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.
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
How does this make Debian users use IE?
Great Intellect...
Indeed, this isn't even like all Linux users are being forced to move, it's still the default on Fedora and Ubuntu (I think)... Not only that but Debian, at least the last time I heard, wasn't going to create something completely different, they just wanted a different name and logos - I bet most of the code would be the same.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
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!
Debian's goals are to quickly patch security problems, and to backport fixes to versions declared stable for the benefit of their users.
Both these goals a) good, useful, helpful, and worthwhile, and b) in conflict with the wishes of the Mozilla Corporation.
Perhaps Mozilla could give a little here, instead of Debian. Hmm?
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 quoting from memory, but here's the situation in a nutshell:
That's been tried, the core of the issue was that Mozilla included non-free(as per Debian's DFSG) images along with Firefox, presenting Debian with the two following options:
1) Not distributing Firefox
2) Finding a way to distribute Firefox without the offending image
They picked two, which caused the uproar, which caused the request from Mozilla not to use the Firefox name if the non-free images weren't there. Debian said "We'll fork and use a new name".
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.
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.
"...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.
As I understand it Debian does contribute patches back to Mozilla. But Debian wants to backport security fixes to versions of Firefox that Moz. Foundation no longer supports. I'm pretty sure this is true.
As I understand it Mozilla used to let them call these versions "Debian Firefox" but now they don't anymore. I'm not entirely sure this is quite right. Also there's a DFSG issue that I don't remember the details of.
Mozilla Foundation doesn't have to "deal with" Iceweasel at all, except to respond to all of this publicity. This looks "big-picture bad" to some people but to Debian keeping the stable branch secure is more important than Firefox advocacy. In other words, the "small-picture" disagreements that made this happen are actually the big picture.
For most users there's not much of a reason to use package management for a program like Firefox. It's frequently-updated and for most people frequently-used, and it has an auto-update system if you use the official binaries. People will usually want the updated version. For people that have a good reason to stick with a really old version, or who don't use the browser enough to keep it updated independently of other software Iceweasel gives them their security backports. And I can understand why MoFo wouldn't want their trademark applied to software that's maintained by Debian.
Of course nobody likes the name. You're not supposed to. It's Firefox turned on its head. It's supposed to be annoying to the Firefox developers, to spur them to do something about this.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Debian aims to offer support for version of software that are in it's stable distro. Firefox 1.0.7 I believe is still supported by debian stable, yet mozilla has long stopped supporting it. Debian needs to be able to maintain a patch set to keep unsupported version of firefox stable and Mozilla is unwilling to budge on trademark enforcement (and well they shouldn't.)
If Ubuntu put a glaring bug in the code the Firefox folks have reason to complain. Just complain, not ban use of their name entirely. They should have an official and non-official use logo policy, as Debian has. That allows people to use consistent branding on modified versions.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Please point to a policy document that says that builds with random patches may call themselves: "Unoffical Firefox".
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
There is a very good reason to install Firefox via your distribution's package management system. If another packages relies on the Gecko libraries to embed a web browser (examples: Eclipse, Listen), and you installed Firefox manually, you'll wind up with two copies installed.
Actually, on Ubuntu you'll probably wind up with both Mozilla and Firefox installed (grr), but you see my point.
Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
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
the binary and launch scripts still say "mozilla".
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That's only part of the problem. Even with the switch, you still can't call your built binary "Firefox" in any way shape or form if you make any modifications to it. I really fail to see how "deer park" and "bon echo" would be better names than replacing all of that crud with "IceWeasel".
It's because the Debian people are assholes. There. Somebody had to say it.
I'm sorry, you lose. This is not allowed - unless you remove the firefox artwork and change the name, or submit to specific per-change licensing from Mozilla (which Debian's policies do not permit, for a number of practical and philosophical reasons). That is what Mozilla have said to Debian. If you do not agree with this, feel free to take up the issue with Mozilla, because Debian will presume them to be correct on any matters regarding what is and is not acceptable here.
This is not at all true. Debian has been saying to the Mozilla crew for a long time (since several years ago when this first came up): "we'll leave the name alone if you don't give us a reason to change it, but we'll change it if you want". Mozilla previously said "okay, leave it alone for now" but now they came back to Debian and said "you've got to change it now". At no point did Debian attempt to "get a free ride", they just did exactly what the Mozilla developers asked for.
This option has never been offered by Mozilla in respect of Debian's support for Firefox 1.0 (which is still having security fixes applied in Debian, and which is known to have users that are either unable or unwilling to upgrade).
Let us recap with a statement from Mike Connor, speaking officially on behalf of Mozilla (on the subject of whether or not Debian can call the version it ships "Firefox"):
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.
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.
I have never EVER heard a lawyer say this. On the other hand, I have heard lawyers say that to hold a trademark, you must control the quality of the goods described. But what do lawyers know about the subject?? After all, this is the same Bruce Perens who thought that you could transfer a trademark independent of the goods it describes. Yes, yes, I know, we all get smarter as we get older; on the other hand your track record of understanding of trademark law is not exemplary.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Or they may not be sure what do yet--remember that Ubuntu is closely tied to Debian and adopts many of their changes. My prefered solution would be Epiphany in main as the default browser, Mozilla version of Firefox in restricted or multiverse and Iceweasel in universe.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
How can we expect others to repect the GPL if we are going to spit the dummy over a logo?
Precisely. Mozilla.com won't allow a GPL version of their software to ship due to their non-GPL logo, hence Mozilla.com doesn't respect the GPL.
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.