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.
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...
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...
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?
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
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.''
That is a disturbing logo.
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
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?
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
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.
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".
Hey those what 10,000 debian desktop machines will really mess things up for Firefox.
I am a Linux user but let us all get a grip. Firefox on Linux is a tiny blip... Firefox on windows is where what scares Microsoft.
Even then Suse, Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu, and Linspire all use Firefox.
So I would rate this news as two yawns and a stretch.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
No one told me that Free Software was about beating Microsoft at all costs.
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(); }
That's what I was wondering. We're talking about Debian here, easily the slowest releasing distribution in the Linux world. Are they saying they can't submit patches to the Mozilla foundation so Mozilla can check the fixes for bugs or come up with a better patch, because they can't wait that long? Sure, Firefox is open source, but what Debian is distributing is not Firefox. It's somewhat sad Debian had to react in a petulant manner and come up with a childish reactionary name like "IceWeasel." I seem to remember them forcing vendors to remove "Debian" from their name, too...
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
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 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."
"...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.
You may only use the FireFox trademark if you do not apply patches to FireFox. The Debian team want to apply security fixes and bug fixes to their packaged version. They can either do this and not call it FireFox, or not do it. If you were a Debian user, which would you rather they did?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Debian releases are slow. Debian security patches are lightning fast.
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.)
Except that the Mozilla developers work on what they want to do, not what you want them to do. Take a look at bug 33654 - TEXTAREA incorrectly applying ROWS= and COLS=. This was reported in 2000 (yes, 6 years ago) and makes forms not line up properly. If you were to fix this, you couldn't technically distribute your fixed version, because the firefox license prohibits it. Hence, iceWeasel.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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
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.
You may want to hit yourself with the cluestick. It's not that they don't want the logo changed (they don't). It's that they don't want the logo or name used on anything that hasn't been vetted by Mozilla - so no security updates for you unless they come from Mozilla. This is particularly a problem if a distribution wants to support older versions of the program by backporting fixes rather than updating the package. Other distributions will have to deal with this problem too if Mozilla doesn't change their stance; Debian is just the first to face it.
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.
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
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'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?
I'm curious how a simple statement of facts constitutes flamebait.
Fact - most distros make changes to Firefox. They include unofficial patches and make changes.
Fact - Linspire claims to make "hundreds" of changes to Firefox.
Fact - Firefox says on their own website that if you change it, then just make it known that it isn't an unofficial build, and don't use the official branding artwork.
Fact - When people don't share patches and fixes upstream, it hurts the overall quality of the project.
How is any of this flame-bait?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting here.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
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.
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.