyway. The few (thousand?) who DO, prefer lynx.
mein vord indeed, i switch on slashdot and what do i see? not the usual Crack smoking open source fetishism, not the usual don't trust the big evil corporation, none of the usual shet eating and anal streching. I have to take a reality check, an article that advocates closed source, WOW!
That is a disturbing logo.
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
This should be a good thing for those who want to see free software gain market share. Flock, IceWeasel, and all the other free browsers appeal to different people. Even if Firefox's user base shrinks a little, there will be a net increase of users of free software.
No it doesn't. Forking for freedom has never had long term negative effects on the survival or decrease in usage of the software. Usually forking ends up growing the market, as new forks are embraced by new groups (netscape, OpenBSD, Xorg, etc etc).
This article should be labeled "-1 troll". It's almost as bad as asking "GWB, a good president, or a great president".
Will the War in Iraq get better or worse in 2007? Vote here
"and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare."
Yeah, I'm sure all those dedicated Debian users are going to have a huge impact on browser use numbers. If they all switch over to IceWeasel, IE 7 might pick up two, even three hundredths of a percent. That would definitely spell the end for Firefox.
OpenWeasel fills a niche that isn't being address in some developers'mind. If they have any sucess they can back port the cool new features into Firefox. Otherwise a better product will come out we'll flock to it. How many people still use Cello or Mosaic as a browser? Not many. They've moved on becuase some one else moved onto to build a better product.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I don't know what's happening with Firefox and Ubuntu, but I do know that if it does get replaced with IceWeasel, I'll either
1. Download it from some 3rd party website
2. Download the source, compile it, package it up and host it on my website
And to be honest I'd encourage everyone else to do the same. I'm really not trying to troll, I just don't want to one day find a vulnerability or incompatibility in IceWeasel that's not in Firefox.
Summation 2
If folks are really worried that masses will flock back to MS and IE after a fork in versions then I would be inclined to believe that there are far deeper problems than just the fork. Unity in open source requires compromise if both sides of an issue cant meet on common ground you get a fork. I do agree with the comments in that in corporations you have a common goal and a common set of goals, in open source many times one developers whim deviates his focus to another direction, the end result is sometimes an improved program but more often ends up in a pissing contest with everyone threatening to take their toys and go home. Thats the biggest flaw and hurdle to open source taking over not the quality of the work.
Firefox forked from Mozilla, which forked from Netscape. It's still Firefox on Windows, IceWeasel has nothing to do with winduhs at all, so it won't affect the Firefox vs. Aieee war Forks are insurance against idiot vendors.
we will end no whine before its time
Debian can't carry the browser in their distribution under the "Firefox" name if they are to have any ability to tune it for their distribution or to fix bugs before the Firefox team makes their own release.
The software will be essentially identical to Firefox. I think we may see other distributions doing the same thing, as it's just not tenable for ANY distribution to contain software that it can't service.
And then hopefully we'll see the Firefox team go back to the policy they negotiated with the Debian organization only a year ago, before their new .com folks took charge, which was that they would agree to
trust some people to modify the code and not make a fuss about it.
The author of the quoted piece is being absurd to say this is "Why closed-source wins". It's not about fragmenting the user base, it doesn't have much effect on the brand and won't be very visible to naive users. It's just turning an obnoxious trademark policy that is flagrantly in conflict with the purportedly Open Source nature of the product on its head.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It hurts Debian. They could simply have moved it to non-free, and many would have respected Debian for sticking to the letter of the DFSG. But instead, they chose this snarky little twist.
What do I care, I use Ubuntu. Debian is becoming the new XFree86.
I am a proud IE-on-Debian user and there are millions* like me!
e
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Pag
*0.00005 millions
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
http://www.debian.org/logos/ Debian Official Use Logo License Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest 1. This logo may only be used if: * the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation) * official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose 2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only this part is officially approved 3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit.
Has it really gotten to the point where we cry about copyrights applied to the artwork in a program, or the plugins. The code is all open source, so what do they stand to gain by this other than a symbolically different browser they can brag about to their nerdy friends.
Why does firefox need to be 'more' open source?
Goddamn TurdWeasel.
s/IceWeasel/K-Meleon/ in the example scenario. The point isn't IceWeasel, the point is the number of options.
The only reason the name has to be changed to "Iceweasel" is because the Debian team wanted to make changes to the package. If it was closed-source, that wouldn't be possible in the first place.
So it looks to me like open-source only gives more abilities in this case, not less.
(Yes, I realize that the reason they wanted package changes was because it conflicted with their license. That's rather tangential to the discussion.)
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
No one told me that Free Software was about beating Microsoft at all costs.
This is basically just an editorial from some random slashdot reader?! How did this ever make it onto Slashdot? It would be just as ridiculous to have a "news" article that read, "it sure is great the way Debian is dumping Firefox for IceWeasel" since that's not news either, just someone's opinion.
The Mozilla Corporation should fix up the issues with the "FireFox Community Edition" naming that was originally going to be the path for this kind of thing so that it's actually usable for this kind of thing. Then, everyone knows it's not the 'real' FireFox, but it is still recognizable as some form of FireFox, and everyone winds up happy.
There's really no way Debian could comply with the patch review requirements otherwise, since Debian is the only distro that actually backports security patches for stable FireFox releases - the Mozilla team makes it so hard to extract the security fixes from the feature changes that everyone else has long since given up even trying to hold it stable.
The Mozilla Foundation doesn't have a problem with Debian modifying FireFox. What they have a problem with is Debian modifying FireFox fairly significantly, yet continuing to call the product "FireFox". FireFox(tm) is a specific codebase, maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. I think they have every right to ask Debian to rename their fork, so that end users are not confused, thinking that bugs in Iceweasel are general FireFox bugs (in some cases, they may be, in other cases, not).
I don't see anything wrong with asking someone who forks your codebase to use a different name to avoid confusion. What's the problem with that?
Plus, there is this thing about Trademark law. If you don't actively police it, you can lose the right to the mark.
This is pretty specific to Debian, and I can't see much of the Debian userbase switching to IE7. How is it that a distro, purportedly dead or in it's last throes, can cause so much confusion?
There better not be imposters out there...
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
There are tons of "unofficial" builds of Firefox. And Linspire claims to make HUNDREDS of changes to the Firefox code. So long as you don't use the official artwork, and make it clear that your version is different and unofficial, you don't have to rename or fork.
They're fine with you calling it an "unofficial" build of Firefox.
Debian isn't willing to use the word unofficial, so out of stubbornness they're going to fork. Open source loses in this regard, because while GPL code is open if you ask for it, often it is very difficult to find all the patches and changes people make to projects in all these splintered forks. They never go upstream, and very few people benefit. If everyone submitted their fixes upstream, then everyone would benefit.
If you want to do an unofficial build that is fine. I don't see why everyone has to be so childish though.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
There are many people around arguing that IE is stinking pile of shit and needs to be eliminated. In my minority view I would rather have like three major closed source browsers competing, Opera vs Netscape vs IE etc., then one big bloated open source project that undermines competition and now (obviously) discourages new developments. Someone wants to steer Firefox their way and they get slapped by dividing the focus and the base. Looks like there are "some", actually about 5 individuals of Firefox/Mozilla Foundation that heavily $$$profits$$$ from donations and their trademarked material of Firefox brand. Shop full of branded stuff and trademark licencing ??? WTF?? Those guys obviously don't want you to fork off their base or move users to some other sites or god forbid rename and make their own browser.
So let me get this straight... you're saying that the best way to fight a monoculture is with another monoculture? If that's true, then open source is rather pointless; nobody should ever be allowed to fork. I'll just go see what I need to do to go back to XFree86...
Seriously, though, the idea that marketshare must be had at all costs, and by a single entity no less, is bogus. The automotive industry seems to be doing fine with all the brands it has, and I don't see General Motors taking aggressive steps to produce all their vehicles under the GM badge, because having Chevy, Pontiac, etc. confuses people.
Yes, the subject is slightly misleading. I am a Debian user, soon to be former Debian user. Not because of this, this has nothing to do with me switching distros (again). I am moving away because if the slow as balls release cycles. Even after its released, you are already behind by 6 months to a year.
I only used Debian for apt. It totally blows away yum. But, with the slow ass release cycles I can't take it much longer.
I wish more Distros would base on Debian, rather then base on Red Hat. I really don't care for RPMs.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
No, trying to fight those things IS politics. The Debian project has never been interested in fighting those kinds of battles. They don't care about market share. They have a single focus: Making the best possible distribution, which can absolutely, no questions asked, be used by anyone for any purpose.
I for one am glad they put those principles first. I don't want compromises for the sake of market share.
I like the name better than firefox anyway :-) When is it hitting portage?
I agree with you.
However, I'm not sure that people haven't at least realized some of the underlying concepts behind your point before. The complexity of packaging systems is what leads to specialization in distros.
It's possible to take Debian and install packages on it, and make almost anything you want. A PVR machine, a digital audio workstation, a web server, a firewall, whatever. You can do it (and frankly, it probably works well in all of those roles, because they're fairly well-tested).
But rather than doing that, lots of people who want a machine in a particular role, don't just get "Linux" and then install a lot of packages on it, but get a particular, preconfigured distribution that already has a lot of packages installed and tested, and uses that.
The diversity of distros is basically an attempt to take the huge number of possible configurations possible with Linux and its ecosystem of packages, and produce a smaller number of well-tested configurations. So rather than building your own digital audio workstation, you get a digital-audio-workstaion distribution that already has everything rolled together. It's convenient, and it's less likely to have bugs.
So while I think that the diversity of packages is a source of possible conflicts because of the huge number of possible configurations, I don't think it's a totally insurmountable problem.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There are things that should be done with Firefox that can't because of the license. The biggest feature I'd add to Firefox would be integration of EVINCE or some other GPLed PDF viewer - you know, one that isn't a separate download from Adobe and doesn't advertise updates and other product, and loads quickly. Unfortunately the main Firefox codebase can not accept such things because they have multiple licenses and some (MPL) can not integrate GPLed code. I think a GPL only fork of Firefox could easily win out because of issues like this. However, they do need a better name IMHO. Hopefully the fork will be maintained as a set of patches against the official version so they can be Firefox plus extras - then they'll always be ahead.
"...and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare."
This is a worthless mindset. The goal should be to release a good product that end users appreciate. Competition will make both products better.
I have no idea how in freaking fuck IE7 will be gaining marketshare on a platform it doesn't even run on, due to a distribution issue with a completely different browser on a different operating system.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Is there any reason why Mozilla couldn't package a .deb themselves for people to download? Skype does this, along with various other applications out there (Frostwire, OpenOffice, etc.) Wouldn't that help solve the problem?
people forget that, beyond all that, many commercial distros do NOT distribute the "blessed" mozilla, but something called "Web Browser" or somesuch...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I'm tired of this. Can someone get Mozilla to release a trademark free, open source tarball of Firefox under a different name just for the Debian people?
You're kidding right? No, seriously? The debian project's extreme politics is what caused this and the user base isn't going to cause a mainstream fork, nor will it impact the Firefox user base by a noticeable percentage. The sky isn't falling.
Does anyone else stop at the part where the OP says, "Politics aside, this is a bad idea because.." and wonder how you can put politics aside, then go on to detail your idea on how it will hurt Firefox?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Maybe a frozen rat humping an ice cube?
(as opposed to a red dog humping a blue beach ball)
Methinks someone overestimates Debian's relevance in the browser marketplace. And yes, I know about Ubuntu.
Please help metamoderate.
as a non-native-English-speaker, I'm losing something but why is "ice-weasel" a more childish name than "fire-fox"? could someone explain it to me as if I'm a 4-year-old, because I'm stunned?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
i thought open source was all about being cooler than people that use software from microsoft and laughing at them when new vulnerabilities are annouonced... or was that why we all love macs?
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
There's something just plain disturbing about this...
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The open source community has limited resources in manpower. Most people are volunteers and are limited in how much time they can contribute. This said, it would seem logical, that in the case of a common goal, there is only one project to support it.
Take for example browsers. In the open source world, we have Mozilla, KHTML and other rendering engines, plus all the different browsers that are based on those engines. Some are created for special circumstances (mobile platforms, consoles), but many are just different ways of solving the same problem. A PC browser. The question is would we be better off pooling these resources behind one project, instead of splitting it up and fragmenting our resources into many different projects.
Having other projects are not necessarily a bad thing. It does open up development for other ideas to be tried. Look at Debian, a fork is not being created because of practical or developmental reasons, but for idealogical reasons. Now should the limited manpower resource be devoted to maintaining that fork? To what end? There is no reason that Firefox or fork of even needs to be included in the Debian distribution. Its not included with Windows or OS X.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Mozilla corp will release a Mozilla branded Debian (name to be selected either by public competition or the brand management team not sure yet, but it has to be slightly offending but not overly we still know who the real enemy is!).
(disclaimer, this is supposed to be a joke, if moz corp is doing this it's not my fault, and I'll might actually call back the nice nigerian gentlemen that requested my banking infos).
----
Some times late at night my computer speak with itself, or maybe with an elbonian computer over the internet.
Debian prove time and again that they have spine.
They do what's right, according to their policies and to the law -- even when its difficult and non-consensual.
They should be applauded for this.
If some policy has to be changed, its the Firefox name policy.
Listening to a user base and delivering will do a lot more than trying to expend effort in trying to compete against MS/IE.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If it is to be renamed then why not do it with some reference to the reason. A name like FreeFox or similar would at least maintain symbolic connection to the parent while underscoring that it is a wholly non-proprietary distribution of that parent. 'IceWeasel' sounds directly antagonistic of FireFox itself. If FireFox is hot, then it's alternative must be cold. It itself reads as a childishly extremist 'reaction' to what should otherwise be understood as a wise and considered move, for real and sane reasons.
The sheer lack of foresight amazes me. For years afterward we'll be hearing damaging myths that "FireFox doesn't install on Linux". Newbies coming into IRC to ask how to install FireFox will be pointed to what's later knows as the longest running $TOPIC in history. 'IceWeasel' just adds needless noise for all those millions considering switching to a Linux OS. FireFox is arguably the most important FOSS application for the desktop, if only because of it's notoriety. The name itself is larger than the software it represents. fscking with this reveals new depths of disregard for the adoption of Desktop Linux more generally.
To "win", you and your opponent have to be playing the same game.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Look, if we've got to rename Firefox... what's like fire, but not? Ice! What's like a fox, but not? A wolf! Cool! IceWolf! cool!"
"I just did a google search. A bunch of people are already using the term Ice Wolf."
"Our lawyers won't let us use the name - remember, the reason why we're renaming it is because we can't use the trademarked firefox images, so we can't step on Firefox's toes, and remember when Firefox was Phoenix and had to be renamed to Sunbird, and those names had trademark problems? We'vce got to steer clear of trademark problems."
"Crap. Lawyers are WEASELS!"
"Weasel? Works for me."
So let's see here... The Mozilla foundation provides an open source browser. A good one. For free. And basically says, do what you want, just don't change our logo, since it's our logo. And Debian has a problem with that. Sounds like some Debian developers need to be hit with a cluestick.
And, sire, you are, apparently, an anonymous coward.
Read radical news here
Wow, this has all the bias of a FOX news headline. I'd hope that the point of a place like slashdot would be to bring many points of view together so you can draw your own conclusion, not spoon feed me your agenda.
I guess that's what we should expect from the creators of Woody
Well, I for one would not initially expect a "globe-humping weasel" logo from a bunch of people who are fans of the Pixar movie "Toy Story". But then again it does convey what the Debian project thinks the Mozilla Foundation can do with its trademark policy.
Thinking about it though, adult animation enthusiasts DO tend to have a slightly twisted sense of humour...
I thought the point of open source software was to provide an alternative to closed source software. I thought OSS was trying to provide a better product. I thought OSS was trying to provide a (sometimes) free product. Who cares about market share? I thought that market share was just icing on the cake.
A lot of people hate Microsoft because their strangle-hold on the market. (There's other reasons too, but I'm not arguing those.) Now we have people that want OSS to become the next Microsoft? That doesn't sound right to me.
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I hear this repeated a lot. It's not true. If you allow your mark to become generic you can lose your right to it. Firefox is not at risk of this happening. Google is. You can be selective about enforcement as long as you don't allow the mark to become generic.
Debian has handled this problem, for years, by having an official-use and an un-official-use logo for their own distribution. This allows people to package the program with modifications and still use consistent branding.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Of course, they can actively police it *and* grant permission to use it. That didn't work in this case, because the conditions Mozilla placed on that permission weren't acceptable to Debian.
Also, I seem to recall something in the DFSG such that licenses *must* be transferable to derived products. I suspect Mozilla's trademark license would have been specific to Debian, and therefore not qualify for the DFSG.
That said, a well-designed trademark policy (like Debian's) provides a mark that they explicitly recommend that you to use if you modify the product, which does not throw their own branding out the window. The Mozilla.com people simply haven't thought that through sufficiently.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
TTF is what:
"Love is like a snowmobile racing along, then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." -- Matt Groening
Can we please come up with better names than friggin ICEWEASEL!?
Very informative and interesting post, sir.
Registered Linux user #421033
I realy don't care what my browser is called, or how many differents names for a browser or how many differents browsers there is, it justs needs to work. And that's why there is standards.
Firefox is useless on Linux anyway, they've never given a damn about the platform, only care about windows users. Not that we care, we have Opera and Konqueror (which is progressing at an amazing speed lately. Just try the new 3.5.5 and you'll see).
Management of that code == consolidation of who controls the releases, and hence Debian is stepping over their bounds in forking a version really to protest the trademark issue from what it looks like. If what they are bringing to the table is just better integration, then I see it as a lost cause and this will hurt the browser codebase. They need to either bring new features or a better paradigm of using that code if they wish to fork.
The Mozilla Corporation has said, "if you modify Firefox, you must let us approve the changes in order to call it Firefox."
Matthew Garrett, a Debian and Ubuntu developer, posted a well-thought reaction to this at http://mjg59.livejournal.com/68112.html. If the Linux kernel guys pursued the Mozilla Corporation's policy, you wouldn't have any GNU/Linux distributions - you'd have to call the Linux component something else, and where does that get the community?
Just a few years ago we were talking about making sure Open Source software provided users alternatives to proprietary software. Forking has always been an issue, but the gestalt view seemed to be that ultimately even in a forking situation, the better software would "win" in the sense that it would continue to be developed. The focus was not on defeating proprietary software in the marketplace, but in making truly great software.
Now it's 2006. Linux is a huge force in the IT world. Firefox has stolen marketshare from IE. These nibbles of success have changed the dialogue, and now marketing is as important if not more important than diversity. Choice is good and all, but getting computer users to make "the correct choice" is perhaps now the ultimate goal. Consumers may become confused by so many browser choices! Ah yes, let's not confuse them. Let's market and package Firefox so the choice will be clear.
I understand the rationale for not forking Firefox. But that's a tactical issue in a small skirmish. The real war is about choice. I'm for it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Sheesh.. everyone here is freaking out like this is some kind of fork. The only thing that's changed is the naming of the application because Mozilla is being a little weird about Debian distributing changed versions of firefox that display their logo. It was called debian firefox, and Mozilla was OK with that previously. That's a pretty typical thing that happens in distributions. You don't see Linus freaking out when every distribution changes the linux kernel, but yet still calls their product linux. I seriously doubt the Debian folks want a full fledged fork of Firefox (nor should they)
Really there's nothing that's changing in the development model except the name. Debian will continue to patch and update firefox. They'll branch off a new version of firefox every so often and create a version for debian just like they've been doing before. The only difference is Mozilla doesn't want them to call it "debian firefox", so the Debian folks decide to call it "ice weasel".
It's kind of confusing, I'll certainly agree with that but it seems like a reasonable approach by the Debian people. (And no, I'm not a debian user, but I do run Ubuntu).
AccountKiller
the binary and launch scripts still say "mozilla".
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Seriously, they're all just bits.
jpegs (say) are effectively programs that tell an interpreter/compiler (ie a browser, paint program etc) how to draw a certain picture. Why aren't they made 'free' by the GPL?
Except trolls nobody seems to disagree with you in that thread (when I started writing this post), so i feel I need to explain why you arguments are bogus instead of modding you down.
Since every package modifies the base system, the only way to prove that a package will work is to test it against every possible package configuration available!
Each package is independant with others except with its own dependencies. Those dependencies happen to be linear : for P packages, nP total dependencies, with n an integer independant of the number of packages. It's the job of a Debian package maintainer to check the dependencies are fulfilled and working : each maintener just needs to check n dependencies. That's part of the job people are doing to move a new version of a package from sid (unstable) to testing. I will add that chain of dependencies are irrelevant : if A needs B and B needs C, maintainer of A checks his program working against B, while it's the duty of the maintainer of B to check his program works with C. The only cross-dependancies are for kernel-mode code, that is only drivers.
In fact it's better than the windows "DLL hell", because the state of the system is known (for a Debian stable for exemple), while on MS Windows... Your program has been developped and tested for DirectX 8, will it work with DirectX 9 ? No way to know what the state of the user's system will be (and no developper includes DirectX as a static dependency, it isn't even possible). It's no wonder that most OSes are using repositories (Linux, BSD, QNX, BeOS with software wallet, that one being somewhat different IIRC).
any software that's not in the repository is not well supported by the packaging system.
You seem to ignore that there isn't a single central repository. Want Opera browser ? Just add http://deb.opera.com/opera/ in your repositories list, and you get the official binary matching your version of Debian, checked against it.
If something is not clear, feel free to ask for details.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
It probably is a bad idea, but not because forking Firefox helps IE7 or splits the user base in some way.
This move runs a risk with two things. First, it gives the impression that open source is fickle, prone to ayatollah-ish upheavals and not to be relied upon. If you were a business or institution, would you really feel happy running Debian knowing that next year the "community" (meaning: a vocal minority) might suddenly decide that package X was inappropriate and mere "marketing" and then alter it in some way that caused you a lot of trouble. Not long ago the Mozilla folks and Firefox were heroes. Now they are apparently running dogs and capitalists and we should "give Mozilla the finger", in Debian's own words. Mozilla may (or may not) be mistaken and inflexible in their attitude, but that just makes it even more important than the response to their stance is not similar in kind. Alas, it has been and that's a sign of immaturity to me.
Second, if Web 2.0 takes off, Firefox will have an even more important role to play, so this is probably not the best moment to fork one of the best-known and most successful open-source projects and then reissue it under a name no one gives fig for.
Still, I guess everyone has the freedom not to run Debian if they prefer not to.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Evidently, Xen, the open source Virtual Machine Monitor, has done it too. Look here for more details on Xen's trademark policy. Extremely close to what Firefox is doing now.
Welcome "Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare" to Debian and the linux world in general. I never knew IE7 had linux support! I can't wait until I can do this in FreeBSD: /usr/ports/www/linux-msie7
:)
:)
cd
make install
Frickin' sweet.
(yes, sarcasm, duh. This person doesn't realize that IceWeasel is essentially the same as Firefox has been in the past on Debian, with a name change. Yeah, they may make it functionally different, but they could've done that before too.)
As others have said, debian's obvious solution was to move it to the non-free repository. I don't use debian myself, but I use Freespire(yeah, w/e, I use FreeBSD for everything, I just wanted a mythbox that didn't require me to do the kernel by hand or install it by hand) but if FF disappears, I'll make sure to install it.
There's a lot of Moz/FF bashing in this article too. So, I will repeat myself. Debian users aren't "Free Software Extremists." They're only extreme, there's nothing about free software in Debian, it's "kinda sorta free" in the same way IE7 is free. There's limitations there, for both IE7 and GPL software. There, have some debian bashing back. It's a good platform, and I enjoy Freespire and recommend it to those who just "want to play with Linux" because it gets past all the hard crap.
What debian needs to do it quit putting in patches, or submit them for QA testing. All FF wants is a product that works at a reasonable quality, not a POS product with their name and brand on it. Completely reasonable.
But yeah, Debian has chosen what to do(instead of nonfree as others have suggested) and it's fine. Can we all get on with our lives? I know that the Moz people will help Debian do what it needs to do in order to go with their "free" software philosophy, life goes on, and iceweasel isn't ported to Windows or anywhere else. Sheesh people, come on. Frickin' drama queens man. I guess out of all the Moz bashing it must be the deb people who are the drama queens here, there's enough drama in the Moz world already generated internally.
.... it's Microsoft's fault.
I thought this was obvious.
I liked the name when I first heard it suggested, months and months ago. It sounds like something out of a great, tragic, Russian novel. So, I renamed Firefox to Iceweasel on my system, right then and there. If only I knew that changing the name of a file on my system was going to help "closed source win", I never would have done anything so horrible. I'm obviously a totally evil person, helping closed source win, and all that. I wonder if I'm helping the terrorists win, too? And what about the children--don't forget the children!
:)
Let me take this opportunity to thank the helpful people at engtech.wordpress.com, better known as NAMBLA.
It's OK. You can jump on my wagon. The -weasel suffix IS awesome. It's about time you people figured it out.
GNU/Linux is all ABOUT forks. One system ships with a different set of kernel patches than another. Some use rc start up scripts. Others delete your sendmail.cf file. Each one tries to create 'market differentation' and is therefore a fork.
If one is willing to accept 200+ versions all calling themselves "Linux", why get panties in a twist over 'iceweasel'?
this is a bad idea because it fragments the user base
[/quote]
Kind of like how Knoppix and Ubuntu have been detremental to the growth of Debian?
1) By your logic, for every piece of software I could install on a Windows machine (Q), there are 2^(Q-1) configurations to validate if I'm testing my specific product.
2) The codebase is anything but monolithic. Windows is monolithic. The divisions between packages are designed to minimize the stepping-on-of-toes while simultaneously maximizing component reuse. Solaris has a few thousand packages in its OS too, and you can configure that quite discretely. So what makes linux any different?
3) Debian isn't taking responsibility for the Mozilla codebase anymore than it takes responsibility for the linux kernel or glibc. They want to have the option to distribute packages and patches as they see fit (so that they can fully integrate them into the package management distribution system), incorporate distribution-specific patches that address the needs of the Debian userbase, etc.
People who use distributions are downloading packages from the distribution because they know the maintainers are doing the localizations, putting files and menus in the right places, and making sure that the installation isn't going to clobber a library file (like many a package in a certain closed source OS is wont to do). If they get a security alert in their email from the distribution, they know they can just run a single update command and all managed, relevant packages will be patched to address the concern.
Legal responsiblity doesn't enter into it anywhere. Maybe you missed the copious CAPSLOCKED warnings (from both Mozilla and Debian) in the readmes that warn of the lack of any warranty or usability guarantees.
It's just Mozilla doesn't want them to touch the source code and still call it Firefox. That's all. Most distributions do something like call it "web browser" or something similar (even if the package is named "firefox"). Debian is taking it a step further, having looked closely at the trademark agreements, and is replacing all of the branding with a single patch so that Mozilla couldn't stop anyone from using the GPL'd codebase as they saw fit.
Mozilla.org is being kinda silly. I hope that they address the issue soon... the Sun/OpenOffice.org foundation doesn't have this issue with branding and logos.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It's going to be called Surplujhonnie.
FRA: STFU GTFO
This new browser will send the same user agent string, so no big deal with market share numbers. And beyond that I can't think of any way this hurts open source and/or helps IE. Basically a non-story.
It's not like modifying packages for the distribution is something weird that no one does. EVERY distribution takes the linux kernel and modifies it to their own end. Linus doesn't seem to mind that people still call their product Linux (as long as it's Redhat Linux, Debian Linux, etc). Do you get all pissed off at Linus when there's a bug in your Debian/Redhat/Ubuntu/whatever derived kernel, or do you get mad at the distribution? Personally I blame the distribution first, and the kernel maintainers if it wasn't a bug created by the distribution. The distributions are the place people go to FIRST for support. It stands to reason they should be able to distribute their own versions of free software with their distribution.
The more I think about it, the more I think that Debian is doing the right thing here. It's not like they're the only distribution that cares about this sort of thing, they're just more able to act on it first. There's no corporate handlers to hold them back when they want to fight a "free software battle". If the Mozilla people want to be all weeny about anyone modifying their software, but still call it firefox then the rest of the world will just make up a new name and logo and use the nice free software that they produce.
AccountKiller
Has it not occured to you that the lameness filter was doing its job correctly?
As long as lynx is secure in it's marketshare.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Italics added.
Draw your own conclusions regarding Debian's need for speed.
A: Closed source browsers are few and far between when it comes to Linux availability. The only one I can think of, and correct me if I am wrong, is Opera. B: Iceweasel is just re-branded Firefox, and so far it seems that it is Debian-only. How does this affect the market for IE? C: With different choices such as (legacy) Mozilla Mainline, Opera, (ugh)Flock, Konqueror(for the KDE user in all of us), Galeon, and others left unnamed, what is the big deal about having another one?
You know, uh, when someone like Fedora wants to test a package before accepting it into say, core or extras, they do a test install on a system with what amounts to every possible package installed, simultaneously.
If that package causes conflicts, (overwrites files, introduces a new library version, clobbers a configuration file, tries to listen on a port being used by an existing service) then it gets thrown back to the maintainer who is told to fix it.
By building up a distribution in this fashion, you can guarantee that no particular package interferes with another.
It's the fucking principle of mathematical induction. It's not hard to understand.
What you're trying to address are the concerns of predictability. Will a user who downloads un-officially-packaged XYZ have a system with the right requirements to run XYZ?
It used to be bad. Nowadays I can't remember the last time I ran into issues with 3rd party SRPMS or RPMS. If it says "RHEL 4+ or Fedora (recent)" on the download, its gold. Chalk it up to stable package naming or whatever.
If it wants something I don't have, I just copy and paste it into yum. It's not exactly rocket science.
It would be nice to have feature baselines with names that are agreed upon by the community. In this fashion you can install a "metapackage" which ensures all the required features are available and also checks for blacklisted packages that may change behavior in an unsupported way.
Frankly, just a list of libraries/APIs and version number ranges would be enough.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Technically speaking, any package in a Linux distribution is a fork. You always have to re-arrange file layout, fix bugs that the upstream project do not care about (ie security issue in version of Firefox that Mozilla.com abandonned) and generally adapt to how things are being done in your distro. You may disagree with that, but this is what a Linux distribution is about : making disparate FOSS into a cohesive whole. Considering that, should all Linux distribution systematically rename all the software they package ?
The best example of the absurdity of that position is not Firefox, but the Linux kernel itself. It's pretty much a given that most Linux distribution heavily patch the kernel. It's actually expected to have bug fixes and security patch backported, as responsible sysadmins do not update their kernels willy-nilly. And oftentime, Linux distribution often include out-of-tree features (drivers, etc) that are useful their users. Should the Linux kernel be renamed in distribution that modify it ? If yes, then should we continue to call these "Linux" distribution ?
:wq
o.m.g that is, like, so clever how they just, like, switched that whole 'firefox' name on its, like, head.
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra when suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
-- Matt Groening
Moof!
(Sorry, this is not intended as a flame or anything, it's late at night and I'm kind of worried and stuff. This is supposed to be half funny and stuff. At this point of the night, I'm not sure of how well this works. Probably not very well.)
If Debian decides to mess around with my User-Agent thing, I'm either going to find a really nasty configurative sledgehammer to tune it to say "... Firefox/1.5.0.7 (Debian-1.5.dfsg+pointless-renaming-squabbles+1.5. 0.7-x)", or switching to the official binaries. If my extensions fail to work even a little bit, like some said is possible, I'm switching to the official binaires.
As a normal rational user, I don't care what the app is called as long as it works as expected. (But Firefox is a cute name and I like cute names.) But if it advertises to the others as not being "Firefox", I'm potentially in heaps of trouble - I'm no longer in the 30% of whatever of local crowd who use Firefox, but in the 0.1% who use Some Random Hacked Up Mozilla Engine Derivant, insignificant according to the our-weird-hacks-are-best-experienced-with-major-br owser web design crowd. And let me guess, they'll change the ~/.mozilla/* directory structure accordingly too. If changing branding causes any technical issues within the browser or elsewhere, that's really really bad.
I hear Netscape folks had the bright idea to call the browser Mozilla and let the Marketing call it Netscape SeaAnchor or Netscape UnterseebootKapitan for all they cared. Likewise, I sure hope Debian calls the browser Firefox internally (just casually, you know, kind of like nickname, you can't sue for just using nicknames, can you?), while the developers prepare for the big release of sea-anchor-of-doom packages (or whatever it will be called, my sense of humour just jumped the ship so I'd better quit and go to the bed).
The goal is not marketshare, it's to have a safe, secure browser that WORKS.
The point of the article was the effect of the fragmentation of the user base by the creation of a secondary (and competing) browser called Ice Weasel. That whole trade mark thing was pretty much filler and background info. This quote sums up the authors reason for documenting his thoughts, "Anyone who thinks IceWeasel is a good idea has drunken too much of the open source Koolaid." Notice the distinct absence of any mention of trademark law. I think you missed the point...yourself...yourself...?
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
It's because the Debian people are assholes. There. Somebody had to say it.
"What they have a problem with is Debian modifying FireFox fairly significantly, yet continuing to call the product 'FireFox'." ...and so Debian is changing their name for it. I don't really see what all the hullaballoo is about. The linked article says Debian thinks Firefox isn't "open source enough". Um, no, they are simply complying with the trademark usage guidelines. I can see how misunderstandings could develop from that, but it seems simple enough when you think about it. What am I missing?
This sounds so gay it's probably true. I'm going to hit up the Debian site right now to confirm the extent of their ridiculousness.
I would mod you insightful if I could. This has always puzzled me, too. Why couldn't Debian have just moved Firefox to one of the other categories? Could it really have been that hard? Was it just easier to cause a stink over this instead? Maybe somebody more familiar with the package system and the Debian bureaucracy could offer some insight.
"opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare" So? Innovate. Give users a reason to stick with another browser.
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
That's real cute. Weasels are varmints. We shoot varmints. Especially varmints humping something.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I am sorry, please correct me: this war appeared just because of this icon? http://engtech.wordpress.com/files/2006/10/th_hump ingiceweaselst6.gif Quite nice icon as for Debian users, what the problem is...
links2 -g
Proprietary software will always win out because it can have a single-minded purpose and direction.
Yeah, just like the Soviet Union always won because it could have a single-minded purpose and direction, right?
Anyone who thinks IceWeasel is a good idea has drunken too much of the open source Koolaid. [...] No matter who is responsible, the result is the same. Fragmentation where no fragmentation is necessary.
Of course, the consequences of having both the IceWeasel and Firefox trademarks around long-term would be bad--anybody who isn't a complete moron understands that. But there are two parties who can avert this problem: Debian can change or Firefox can change. It looks to me like at this point, Firefox has more to lose, so they may be changing their stance. And Debian really doesn't have a lot of room to maneuver--if they opened themselves up to this kind of control by other open source projects, they'd be in big trouble.
In any case, you're naive if you think this sort of shit isn't going on at Microsoft or other companies. At Microsoft, for example, this sort of thing happens both internally (competition among internal feature sets, naming, groups) and externally. In fact, Microsoft is infamous for doing their own in-house clone of something when a vendor annoys them. In comparison to closed source, this sort of thing happens remarkably rarely in the open source community.
WindBird or EarthMole (or _whatever_) can't be worse than "IceWeasel" (wtf!?!); People who code make crappy names, and vice-versa?
no offence, but.... jees!
--I'm not saying the first two are good, but I'd never find myself agreeing the lattes is either.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
Anyway you look it it, the Debian guys do not seem to be causing trouble with their trademarks.
Oh, and by the way, the Debian Swirl we all know is not trademarked. They've got a trademarked graphic, but they don't use it in the distribution, because that would cause problems for people wanting to do Debian-based distributions; because you see, they're not really hypocrites: they understand what free software is about, and are happy to see people do modified versions of it.
Would they be annoyed at someone shipping a Debian-based distro that they still call Debian? I don't know: I've never heard of such a case. If people make big changes, generally they want credit for having made big changes... the exactly parallel case to this current flap would have to be relatively small tweaks that are barely noticeable.
So whether you rely on the Debian method of distributing security updates, or the Mozilla method; the right way to do it is going to be something that requires an extra step.
"Oh all this Free Software in-fighting is so shameful! (Here, let me stir the pot a little more...)"
It's at least partly based on a quotation from Matt Groening -
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the iceweasels come"
Abort, Retry, Ignore?
Why doesn't debian just distribute Flock instead of forking Firefox?A Q
:-)
Flock states on their wiki --> http://wiki.flock.com/index.php?title=Licensing_F
That...
"Files that are original or modified versions of Mozilla source code are distributed under the MPL.
For files that are original creations of and for Flock Inc., Flock Inc. is the sole copyright holder, and these files are distributed to the public under the GPL (GNU Public License) (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) version 2."
Sounds like it pretty much solves the issue, not to mention the fact that Flock has a lot of features that, IMHO, pretty much deprecate firefox anyway, or at the very least require far fewer plugins
I don't work for flock or anything. I just like the browser. I use it on Mac and Linux, and all's well for about a year now.
Using Firefox as an example of how closed source wins is a little empty headed.
You could call it WaterWeenie.....
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
This is an example of how a decision in an OSS project can sometimes be made for entirely non-technical reasons. I've written a post on my blog about how it's a fallacy to think that these decisions always have well-thought out technical motivations. Four other myths are also dispelled in this post. I'd be curious to hear the /. community's feedback.
I agree. Wouldn't it just have been easier (and less vaingloriously controversial) to move the Firefox package to non-free than to fork it and adopt the childish name? Hopefully somebody who knows about Debian's policies on moving packages can offer some insight as to why just moving the package wasn't a viable option.
I think what presents a threat to Microsoft is when the programs people use on Windows are available everywhere else. That allows for a seamless transition away from Windows and the entire Microsoft suite. So when users can't find their pretty fox-setting-the-world-on-fire-with-its-tail button, they don't feel as comfortable: it's just one more thing that's "different." What's more, not being geeks, they won't know that IceWeasel == Firefox. All it takes is one idiot saying "Iceweasel isn't as good as Firefox..." and tons will just believe them.
Sending clear market signals and extensive branding are vital to success with the "unwashed masses." That's a big reason Microsoft's been winning for so long in the first place. I mean let's face it - it was NOT because they had the best product.
If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree.
What I don't understand is why people care so much about possible fragmentation of the brand. This is what Open Source is. The GPL and other open source licenses fundamentally encourage code to be forked, built on and improved to meet the needs of different groups of people who might not otherwise be fully satisfied. When I see people proclaim, in the name of OSS, that it's a "bad thing for OSS" if Firefox fragments away from a single brand, it seems hypocritical to me.
If there's a particular browser out there that people want to promote and use to challenge IE, then by all means they should do that. But it's silly to expect other OSS users to drop whatever they're doing and unite for such a specific cause against closed source software. The fact that some people would like to see OSS overtake CSS, to all kinds of varying degrees, doesn't mean that all Firefox and Debian developers and users have to think the same thing.
If the web is to serve its intended purpose, web developers shouldn't be coding for IE and they certainly shouldn't be coding for Firefox. They should be coding for standards, and browser makers should be working to implement those standards correctly. An increase in the number of browsers out there, even if they're forked from the same code base, can only push the point that reliance on standards is ever more important. That's good for everyone who wants a good web browsing experience. It also gives people more freedom to choose the browser they want, instead of having to choose from only one or two browsers that might render the pages correctly.
I thought that the whole point of the Open Source movement was to make Free Software more appealing to the market place, and their we have the stupidest name ever, Iceweasel, use as a kind of childish spite toward an entity defending an important piece of software. I know bug fixing is important, but there is a more important goal behind the Mozilla.com insistance on consitent control of the Firefox binaries: a consistant rendering of web pages under the 3 main plateforms, a close to standard rendering which makes Firefox a de facto standard. I think that what Mozilla.com tries to achieve is a kind of Open Source "Opera", so that the software is the same on Windows, OSX and Linux, and reacts the same to all web pages. I think that Open Source is a bit restrictive on this issue, and misleading due to its Free Software roots because of the whole redistribution thingy.
"Politics aside, this is a bad idea because it fragments the user base, divides the focus, and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare." Now, wouldn't that be a tad biased against the Microborg?
Maybe something along these lines:
Any other suggestions? Any preference from the above? This clearly fills a need that I see in the community, so I shall leave it to the community to decide what they want.
...I still want to even know about the existence of Linux/OSS. I guess it's because I'm able to remember that in most cases, the software itself from a purely technical standpoint is awesome. It's only (admittedly some, not all of) the people involved with it that provide compelling arguments in favour of such things as abortion and involuntary euthanasia.
The good news is that there's only two directions to go in from here where Linux is concerned, from what I can see anywayz. Either Linux *does* go fully mainstream, which ends up forcing the expulsion of the FSF and the rest of the usual basement-dwelling freak show, including Debian and their various other sock puppets, or Linux is dragged back underground by the weight of the aforementioned groups' persistent maladaptive behaviour. Which one is it going to be? There's been progress made towards the first option, but with things like this, we also keep seeing progress being made towards the second.
Newsflash, fuckheads. Every time you take what you think is some kind of "stand," you're the only ones who care. Those of us who don't know anything else about Linux end up deciding that they don't want to have anything to do with it, (and who could blame them?) and the rest of us just continue fervently wishing and hoping that someday, you'll simply cease to exist.
99.9% of people don't care two shits about Debian's "social contract," or the FSF's repainted Stalinism. There are a couple of things you *are* accomplishing, though:-
1) You're working to prevent/hinder a scenario where the widespread use/adoption of software with genuine *technical* integrity becomes a reality.
2) You're gradually killing every other OSS license in existence, besides the GPL. Yes, I know most of the FSF cultists will actually be happy about that...but there are those of us who are not.
3) You're helping Microsoft survive, and working to deny a place software-wise for those computer laypeople/novices who genuinely want to leave Windows. These people want software that works...they don't want to be associated with a group of overzealous, juvenile freaks.
4) You're possibly helping to make the very scenario with DRM and other such things that you fear more likely...because if the mainstream population view you as threatening, they're going to be a lot less resistant to the idea of Microsoft/other vendors implementing DRM to lock Linux out than they otherwise would be.
So, congrats...by all means, continue on this insane, juvenile path. Just don't be surprised when people see you for who and what you are, and FOSS in general suffers as a result.
People wouldn't really notice the difference if every time it started, the browser had a different element and animal. In fact, there's an extension to do just that (from when the browser was Phoenix^WFirebird^WFirefox). People are going to talk about the browser as Firefox in general regardless, and as long as the UI looks and acts as expected, people will recognize it as the same program.
I can just see the Iceweasel slogan:-
;-)
"Firefox was igniting the Web. We're humping its' leg."
If it is more stable (with a bunch of pages up--that is the way I browse), I'm sold!
The only question is, how do you get .debs/apt-get on a Slackware system? Or is there a more universal program to do that? (one which combines and supports rpms, debs and slack packages) That is the true Linux holy grail...
Um...
Does anybody--that is, does ANYBODY --actually think that all decisions on any technical project anywhere whatsoever are made for purely technical reasons?
I'd like to shake his hand, but he's probably wearing tinfoil gloves to match his hat.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
For a variety of reasons, the Debian package maintainers modify the codebase before they put it on Debian's package system. Apparently the license for the Firefox name and logos doesn't allow this, so they told Debian to either stop modifing the source or change the name and logos. They did.
What the hell is going on in that animated logo?
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
A fairly accurate one since this is about the logo for a piece of software developed elsewhere. Who is behind this, are they new on the Debian board or whatever and are they trying to make some personal name for themselves or building some sort of empire inside Debian? I really cannot see any good reason behind this - a mature person realises that you need to repect things like the conditions of the distribution of software if you want to use someone else's software. How can we expect others to repect the GPL if we are going to spit the dummy over a logo?
Even though the name was a joke, I think it is cool. Certainly goes with the Linux penguin theme, don't you think?
Closed source wins because closed source provides support.
If I buy software from a vendor and it doesn't work properly, I'll nail their ass to a tree if they don't fix it. If I use open source software and it doesn't work, I can post to a forum and hope that someone will fix it, or hire a programmer to fix it in-house.
For small tools, for established tools, this is fine. For big and specialised tools, this doesn't fly. How much money will my company pay for a contractual guarantee of working software, when the 40 people who depend on that software for eight hours every day are driving $3bn/year in revenue? Let me tell you, $50k for software isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
As an aside, let's consider Red Hat. Guess what--if you buy support from them, they troll the newsgroups and developer forums when you report a bug. NOT acceptable for enterprise service.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I hate being thought of as being incredibly stupid, so please do not insult readers by implying that copyright of a logo has anything at all to do with keeping Debian secure. I think perhaps someone did let some weasels in.
The author of this article is thinking like a second-rate marketer: That there is a product, and that various flavors of that product somehow *dilute* it.
This isn't a competition between IE and Firefox. If we think of it in those terms, IE wins period. The recent Mozilla.com is not trying to *corner* the market, nor win, they are trying to *penetrate* it so that everyone plays on a level field. Ultimately, this is a competition between Open Standards and proprietary standards.
There is only one product that is defined by the proprietary standard: IE. Gecko, on the other hand, is used in a variety of flavors (Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Galleon, etc.) and the more products that are produced that DON'T use IE, the better. Mozilla is trying to get the Web to stop using MS proprietary crap, not gain ludicrous browser market share. Netscape or MS, market share in excess of 50% is terrible for the web! Netscape style plugins are not, IMHO, any better than ASP.NET and MS's crap.
By extension, which product establishes Open Standards doesn't matter, so long as there are a bunch of them that drown the single browser hegemony and keep web design on the Open Standards straight and narrow.
To think like a first-rate marketer: Adopt, Adapt, Extend. Firefox can already render with IE's proprietary systems if needed through EXTENSION. The astoundingly cool Netscape 8 even made a product out of it. And every time a new product that bases itself on Open Standards hits the fan, Open Standards win. It doesn't even have to be Gecko. Opera will do fine.
Like ASCII won all those years ago. Did we care how many different editors came out? No. Do we have our favorites? Yes. VI and Emacs come to mind. Sound anything like Mozilla and IE? Personally, I just use gedit at this point because the APPLICATION NO LONGER MATTERS. So too will it be with the browser.
Open Source, and Firefox, is not trying to establish a product, it is trying to establish a standard, one that is public and extensible through public dialogue, so that proprietary extensions will become useless, and web design, and Office Suites for that matter, become a commodity instead of a market to be cornered.
If your looking for Firefox as a product to catch up with IE's market share, don't hold your breath. By the time Gecko and Open Standards are done with MS, no one browser will ever have a majority market share again.
And that is how it should be.
-Toro
And I'll either grab binaries of firefox from other sources, or compile the source and build my own. I doubt this will kill off firefox for Debian users, I don't have much intent of using IceWeasel.
Between stable, testing, and unstable there are quite a lot of versions. 'Fox doesn't have a lot of dependencies either, so I haven't had many issues with, say, downloading a 1.5 series firefox/testing deb and installing it on a "stable" system.
As far as choices, there's "stable", "testing", "unstable", and "experimental"
IceWeasel is kind of silly as a name,but I'm not sure if it's a shot at firefox or an attempt at an strong contrast (what's the opposite of a fox?). It's also confusing, but if the Mozilla people are going to put the Debian people on the spot about the name (or if they have to), I suppose there's got to be a change. Perhaps "notfirefox" would be better, but hopefully everyone will grow up a little and figure out a solution that works for everyone.
If somebody prevents the fair use, let's get over it and change name.
I do not see a that big problem in that. If somebody loses, it's the firefox brand.
But if the company behind it wants to shoot to own leg, then be it.
of the moderation of such statements. As long as these get moderated "Insightful" there won't be hope for Open Source.
Seriously, the Camino project is another example of how variant code above the Gecko rendering engine can strengthen instead of weaken the core project. Camino was written to give Mac OS X users a more "Mac-like" version that utilises more of the Cocoa toolbox, Mac OS X-specific things like the keychain and so on. I use it on my Mac instead of Firefox since it plays nice with all of my other Mac programmes.
I always thought Firefox was (initially) only intended to be a demonstration of the Gecko renderer without the other Mozilla programmes. To the best of my knowledge there were always third party variations to the Big Three (Firebird/Firefox, Mozilla and Netscape Navigator). As long as the core Gecko rendering code remains common I don't see a problem.
So to the best of my knowledge there are three main rendering engines out there: Microsoft's, Gecko and Web Kit/KHTML. Microsoft had a totally different one that they developed for IE5/Mac, but that project is dead.
a leave?
This is the official logo
Most packages are patched. That is in fact the whole point of rpm and deb packaging solutions. They allow one to patch the code while keeping the original pristine.
The Firefox package in debian is not particularly more patched than other packages. It is not a fork. Apache in debian is not a fork. The Linux kernel in debian is not a fork.
Debian has no plans to fork Firefox, they have just been required by Mozilla to change the name in order to apply the same exact practices that they use with every other package.
-josh
I wonder how Ubuntu is going to manage their Firefox problem, because it seems to be identical to Debian's problem -- although the Mozilla people haven't yet (at least publicly) come hard on them about this issue like they have done with Debian.
Also Ubuntu distributes Firefox without the official icon but they still call it Firefox. And, just like Debian, also Ubuntu has to backport security fixes for Firefox in their "Long Term Support" releases a long time after Mozilla has officially ceased to support their version of Firefox.
Of course, Ubuntu has a more secretive and business-like approach in everything they do. They don't like to wash their dirty laundry in public like Debian. There may be currently some secret negotiations going on between Mozilla and Canonical and money may change hands to ensure that Ubuntu doesn't have to face the same troubles as Debian.
But this is just idle guessing, I don't really know what's actually going on behind the scenes. Nevertheless, it would be nice if Ubuntu (I mean Mark Shuttleworth) told openly about what they're planning to do with this Firefox/IceWeasel issue. Now it looks like they're just going to stand back and let Debian take all the heat, although it seems like Ubuntu is in a similar position with Debian and they could possibly help Debian a bit if they wanted to.
At least, Ubuntu could keep their users informed about what's going on.
There is other information that would heavily effect those stats. For instance: IE SUCKS. I mean, if you have 20 choices, and one of them sucks, I don't see how anybody would be more likely to use the shitty one.
"Here's 20 different candy flavors, all of them tasty and sweet except this one. This one tastes like real human shit! Make a selection!"
Sure, some people take the shit one because they didn't have the choice (it was preinstalled in windows), but even those people are easily motivated to change if they taste the better browser.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Debian only runs on linux. If Iceweasel takes any firefox market share away it will be from other linux web browsers. It won't be battling on the windows front, so it wont effect the Firefox vs. Explorer competition.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
I never knew IE7 was the main browser for Debian...
I don't see anything wrong with asking someone who forks your codebase to use a different name to avoid confusion. What's the problem with that?
The problem is is that when somebody (in this case Debian) complies with that request a whole different group of people start complaining that doing so will cause confusion and make it look like the original codebase's market share is shrinking.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Actualy people how been wondering why Firefox is humping Earth for some time now.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
... and I.R. Baboon.
packages are the answer to the problems of a monolithic code base.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
This story doesn't seem to be telling us anything new - "Mozilla and Debian are having a tussle over the Firefox name, some people have suggested Debian may rename Firefox as Iceweasel, here are my thoughts". Um, /. home page, here we come!
TFA even refers to Debian "having done this" when in fact Firefox is still called Firefox in Debian, and there is no iceweasel package in Debian as yet.
Please could people now just shut up about this issue until some actual news comes through of what is actually going to happen. "Debian releases iceweasel package, announces timeline for phasing out firefox" is a story. "Debian decides to rename it 'Firefox Community Edition, Debian' and dares Mozilla to argue it's not complying with Mozilla's policies" is another story (the one I, personally, would like to see). "Some guy on a blog links to a few other people who are yakking about this", isn't.
there is no "the correct choice" for everybody, and diversity and competition are definitely healthier than marketing.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The real issue is that debian builds firefox wrong, adds patches that are unstable, and distributes a broken/buggy version of firefox. The debian developers insist that mozilla does not know how to build its product or install it. If I decided to take debian and add patches that made it unstable(crashy) and then released it as debian could you imagine the outrage that would ensue? I perdict that the insulting iceweazel will fail as nobody will want to use it. Shame on debian
So? Only fanboys give a crap about this suubject anymore, especially in light of the fact that FF isn't the secure fortress it was hyped to be. These posts are getting old and tired.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
"and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare" ZOMIGOSH what are we going to do???? backslash sarcasm involving FOSS zealots
You _can_ install more than one version of a library system wide, and a package that depends on a specific version number (or range) can specify that explictly in the package itself (with version comparator operators) and also have that enforced at dlopen time.
I know that I have 3 different versions of libstdc++ installed (to support programs written over the years), and it doesn't create a problem.
Packagers don't like bundling a library with more than a few apps. It makes it difficult to respond to security vulnerabilities in them. How many applications from closed-source vendors issued patches to address the ZLIB vulnerability a year ago? There were a lot of shops using that code at the time (since it was BSD licensed), and a good chunk of them probably didn't realize it... it wasn't anywhere in the design docs, a developer could just cut and paste code a few modules into the source tree.
Look at mplayer. Good tool. But very frustrating how you can't upgrade to the latest ffmpeg and have mplayer take advantage of it. There's no "protocol" between mplayers command line and the internals of the bundled ffmpeg; they are too tightly coupled.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I don't think that it is about beating IE7, I think it is about providing alternatives that are better.
How about Debian compromises in another way?
Why can't they put IceWeasel in the main distribution, but have Firefox (with the official logos, etc.) in non-free? Then we (the users) have the freedom to choose whether or not we care about this "infraction" upon the DFSG.
Maybe they are planning to do this, but I haven't seen much talk about non-free..