The Mozilla people didn't "suddenly change their mind". The agreement Debian reached with Gerv was a temporary, "until further notice" type agreement, and Debian was (or should have been) well aware back then that it was only a question of time before Mozilla would enforce their trademark policy.
Read the bug report if you don't believe me.
The people leading the Mozilla project today are veru much to be trusted:-)
What on earth are you talking about? What debian is shipping is just firefox minus branding plus debian-specific patches. Why would anyone else have an interest in adopting that?
Your idea about a full fork shows a complete lack of understanding about how the Mozilla project works. Why would you want to fork Gecko or XULRunner just because of disagreements over a front-end that makes up 10% of the code, tops? Because that's all Firefox is. At least learn the basics about Mozilla before calling for a fork of it, otherwise you won't get far.
And for your "corporate governance" argument... Mozilla Corp. is just a subsidiary(sp?) the Mozilla Foundation created for administrative purposes. GNOME has the GNOME Foundation, Apache has the Apache Software Foundation, Python has the Python Software Foundation, GNU has the FSF. Are you calling for a fork of those projects too, to rid them of their evil governing entities?
Not sure if you're trolling or mean it, it appears that Mozilla's developers, not lawyers, want this, as they are sick and tired of getting bug reports sent to them that turns out to be introduced by Debian's patches.
Please stop differentiating between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation like that to make it sound like MoFo are nice people and MoCo are evil. Mozilla Corporation is just a front they set up for legal and tax-related reasons. It's the exact same people running the project now as before.
No, a Release Candidate is exactly what the name says: A candidate for the release, which you expect to release without changes unless testing of the RC reveals showstopper bugs (in which case you fix those, roll a new RC, and repeat).
No, Mozilla is forcing them to either change the name, or do the same thing every other distro is doing, which is to run their patches by Mozilla first. Debian is *choosing* to change the name. Which is okay.
No, *you* please stop spreading FUD. Debian (really the Debian firefox maintainer) chose to change the name. All Mozilla is saying that you cannot apply random patches to Firefox and still call it Firefox. If I modified the cd images of the latest stable Debian release, and distributed them widely while advertising them as "Debian", I'm sure the Debian project would be a little pissed. This is no different. If Debian wants to change Firefox and keep the name, it's only fair that they run them by Mozilla first. That's what Fedora and Suse are doing.
I worked in a small local computer shop for a couple of months this summer. The following happened to me two times during that period.
Some customer would bring in a computer that wouldn't start. We determined that the motherboard was faulty, and replaced it with a similar one.
Windows starts up, everything works, except it wants to be re-activated again. Online activation fails, so I phone Microsoft, enter the forty-something digit number, reads the product key to someone, who then tells me that they are very sorry, but no, for some reason they cannot give me a re-activation code, so I will have to reinstall Windows in order to get it working with that product key. However, changing the product key works fine.
So I call the customer and explain the situation to them, and let them choose between: 1) me taking their harddisk out, attaching it to our backup machine, backing up all their stuff, reinstalling Windows, and all their programs, and all updates, then restoring the backups, and 2) buying a new xp home license,
they both chose option 2. That way they would get their machine back with their entire configuration intact, and if they chose option 1, all that work I would have to do would take so long time that they wouldn't be saving much anyway, compared to buying a new license.
This only happened these two times; most times when we replaced a motherboard, either the reactivation over the internet would work, or the phone representative would give a working reactivation code.
But these two customers payed for a new XP Home license even though they owned a fully legal one already.
It comes as a LiveCD so you can check it out without even installing it to the harddrive. Then if you like it, you can just hit an "Install PCLinuxOS" button on the LiveCD desktop and it will install directly from the LiveCD!
the man who sold Thawte to Verisign and made enough to basically retire on
Uh, he got over half a billion USD for Thawte. Even if he would live to be 120 years old, he would still have more than five million dollars to spend every year from the year he made the deal till his death. If that is only basically enough to retire on, the cost of living must have gone up since last I checked.
No, Ubuntu is maintained by a non-profit foundation, that gets a lot of funding from a corporation that exists to fund and promote open source software -- not to make money for it's shareholder (not shareholders, since there is only one).
Because you can't disable it on a specific site only.
The point I failed to get across is that, yes, you can override stylesheets for specific sites! If you use Firefox, Seamonkey or similar, see http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2868 66> for examples. For Opera, see http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id= 109574>. I'm sure other browsers allow similar things.
I fail to see how configuring your browser to ignore the specific parts of a specific stylesheet on a specific site that you don't like could possibly affect how anything looks anywhere else.
If you are on a Mozilla-based browser, look up "userContent.css". Otherwise consult your browser's documentation. Otherwise download the source code of your browser and modify to ignore the parts of/.'s stylesheets you don't like.
What I mean by spreading FUD is that your comment implies that Firefox's support for SVG is not as good as Seamonkey's, when it is in fact exactly the same. Also, I'm not trying to start a Seamonkey vs. Firefox flamewar here.
Firefox 1.5 and Seamonkey 1.0 are both based on Mozilla 1.8.0. When they use the exact same rendering engine, how would switching from one of them to the other give you any difference in how a site works? It won't, and I suspect that you knew that and just used this opportunity to advertise your favorite browser.
Now, if you had just replied to the article and pointed out that Seamonkey is another browser that also supports SVG, that would be totally fair; but instead you chose to reply to someone asking for help because their Firefox wouldn't show it (which is strange; mine does), telling them to grab Seamonkey, even though you knew it wouldn't make a difference as they use the same rendering engine, just to spread FUD about Firefox because you want people to use Seamonkey instead. And that is NOT fair.
Slashdot Mirror
The Mozilla people didn't "suddenly change their mind". The agreement Debian reached with Gerv was a temporary, "until further notice" type agreement, and Debian was (or should have been) well aware back then that it was only a question of time before Mozilla would enforce their trademark policy.
:-)
Read the bug report if you don't believe me.
The people leading the Mozilla project today are veru much to be trusted
What on earth are you talking about? What debian is shipping is just firefox minus branding plus debian-specific patches. Why would anyone else have an interest in adopting that?
Your idea about a full fork shows a complete lack of understanding about how the Mozilla project works. Why would you want to fork Gecko or XULRunner just because of disagreements over a front-end that makes up 10% of the code, tops? Because that's all Firefox is. At least learn the basics about Mozilla before calling for a fork of it, otherwise you won't get far.
And for your "corporate governance" argument... Mozilla Corp. is just a subsidiary(sp?) the Mozilla Foundation created for administrative purposes. GNOME has the GNOME Foundation, Apache has the Apache Software Foundation, Python has the Python Software Foundation, GNU has the FSF. Are you calling for a fork of those projects too, to rid them of their evil governing entities?
Not sure if you're trolling or mean it, it appears that Mozilla's developers, not lawyers, want this, as they are sick and tired of getting bug reports sent to them that turns out to be introduced by Debian's patches.
Please stop differentiating between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation like that to make it sound like MoFo are nice people and MoCo are evil. Mozilla Corporation is just a front they set up for legal and tax-related reasons. It's the exact same people running the project now as before.
RCs are considered pretty much fit for release
No, a Release Candidate is exactly what the name says: A candidate for the release, which you expect to release without changes unless testing of the RC reveals showstopper bugs (in which case you fix those, roll a new RC, and repeat).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_stage
No, Mozilla is forcing them to either change the name, or do the same thing every other distro is doing, which is to run their patches by Mozilla first. Debian is *choosing* to change the name. Which is okay.
No, *you* please stop spreading FUD. Debian (really the Debian firefox maintainer) chose to change the name. All Mozilla is saying that you cannot apply random patches to Firefox and still call it Firefox. If I modified the cd images of the latest stable Debian release, and distributed them widely while advertising them as "Debian", I'm sure the Debian project would be a little pissed. This is no different. If Debian wants to change Firefox and keep the name, it's only fair that they run them by Mozilla first. That's what Fedora and Suse are doing.
So how come I am modded +5 Insightful for repeating one line of the parent's post, while he is still at his default score?
"nothing is as aggravating as realizing how many of the problems are intentional design decisions". You said it.
...of course, that story has nothing to do with WGA, it's just the regular activation system I'm talking about here. Must sleep before posting more.
I worked in a small local computer shop for a couple of months this summer. The following happened to me two times during that period.
Some customer would bring in a computer that wouldn't start. We determined that the motherboard was faulty, and replaced it with a similar one.
Windows starts up, everything works, except it wants to be re-activated again. Online activation fails, so I phone Microsoft, enter the forty-something digit number, reads the product key to someone, who then tells me that they are very sorry, but no, for some reason they cannot give me a re-activation code, so I will have to reinstall Windows in order to get it working with that product key. However, changing the product key works fine.
So I call the customer and explain the situation to them, and let them choose between:
1) me taking their harddisk out, attaching it to our backup machine, backing up all their stuff, reinstalling Windows, and all their programs, and all updates, then restoring the backups, and
2) buying a new xp home license,
they both chose option 2. That way they would get their machine back with their entire configuration intact, and if they chose option 1, all that work I would have to do would take so long time that they wouldn't be saving much anyway, compared to buying a new license.
This only happened these two times; most times when we replaced a motherboard, either the reactivation over the internet would work, or the phone representative would give a working reactivation code.
But these two customers payed for a new XP Home license even though they owned a fully legal one already.
Which distros?
Applies to Ubuntu 6.06 as well.
If you're an XFCE fan, try installing the xubuntu-desktop package for additional integration, artwork and stuff.
sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
the man who sold Thawte to Verisign and made enough to basically retire on
Uh, he got over half a billion USD for Thawte. Even if he would live to be 120 years old, he would still have more than five million dollars to spend every year from the year he made the deal till his death. If that is only basically enough to retire on, the cost of living must have gone up since last I checked.
IMHO, there's nothing wrong with "Ubuntu," save for people who pronounce it /ooh-BUN-too/ instead of /ooh-BOON-too/.
A good rule to remember it by is that the u's in Ubuntu are pronounced like the u's in zulu.
No, Ubuntu is maintained by a non-profit foundation, that gets a lot of funding from a corporation that exists to fund and promote open source software -- not to make money for it's shareholder (not shareholders, since there is only one).
1.5 uses 1.8.0, 2.0 will use 1.8.0.1, 3.0 will use 1.9
Almost:
1.5 uses 1.8.0, 1.5.0.1 uses 1.8.0.1, 1.5.0.2 will use 1.8.0.2, etc.
2.0 will use 1.8.1.
3.0 will use 1.9.
I'm running a Ubuntu beta release, DapperFlight4 [...] This thing, (a damn BETA release!)
Alpha release, even. A beta release of Dapper won't happen for another month. Of course, that only makes your experience even more impressive.
* AKAImBatman smacks iamacat upside the head
Former superhero Batman arrested for animal cruelty, film at 11.
Because you can't disable it on a specific site only.
8 66> for examples. For Opera, see http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id= 109574>. I'm sure other browsers allow similar things.
The point I failed to get across is that, yes, you can override stylesheets for specific sites! If you use Firefox, Seamonkey or similar, see http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=286
I fail to see how configuring your browser to ignore the specific parts of a specific stylesheet on a specific site that you don't like could possibly affect how anything looks anywhere else.
/.'s stylesheets you don't like.
If you are on a Mozilla-based browser, look up "userContent.css". Otherwise consult your browser's documentation. Otherwise download the source code of your browser and modify to ignore the parts of
Slashdots news stylesheets totally fucks up the display for some of us! Allow us to disable them!
Who is forbidding you from disabling those stylesheets in your browser?
What I mean by spreading FUD is that your comment implies that Firefox's support for SVG is not as good as Seamonkey's, when it is in fact exactly the same. Also, I'm not trying to start a Seamonkey vs. Firefox flamewar here.
Firefox 1.5 and Seamonkey 1.0 are both based on Mozilla 1.8.0. When they use the exact same rendering engine, how would switching from one of them to the other give you any difference in how a site works? It won't, and I suspect that you knew that and just used this opportunity to advertise your favorite browser.
Now, if you had just replied to the article and pointed out that Seamonkey is another browser that also supports SVG, that would be totally fair; but instead you chose to reply to someone asking for help because their Firefox wouldn't show it (which is strange; mine does), telling them to grab Seamonkey, even though you knew it wouldn't make a difference as they use the same rendering engine, just to spread FUD about Firefox because you want people to use Seamonkey instead. And that is NOT fair.