It actually says "The ESR is specifically targeted at groups looking to deploy it within a managed environment. It is not intended for use by individuals, nor as a method to mitigate compatibility issues with addons or other software. Mozilla will strongly discourage public (re)distribution of Mozilla-branded versions of the ESR."
Mozilla software will remain freely available. The ESR is not targeted at individuals, and the changes to addon compatibility (compatible by default) and updates (silent/background) in the next 18 weeks will hopefully address a lot of the issues people have with the regular release. In the end, it's up to the individual to choose, but the installers will be available to download if you really want them.
The ESR is going to be based on Firefox 10 (which, incidentally, changes addons to be compatible by default), and most of the core rendering will not be affected. It is Firefox, but it won't get new features. It'll be "standard", but new additions will not be available, and that's a compromise that corporate deployment groups ere willing to make. Chrome's silent updates present the same problems to these orgs, in that the browser is changing rapidly and orgs have problems with testing and certification on the schedule.
The Thunderbird team is talking about an extended support released on their mailing list. There's more info on the Mozilla Wiki, but it is being planned.
No, it will not. Without re-hashing too much, the Debian case was different, in that the changes involved incorporating software patches (code) that had not been reviewed and accepted into the Mozilla code base, and the maintainers wanted to be able to include those patches at their discretion, independent of Mozilla's review and approval process. The Ubuntu change is a configuration change, where the default Yahoo! open search plugin and the default search order will be changed, but the application executable will not. Canonical/Ubuntu, as stated in the comment above, does have a distribution agreement in place with Mozilla. Part of that agreement is that any changes to code and/or config that differs from the default will be reviewed by Mozilla, and will not be included in a Firefox-branded product without Mozilla's permission (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html). Canonical believes this change is in the best interests of sustaining the Ubuntu project, and Mozilla has given permission for that change to be made.
The intent is to get to a place where we can do just that. The challenge is creating MSI's that can do that without relying on the registry for configuration changes (Firefox keeps all of its configuration directives - with the exception of some plugin registrations - in the appdir and user profile). It's a solvable problem that requires some concerted effort, and I'm always interested in hearing what kinds of configuration options the provisioning groups within an enterprise are looking for.
We've thought about this a lot, and the rules for customized versions of Firefox that are distributed publicly are quite different. We limit changes to those editions - especially anything that directly impacts the user experience - as the type of behaviours you describe are exactly what we want to stay away from. Changing the start page to a corporate site adds very little value, where adding a bookmark to a support or product page can, as it's there when the user wants it. Those are the types of changes we encourage, and we do our best to stay away from changes that don't add value to the user.
If you do come across distributions of Firefox that exhibit the type of behaviour you outline,we'd like to hear about it.
Like a lot of things in Firefox, you can turn it off if you really don't like it. To disable the awesomebar and just have the old URL autocomplete, you'll need to add a pref. I confess, I didn't much like it at first, but the behaviour learning and improved search introduced in 3b4 has sold me on it. Any who... to turn it off:
Add the boolean pref browser.urlbar.richResults and set it to false.
This pref is only checked on startup, so youâ(TM)ll need to restart Firefox for it to take effect. More information about this pref can be found here. More info on setting prefs through about:config starts here
So what are the "half a hundred things" that are bundled, assuming you mean applications, not default preferences (which, to me, are very different things). If you download Firefox from mozilla.com, you get Firefox, that's it.
If it was something that had the potential to cause even bigger problems, hells no, and that's part of the assessment process. Key part is if it's a simple fix do it; opening up the network needlessly to risk makes it non-trivial. I think a big part of the problem with stories like this is how little info on what the specific problem was when first reported, so it's a lot of speculation more than anything.
The main thing I'd care about is customers who can use the service. If the problem is MS's and they fix their shit, even better. I understand everyone's points about standards being in place for a reason, but it's not clear from some of the other commentary in this comment thread that MS is out of compliance (I'm not saying they're not). I care more about end-user experience first, and if there was a simple fix that would allow my customers - the ones who pay for my salary - to get the service they expect, I'd do it. I'd also file bug reports and lobby to get the permanent fix in place as much as I could.
Firefox is also, however, a good example of where things are put in as a workaround until a root cause can be found and changed. Things like the new installation permissions model with Vista, where a "shim" had to be used to get the software to install properly. There's a bunch of other changes in there to accommodate buggering of things by other vendors, all in the name of making the user-experience the best it can be. That's all I'd expect from the ISP, too, and that was my (very poorly stated) point.
Not so much ignorant as sympathetic to the end-users of the service.
I totally agree, get the root cause of the problem fixed, wherever it lies. In the interim, if you can help your users out, help 'em out. I think it's fair to say that Vista works (yes, yes, I know) with the overwhelming majority of ISPs out there, and this is an atypical case.
I agree that standards should be followed, but there was initially precious little info about what the problem was. I also think that if you can help your customers out, you help them out, and at the same time work to fix the issue properly.
Why? Because it's a relatively simple fix that their DHCP server could actually support, and it sounds like the ISP/city contractor is being a dick on principal.
Also, MS products are used by a significant portion of the population. I know I test multiple platforms when I deploy software because I want my userbase to be happy. Sometimes that requires work-arounds. The end-users don't have control over how MS wrote their DHCP routines.
If it's a change that the ISP could make, why not? If it was the other way around, people would be yelling about choice.
To me, the ISP is being a bit dick-ish because they can, and it sounds like they have an exclusive with the city. This is really too bad, because the only people who get screwed are the folks at home whose only option is a wholesale switch, which isn't practical, regardless of how much people think it'd be great if they did.
The fact that parents actually do trust (or, more frequently, don't care) about the ratings is kind of the problem. Is it so hard to actually take an interest in what your kids are doing? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a third-party opinion, and my folks didn't either. They paid attention to what we watched on tv, what games we played, etc. and made sure we had a decent grasp on the reality outside those mediums.
I guess it's too hard to actually put the effort in and too easy to make it someone else's problem, because if your kid turns out a little wonky it sure as hell can't be YOUR issue.
It's a big deal because it's a first step to trying to bring Canadian copyright protections to a level the media companies are happy with. We have a set of laws that have a decent amount of balance between protecting the property rights holder and protecting the consumer. There's tremendous pressure from various interest groups to change our copyright laws to bring in things like provisions in the US DMCA without fair use guarantees.
So while this by itself is a very small thing, it opens the door into a much bigger deal.
I'm wondering who actually developed the software. Was it Google who developed it for Dell, or was it Dell who developed it internally and called it the "Google URL Assistant" because it redirects traffic to serve up Google ads which I presume it gets a cut off of. It's not clear if the name of the app means it was written by Google or if it just refers to what service Dell is redirecting to.
It wasn't the Life Savers style of Apple's machines that made them good.
Nope, but it did get them noticed. Now that they've been noticed, look at how many computers they make that aren't white, black, or grey. Now that they've been noticed they focus more on performance and features, but when the iMac and toilet-seat laptops first came out, colour and style was the selling point.
SGI made some beautiful gear too, but it was to it's detriment. The Origin 2000, with it's indigo (or purple, depending on light) and brushed aluminum shell was _gorgeous_, and it performed. A large financial institution's CEO came in at the end of a selection process we were sure we were going to win and essentially said "I can't have these in my data center, they don't look like computers". We lost the deal, and while I'm sure it wasn't the only factor, it contributed.
...but I'd like to see if the $5M is actual cash, or an equivalent amount of Microsoft product. Many companies donate product and use their MSRP in calculating the value of a donation, then spin that into a nice story where they talk about their generosity.
Is the money they donate going to be in the form of infrastructure software, end-user applications, and company-specific training, or will it be cash to specific organisations for the purpose of hiring, training, and equipping personnel.
Also, which agenicies will get the money to fight crime? Will it be traditional law enforcement, or will it be a group like the Business Software Alliance?
$5M sounds nice up front, but before I say "gosh, that's great", I'd like to hear what exactly they're giving, and to who.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been in Firefox for a very long time. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tabbed_Browsing/User_Interface_Design/Restoring_Closed_Tabs
It actually says "The ESR is specifically targeted at groups looking to deploy it within a managed environment. It is not intended for use by individuals, nor as a method to mitigate compatibility issues with addons or other software. Mozilla will strongly discourage public (re)distribution of Mozilla-branded versions of the ESR." Mozilla software will remain freely available. The ESR is not targeted at individuals, and the changes to addon compatibility (compatible by default) and updates (silent/background) in the next 18 weeks will hopefully address a lot of the issues people have with the regular release. In the end, it's up to the individual to choose, but the installers will be available to download if you really want them.
The ESR is going to be based on Firefox 10 (which, incidentally, changes addons to be compatible by default), and most of the core rendering will not be affected. It is Firefox, but it won't get new features. It'll be "standard", but new additions will not be available, and that's a compromise that corporate deployment groups ere willing to make. Chrome's silent updates present the same problems to these orgs, in that the browser is changing rapidly and orgs have problems with testing and certification on the schedule.
The Thunderbird team is talking about an extended support released on their mailing list. There's more info on the Mozilla Wiki, but it is being planned.
No, it will not. Without re-hashing too much, the Debian case was different, in that the changes involved incorporating software patches (code) that had not been reviewed and accepted into the Mozilla code base, and the maintainers wanted to be able to include those patches at their discretion, independent of Mozilla's review and approval process. The Ubuntu change is a configuration change, where the default Yahoo! open search plugin and the default search order will be changed, but the application executable will not. Canonical/Ubuntu, as stated in the comment above, does have a distribution agreement in place with Mozilla. Part of that agreement is that any changes to code and/or config that differs from the default will be reviewed by Mozilla, and will not be included in a Firefox-branded product without Mozilla's permission (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html). Canonical believes this change is in the best interests of sustaining the Ubuntu project, and Mozilla has given permission for that change to be made.
The intent is to get to a place where we can do just that. The challenge is creating MSI's that can do that without relying on the registry for configuration changes (Firefox keeps all of its configuration directives - with the exception of some plugin registrations - in the appdir and user profile). It's a solvable problem that requires some concerted effort, and I'm always interested in hearing what kinds of configuration options the provisioning groups within an enterprise are looking for.
We've thought about this a lot, and the rules for customized versions of Firefox that are distributed publicly are quite different. We limit changes to those editions - especially anything that directly impacts the user experience - as the type of behaviours you describe are exactly what we want to stay away from. Changing the start page to a corporate site adds very little value, where adding a bookmark to a support or product page can, as it's there when the user wants it. Those are the types of changes we encourage, and we do our best to stay away from changes that don't add value to the user.
If you do come across distributions of Firefox that exhibit the type of behaviour you outline,we'd like to hear about it.
add the pref browser.urlbar.richResults as a boolean, set it to false
Add the pref browser.urlbar.richResults as a boolean, set it to false.
this pref is only checked at startup, so requires a restart. it'll give you the old behaviour back.
Like a lot of things in Firefox, you can turn it off if you really don't like it. To disable the awesomebar and just have the old URL autocomplete, you'll need to add a pref. I confess, I didn't much like it at first, but the behaviour learning and improved search introduced in 3b4 has sold me on it. Any who... to turn it off:
Add the boolean pref browser.urlbar.richResults and set it to false.
This pref is only checked on startup, so youâ(TM)ll need to restart Firefox for it to take effect. More information about this pref can be found here. More info on setting prefs through about:config starts here
So what are the "half a hundred things" that are bundled, assuming you mean applications, not default preferences (which, to me, are very different things). If you download Firefox from mozilla.com, you get Firefox, that's it.
If you don't want the update page to show up after a successful upgrade, just set the value for browser.startup.homepage_override.mstone to "ignore".
I know, minor point, but it even says "John's Blog"
If it was something that had the potential to cause even bigger problems, hells no, and that's part of the assessment process. Key part is if it's a simple fix do it; opening up the network needlessly to risk makes it non-trivial. I think a big part of the problem with stories like this is how little info on what the specific problem was when first reported, so it's a lot of speculation more than anything.
The main thing I'd care about is customers who can use the service. If the problem is MS's and they fix their shit, even better. I understand everyone's points about standards being in place for a reason, but it's not clear from some of the other commentary in this comment thread that MS is out of compliance (I'm not saying they're not). I care more about end-user experience first, and if there was a simple fix that would allow my customers - the ones who pay for my salary - to get the service they expect, I'd do it. I'd also file bug reports and lobby to get the permanent fix in place as much as I could.
Firefox is also, however, a good example of where things are put in as a workaround until a root cause can be found and changed. Things like the new installation permissions model with Vista, where a "shim" had to be used to get the software to install properly. There's a bunch of other changes in there to accommodate buggering of things by other vendors, all in the name of making the user-experience the best it can be. That's all I'd expect from the ISP, too, and that was my (very poorly stated) point.
Not so much ignorant as sympathetic to the end-users of the service. I totally agree, get the root cause of the problem fixed, wherever it lies. In the interim, if you can help your users out, help 'em out. I think it's fair to say that Vista works (yes, yes, I know) with the overwhelming majority of ISPs out there, and this is an atypical case. I agree that standards should be followed, but there was initially precious little info about what the problem was. I also think that if you can help your customers out, you help them out, and at the same time work to fix the issue properly.
Also, MS products are used by a significant portion of the population. I know I test multiple platforms when I deploy software because I want my userbase to be happy. Sometimes that requires work-arounds. The end-users don't have control over how MS wrote their DHCP routines.
If it's a change that the ISP could make, why not? If it was the other way around, people would be yelling about choice.
To me, the ISP is being a bit dick-ish because they can, and it sounds like they have an exclusive with the city. This is really too bad, because the only people who get screwed are the folks at home whose only option is a wholesale switch, which isn't practical, regardless of how much people think it'd be great if they did.
I guess it's too hard to actually put the effort in and too easy to make it someone else's problem, because if your kid turns out a little wonky it sure as hell can't be YOUR issue.
It's a big deal because it's a first step to trying to bring Canadian copyright protections to a level the media companies are happy with. We have a set of laws that have a decent amount of balance between protecting the property rights holder and protecting the consumer. There's tremendous pressure from various interest groups to change our copyright laws to bring in things like provisions in the US DMCA without fair use guarantees. So while this by itself is a very small thing, it opens the door into a much bigger deal.
Ahh... the links to the OEM pages below probably mean it is an app developed by the folks in MV. Never mind, then.
I'm wondering who actually developed the software. Was it Google who developed it for Dell, or was it Dell who developed it internally and called it the "Google URL Assistant" because it redirects traffic to serve up Google ads which I presume it gets a cut off of. It's not clear if the name of the app means it was written by Google or if it just refers to what service Dell is redirecting to.
Nope, but it did get them noticed. Now that they've been noticed, look at how many computers they make that aren't white, black, or grey. Now that they've been noticed they focus more on performance and features, but when the iMac and toilet-seat laptops first came out, colour and style was the selling point.
SGI made some beautiful gear too, but it was to it's detriment. The Origin 2000, with it's indigo (or purple, depending on light) and brushed aluminum shell was _gorgeous_, and it performed. A large financial institution's CEO came in at the end of a selection process we were sure we were going to win and essentially said "I can't have these in my data center, they don't look like computers". We lost the deal, and while I'm sure it wasn't the only factor, it contributed.
People like beige/off-white. It'll never go away.
No, no, no. They'll sue them for copyright infringement because "superhero" is taken. "WMD" is not.
Is it just me, or do /. summaries seem to be taking a page from FOX News more often than not these days?
Also, which agenicies will get the money to fight crime? Will it be traditional law enforcement, or will it be a group like the Business Software Alliance?
$5M sounds nice up front, but before I say "gosh, that's great", I'd like to hear what exactly they're giving, and to who.