Well, on a more practical note, this means that within a few months, I should be seeing a real, complete, working JRE sitting in the main repositories for Debian and Ubuntu.
Sun JRE has been in the Ubuntu repositories for awhile now.
Not in the main repository, which is what the parent poster said. Ubuntu has Java in the 'multiverse' repository, the definition of which is "non-free, totally unsupported, possibly illegal, use at own risk", and which needs enabled manually before you can use it. Today's news do indeed mean that we can expect to see Java in the main repository. I'm looking very much forward to it.
People should read this before they complain that ubuntu 6.10 is difficult upgrading to. Too often, it's because they screwed up their system with stuff like automatix.
RC 2 and RC 3 were of course not identical, otherwise RC 3 would have been pointless, as you said.
By "For their last two RCs, both have been identical to the final version", dcam must have meant releases, not RCs. That is, the last RC of Fx2.0 was identical to Fx2.0 final, and the last RC of Fx1.5 was identical to Fx1.5 final.
They include packages 'apache' for v1.3.34 and 'apache2' for v2.0.55. Only apache2 is officially supported -- package 'apache' is in the universe repository.
There is such a standard for plugins, and Opera, Safari, Konqueror and all Mozilla-based browsers support it. Microsoft used to support it, but an update included in SP 2 for IE 5.5 removed support in favor of their own ActiveX-based plugin architecture, hoping that the added work needed to maintain two versions of their plugins would cause plugin makers to drop support for other browsers than IE. Who said abuse of monopoly power?
I don't agree with your definition, then (neither does wikipedia, it seems). I don't consider MDI-style child windows to be tabs, as they behave quite differently.
Now, you may claim that Opera's window bar wasn't really a "tabbed interface", but you would be looking like a fool. They looked like buttons, but acted like tabs. You clicked them to switch to that page. That's what tabs do. They are functionally the exact same thing.
No they aren't. Perhaps they appear the same to the casual tab user, who only uses them as a replacement for having two or three browser windows open at the same time, but for the rest of us they are far from the same thing.
Opera's MDI implementation was equivalent to switching to a blank workspace and opening a bunch of browser windows there -- only with Opera, you had the workspace inside a window instead. It still used z-ordering, that is, when you closed a "tab", focus returned to the last "tab" you had viewed, unlike a real tabbed browsing implementation, where focus goes to the tab next to the one you are closing; and when you cycled through your open "tabs" with the keyboard, they would come up in last-viewed order rather than linear. That is a *major* difference.
Not that it matters who came first, but Mozilla did actually have tabs earlier than Opera. What you were using in Opera back then was actually MDI, not tabs.
But of course other browsers had tabs far earlier than any of these two.
It is not correct that Debian couldn't "legally" distribute the non-free logo. They won't distribute it because it violates the *DFSG* -- not the *law*!
You try re-reading that sentence. "calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork"; "the same approvals" being that Mozilla Corp. needs to agree to each patch. Mike Connor made that very clear in his first followup comment too: "To my knowledge, each patchset that deviates from what we ship should be run by whoever is doing licensing approvals". The argument that the Mozilla people are changing the rules all the time and therefore cannot be trusted still doesn't hold.
Ah, I get it. Firefox is hot and Debian needs to bend over and kiss their toes.
Please re-read what I was replying to. You asked "What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?". I was explaining why that won't ever happen, showing that your point was irrelevant.
The idea of letting a vulnerability sit in "stable" while waiting for bureacratic approval from upstream does not sit well.
The Mozilla Corp has changed the deal they had going with Debian twice during this dispute.
As I just wrote in my reply to your other post, no, they have not; the issue you mentioned was brought up in the initial bug description.
They're behaving in a capricious and high-handed way, that the Mozilla group did not.
But this *is* the "Mozilla group". It's still the *same people* who are in control!
It's at least a teneable hypothesis that there's something dangerous about using a "Corporation" like this -- it's not just a legal entity, it's a culture that's grown up around this type of entity.
You understand there may be no difference between a "Corporation" and a "Foundation" but it's name, but the name difference alone could create different behavior, by attracting different people and/or encouraging different attitudes.
I have no idea what the first amendment is about. Not every person in the world is american, you know...
how do you feel about patch policies? This apparently started out as a trademarked graphic problem, and then MoCo decided to expand it, and demand rights of approval of every Debian patch.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The patch approval thing was there from the start. Read the bug. From the initial description: "calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork".
What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?
You need to understand that "Firefox" is a brand which ordinary end users are starting to recognize. Most packages in debian are not. Look, when a security issue comes up in an old version of Firefox which is no longer supported by mozilla, why can't debian just work with upstream to produce one fix which all distros can take advantage of, and which can be checked into mozilla.org CVS? Just because MoCo no longer pays people to work on a specific branch doesn't mean Debian or others can't get patches checked in. This has happened in the past where Sun or IBM (IIRC) took over old branches that were abandoned by Mozilla.
What would be the reason to build two different legal entities instead of just one?
That question was answered very well in the/. story about the Corporation's launch: "Don't let the word "commercial" scare you, the new Mozilla Corporation (as it has been dubbed) will be owned 100% by the Mozilla Foundation. The change is mostly a legal/tax thing to avoid the problems of pursuing revenue-generating avenues while remaining a non-profit. There will be no change to the development process and end-users won't notice much difference either.". They are generating a lot of money, mostly from Google, and being a corporation makes it easier to manage those funds for the good of the whole Mozilla project.
Have a closer look at who/where is in charge and legally entitled to decide, and have also a very close look at who owns the shares, and how they might be distributed in the future. Such examination of Mozilla's legal framework will help you to answer your question.
Now I'm beginning to suspect that you are simply trolling. The Mozilla Corporation is owned 100% by the Mozilla Foundation, and there is no way that is going to change. It's basically the same people overseeing the project as it has been ever since Netscape freed their source code. People like Mitchell Baker, Brendan Eich and Frank Hecker, to name a few.
And despite the ridiculous logo/trademark discussion - did you recognize that Mozilla is the only bigger "free & open source" project with GNU/GPL licensed products requesting patch reviews/control and legitimize this with "trademark protection"? That's actually an ugly abuse of the GPL - if not an illegal step.
Okay, now I'm almost *convinced* that you're trolling. You can download the source tarball for the latest firefox from ftp.mozilla.org and change WHATEVER YOU WANT it redistribute it HOWEVER YOU WANT. The source you download is already configured not to use the --enable-official-branding switch. Mozilla only requests patch review when you enable that switch, something that you specifically, intentionally need to do to switch on the official branding. The suggestion that there could be something illegal about that is absurd.
I hope you are aware of the fact that FF itself started with a fork.
Just of the front-end. When you said you'd like a "full fork" I took it to mean the whole Mozilla codebase, Gecko and all. I may have misunderstood you.
the Debian community is always willing and ready to go the extra mile needed to protect the freedom of their users.
Yes, and they have always been, but I disagree with this move. I value software freedom highly -- when I ordered a ThinkPad last week, I chose a model with an Intel GMA 950 instead of one with an ATI chip, in spite of the lower screen resolution I'll get, just to avoid having to run a non-free driver -- but for me, software freedom is about code, not graphics.
You should also understand that Debian is not an unimportant hidden club of crazy extremist communists, probably time to learn something about it's organisation, size and abilities instead of teaching me Mozilla project structures.
I am well aware of that. I don't know on what you base your assumption that I'm not. I like Debian for both ideological and technical reasons.
Does that mean Mozilla Corp. is "less corporate" because it's owned by a foundation?
My point was that Mozilla Corp. is, in essence, just a legal entity set up by the Mozilla project for administrative purposes, similar to what the GNOME Foundation is for GNOME, and the other examples I listed. I just don't understand why you think that being incorporated makes Mozilla's legal entity more inherently evil than for example the GNOME Foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the main repository, which is what the parent poster said. Ubuntu has Java in the 'multiverse' repository, the definition of which is "non-free, totally unsupported, possibly illegal, use at own risk", and which needs enabled manually before you can use it. Today's news do indeed mean that we can expect to see Java in the main repository. I'm looking very much forward to it.
This is a historical day.
That is all.
People should read this before they complain that ubuntu 6.10 is difficult upgrading to. Too often, it's because they screwed up their system with stuff like automatix.
sudo update-manager -c
RC 2 and RC 3 were of course not identical, otherwise RC 3 would have been pointless, as you said.
By "For their last two RCs, both have been identical to the final version", dcam must have meant releases, not RCs. That is, the last RC of Fx2.0 was identical to Fx2.0 final, and the last RC of Fx1.5 was identical to Fx1.5 final.
They include packages 'apache' for v1.3.34 and 'apache2' for v2.0.55. Only apache2 is officially supported -- package 'apache' is in the universe repository.
References:
distrowatch page
Ubuntu edgy package search - apache
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeistyReleaseSchedule
Works fine for me, just tested it right now, in 2.0 final.
CTRL+Shift+T.
You can also right click the task bar and say Undo Close Tab.
And the History menu contains a submenu called Recently Closed Tabs.
The look is all that's different.
Yeah, that and the behavior.
They have to, so the mirrors can mirror it before the official release
dec219811d989aeed2b8c7e338cc0b03 firefox-2.0.tar.gz
:-)
dec219811d989aeed2b8c7e338cc0b03 firefox-2.0rc3.tar.gz
don't think there's been that many changes
1) You are guilty of argumentum ad hominem.
2) I don't consider the buttons you click to switch between MDI-style child windows to be tabs, either.
3) By your definition, the buttons on a taskbar which you click on to switch between windows are also tabs.
There is such a standard for plugins, and Opera, Safari, Konqueror and all Mozilla-based browsers support it. Microsoft used to support it, but an update included in SP 2 for IE 5.5 removed support in favor of their own ActiveX-based plugin architecture, hoping that the added work needed to maintain two versions of their plugins would cause plugin makers to drop support for other browsers than IE. Who said abuse of monopoly power?
I don't agree with your definition, then (neither does wikipedia, it seems). I don't consider MDI-style child windows to be tabs, as they behave quite differently.
No they aren't. Perhaps they appear the same to the casual tab user, who only uses them as a replacement for having two or three browser windows open at the same time, but for the rest of us they are far from the same thing.
Opera's MDI implementation was equivalent to switching to a blank workspace and opening a bunch of browser windows there -- only with Opera, you had the workspace inside a window instead. It still used z-ordering, that is, when you closed a "tab", focus returned to the last "tab" you had viewed, unlike a real tabbed browsing implementation, where focus goes to the tab next to the one you are closing; and when you cycled through your open "tabs" with the keyboard, they would come up in last-viewed order rather than linear. That is a *major* difference.
Opera's MDI implementation back then did not use tabs, it used windows.
Not that it matters who came first, but Mozilla did actually have tabs earlier than Opera. What you were using in Opera back then was actually MDI, not tabs.
But of course other browsers had tabs far earlier than any of these two.
*sigh*
For the millionth time, it's still the same people!
It is not correct that Debian couldn't "legally" distribute the non-free logo. They won't distribute it because it violates the *DFSG* -- not the *law*!
Please re-read what I was replying to. You asked "What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?". I was explaining why that won't ever happen, showing that your point was irrelevant.
Please read what BZ wrote here.
Those are the rules if you want to ship something you call "Firefox", and I don't see a problem with that.
As I just wrote in my reply to your other post, no, they have not; the issue you mentioned was brought up in the initial bug description.
But this *is* the "Mozilla group". It's still the *same people* who are in control!
I find this speculation kind of paranoid...
Sorry, but you're wrong. The patch approval thing was there from the start. Read the bug. From the initial description: "calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork".
You need to understand that "Firefox" is a brand which ordinary end users are starting to recognize. Most packages in debian are not. Look, when a security issue comes up in an old version of Firefox which is no longer supported by mozilla, why can't debian just work with upstream to produce one fix which all distros can take advantage of, and which can be checked into mozilla.org CVS? Just because MoCo no longer pays people to work on a specific branch doesn't mean Debian or others can't get patches checked in. This has happened in the past where Sun or IBM (IIRC) took over old branches that were abandoned by Mozilla.
What would be the reason to build two different legal entities instead of just one?
/. story about the Corporation's launch: "Don't let the word "commercial" scare you, the new Mozilla Corporation (as it has been dubbed) will be owned 100% by the Mozilla Foundation. The change is mostly a legal/tax thing to avoid the problems of pursuing revenue-generating avenues while remaining a non-profit. There will be no change to the development process and end-users won't notice much difference either.". They are generating a lot of money, mostly from Google, and being a corporation makes it easier to manage those funds for the good of the whole Mozilla project.
That question was answered very well in the
Have a closer look at who/where is in charge and legally entitled to decide, and have also a very close look at who owns the shares, and how they might be distributed in the future. Such examination of Mozilla's legal framework will help you to answer your question.
Now I'm beginning to suspect that you are simply trolling. The Mozilla Corporation is owned 100% by the Mozilla Foundation, and there is no way that is going to change. It's basically the same people overseeing the project as it has been ever since Netscape freed their source code. People like Mitchell Baker, Brendan Eich and Frank Hecker, to name a few.
And despite the ridiculous logo/trademark discussion - did you recognize that Mozilla is the only bigger "free & open source" project with GNU/GPL licensed products requesting patch reviews/control and legitimize this with "trademark protection"? That's actually an ugly abuse of the GPL - if not an illegal step.
Okay, now I'm almost *convinced* that you're trolling. You can download the source tarball for the latest firefox from ftp.mozilla.org and change WHATEVER YOU WANT it redistribute it HOWEVER YOU WANT. The source you download is already configured not to use the --enable-official-branding switch. Mozilla only requests patch review when you enable that switch, something that you specifically, intentionally need to do to switch on the official branding. The suggestion that there could be something illegal about that is absurd.
I hope you are aware of the fact that FF itself started with a fork.
Just of the front-end. When you said you'd like a "full fork" I took it to mean the whole Mozilla codebase, Gecko and all. I may have misunderstood you.
the Debian community is always willing and ready to go the extra mile needed to protect the freedom of their users.
Yes, and they have always been, but I disagree with this move. I value software freedom highly -- when I ordered a ThinkPad last week, I chose a model with an Intel GMA 950 instead of one with an ATI chip, in spite of the lower screen resolution I'll get, just to avoid having to run a non-free driver -- but for me, software freedom is about code, not graphics.
You should also understand that Debian is not an unimportant hidden club of crazy extremist communists, probably time to learn something about it's organisation, size and abilities instead of teaching me Mozilla project structures.
I am well aware of that. I don't know on what you base your assumption that I'm not. I like Debian for both ideological and technical reasons.
Does that mean Mozilla Corp. is "less corporate" because it's owned by a foundation?
My point was that Mozilla Corp. is, in essence, just a legal entity set up by the Mozilla project for administrative purposes, similar to what the GNOME Foundation is for GNOME, and the other examples I listed. I just don't understand why you think that being incorporated makes Mozilla's legal entity more inherently evil than for example the GNOME Foundation.