Actually, the facts listed in the article aren't the student's side at all. If you google for more coverage of this incident you can find a scan of the detention notice, which gives the teacher's reasoning for issuing the detention.
"Today in class ___ had a program launched called Foxfire.exe. I had told ___ to close the program and to resume work but he told me that it was just a different browser and that he was doing his work. I had given him two warnings but he insisted that it was just a "better" browser and that he wasn't doing anything wrong. I had then issued his detention."
It doesn't sound like the work required IE at all, nor does it say anything about installing unauthorized programs, just that the teacher thought the kid wasn't working. Of course the teacher doesn't explicitly state the reason for the detention anywhere in all of that. If this were my kid I would have had to phone the school.
Debian is very welcome to say their browser is a Firefox derivative, but then that still doesn't solve the problem of the debian firefox maintainer seemingly not being ok with having to run his changes past Mozilla first. Once the code is changed without Mozilla's oversight, Mozilla can't vouch for the safety and quality of the product, and therefore relying on the idea that it's a Firefox derivative for a sense of security isn't a good one. What if, in creating his own patch for Debian's browser, the firefox maintainer unknowingly creates a new security hole that doesn't exist in Mozilla's Firefox?
You did mischaracterize the issue though. Mozilla is fine with Debian using the name and logos *together* as long as they get oversight on any debian specific changes so that they can still vouch for the quality of the product. If your summary was correct then Red Hat wouldn't be able to call their Firefox builds "Firefox" either.
"Bugs are typically reported to the distro. If it is an upstream probelm, they'll hear about it."
I give support in Mozilla's #firefox irc channel and we *tried* long ago to stop supporting debian firefox builds because they change things that we don't know about, but every person we told "you'll have to go to debian for support" responded with "they told me to come here." Now we go through the simple process of having them make a new profile, and if that doesn't resolve the issue (it never does) we have them install Mozilla's Firefox and give that a try. I have yet to see an issue on Debian's Firefox that hasn't been fixed by installing Mozilla's Firefox instead.
"It is more than "annoying." It is dangerous. Distros should NOT have to wait for approval for patching security bugs. This isn't just theoretical--Debian does backport fixes to versions of Firefox that Mozilla stopped maintaining."
There are several things wrong with that statement. First of all, debian was backporting to 1.0.4 when the 1.0.x branch was still being maintained. Secondly, as I stated above, new versions of Firefox work fine on these older versions of debian, so there is no *need* to keep people on the old version for compatibility. Thirdly the scenario that makes debian feel the need to backport fixes to unmaintained branches is one of their own making. If that puts them in a tough situation then they're the ones that need to deal with it and figure out what course they want to take. Reading the bug, the Debian team seems to recognize and accept that last bit.
More importantly tough, one of Firefox's main priorities is security, anything that Debian wants to backport should already be available as a patch upstream that is already reviewed and approved by the Firefox team. The only situation where your statement would be correct is in a situation where Debian needs to write their *own* patch for some reason. This has been happening too much already, and brings us back to my first point. Debian has been writing their own patches to fix issues that are already fixed in Mozilla Firefox which have been creating bugs that don't exist in Mozilla Firefox. The fact that I'm sitting here having to type Debian Firefox and Mozilla Firefox I think is a pretty good illustration of why Mozilla needs to do what they're doing.
I really can't fathom why so many people are having a hard time accepting this. If Debian wants to ship Firefox, then they need to ship a product that has been approved by the Firefox team. If they want to do their own work to maintain a product without Mozilla's oversight, then that product is no longer Firefox. This is the real issue. If Debian had agreed to use the official branding then Mike Connor's next move would have been to push the approval issue (which he should have done in the original post anyway rather than as an aside later on in the bug, I think he was hoping they'd just agree to not use official branding and that would be that) and we'd all be here having this same argument except without the logo issue clouding it.
The fact that he said he had no idea that a patch was being worked on would be proof enough for me, seeing how as the reporter he could see the progress in the bug. I have no doubt in my mind that he knew there was already a patch, but that the devs were trying to find a *better* patch. What really bothers me though, is that he is passing off work the developers did to test and assess the exploit as his own. These aren't HIS testcases that he's going to press with, they're ones written by the devs.
gmail? orkut? I mean I guess these are search related if you count that they have search functions...
Not to mention the fact that MS is going to be linking MSN search to IE with toolbars et al. Google needs to get into the browser business if it's going to stay above water in the search engine business, and last I checked that was a given. The only speculation I was aware of that was left is are they going to take a vested interest in Firefox or make their own browser? And last I checked on THAT Ben is still working on Firefox.
I think the fact that Mike is in a position to make a comment like this and the very fact that you're debating it on slashdot completely ruins the credibility of your argument against Ben. That aside you can't just let anyone with good intentions have a project altering role. I'm curious as to how many of you complaining that FF doesn't allow people "into the inner circle" are, or are friends of, people who had their requests for access turned down.
I've seen a few of the requests and the reason they've been turned down is because the people making their arguments as to why they should be allowed to review and check in are stating right there that they would do things differntly than has already been agreed upon as the best way to do things. Quite specifically they've suggested doing things in such a way that unchecked, unstable code would get into the browser and to the end user. The last thing that ff needs is for people like Ben and Mike to spend all the time they could be coding and reviewing undoing other reviewers' mistakes, or to have slashdot articles about yet another code problem in the latest release.
Again, I think the very fact that Mike has the access he does, and how quickly he gained it is proof that when people come along who have the talent and understanding of the project, they are accepted into the fold, not turned away.
FF isn't a factor so much in the health problems, infact it probably helps him destress more than anything else. I wouldn't so much call it scary as I'd say it speaks for his abilities that he's climbed the ladder so well as a volunteer and is trusted to do a good job with it. I'd say it'd be more scary that someone capable would be turned away because they're not an employee.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the facts listed in the article aren't the student's side at all. If you google for more coverage of this incident you can find a scan of the detention notice, which gives the teacher's reasoning for issuing the detention.
"Today in class ___ had a program launched called Foxfire.exe. I had told ___ to close the program and to resume work but he told me that it was just a different browser and that he was doing his work. I had given him two warnings but he insisted that it was just a "better" browser and that he wasn't doing anything wrong. I had then issued his detention."
It doesn't sound like the work required IE at all, nor does it say anything about installing unauthorized programs, just that the teacher thought the kid wasn't working. Of course the teacher doesn't explicitly state the reason for the detention anywhere in all of that. If this were my kid I would have had to phone the school.
You mean like the official branding switch?
Debian is very welcome to say their browser is a Firefox derivative, but then that still doesn't solve the problem of the debian firefox maintainer seemingly not being ok with having to run his changes past Mozilla first. Once the code is changed without Mozilla's oversight, Mozilla can't vouch for the safety and quality of the product, and therefore relying on the idea that it's a Firefox derivative for a sense of security isn't a good one. What if, in creating his own patch for Debian's browser, the firefox maintainer unknowingly creates a new security hole that doesn't exist in Mozilla's Firefox?
You did mischaracterize the issue though. Mozilla is fine with Debian using the name and logos *together* as long as they get oversight on any debian specific changes so that they can still vouch for the quality of the product. If your summary was correct then Red Hat wouldn't be able to call their Firefox builds "Firefox" either.
"Bugs are typically reported to the distro. If it is an upstream probelm, they'll hear about it."
I give support in Mozilla's #firefox irc channel and we *tried* long ago to stop supporting debian firefox builds because they change things that we don't know about, but every person we told "you'll have to go to debian for support" responded with "they told me to come here." Now we go through the simple process of having them make a new profile, and if that doesn't resolve the issue (it never does) we have them install Mozilla's Firefox and give that a try. I have yet to see an issue on Debian's Firefox that hasn't been fixed by installing Mozilla's Firefox instead.
"It is more than "annoying." It is dangerous. Distros should NOT have to wait for approval for patching security bugs. This isn't just theoretical--Debian does backport fixes to versions of Firefox that Mozilla stopped maintaining."
There are several things wrong with that statement. First of all, debian was backporting to 1.0.4 when the 1.0.x branch was still being maintained. Secondly, as I stated above, new versions of Firefox work fine on these older versions of debian, so there is no *need* to keep people on the old version for compatibility. Thirdly the scenario that makes debian feel the need to backport fixes to unmaintained branches is one of their own making. If that puts them in a tough situation then they're the ones that need to deal with it and figure out what course they want to take. Reading the bug, the Debian team seems to recognize and accept that last bit.
More importantly tough, one of Firefox's main priorities is security, anything that Debian wants to backport should already be available as a patch upstream that is already reviewed and approved by the Firefox team. The only situation where your statement would be correct is in a situation where Debian needs to write their *own* patch for some reason. This has been happening too much already, and brings us back to my first point. Debian has been writing their own patches to fix issues that are already fixed in Mozilla Firefox which have been creating bugs that don't exist in Mozilla Firefox. The fact that I'm sitting here having to type Debian Firefox and Mozilla Firefox I think is a pretty good illustration of why Mozilla needs to do what they're doing.
I really can't fathom why so many people are having a hard time accepting this. If Debian wants to ship Firefox, then they need to ship a product that has been approved by the Firefox team. If they want to do their own work to maintain a product without Mozilla's oversight, then that product is no longer Firefox. This is the real issue. If Debian had agreed to use the official branding then Mike Connor's next move would have been to push the approval issue (which he should have done in the original post anyway rather than as an aside later on in the bug, I think he was hoping they'd just agree to not use official branding and that would be that) and we'd all be here having this same argument except without the logo issue clouding it.
The fact that he said he had no idea that a patch was being worked on would be proof enough for me, seeing how as the reporter he could see the progress in the bug. I have no doubt in my mind that he knew there was already a patch, but that the devs were trying to find a *better* patch. What really bothers me though, is that he is passing off work the developers did to test and assess the exploit as his own. These aren't HIS testcases that he's going to press with, they're ones written by the devs.
gmail? orkut? I mean I guess these are search related if you count that they have search functions...
Not to mention the fact that MS is going to be linking MSN search to IE with toolbars et al. Google needs to get into the browser business if it's going to stay above water in the search engine business, and last I checked that was a given. The only speculation I was aware of that was left is are they going to take a vested interest in Firefox or make their own browser? And last I checked on THAT Ben is still working on Firefox.
I think the fact that Mike is in a position to make a comment like this and the very fact that you're debating it on slashdot completely ruins the credibility of your argument against Ben. That aside you can't just let anyone with good intentions have a project altering role. I'm curious as to how many of you complaining that FF doesn't allow people "into the inner circle" are, or are friends of, people who had their requests for access turned down. I've seen a few of the requests and the reason they've been turned down is because the people making their arguments as to why they should be allowed to review and check in are stating right there that they would do things differntly than has already been agreed upon as the best way to do things. Quite specifically they've suggested doing things in such a way that unchecked, unstable code would get into the browser and to the end user. The last thing that ff needs is for people like Ben and Mike to spend all the time they could be coding and reviewing undoing other reviewers' mistakes, or to have slashdot articles about yet another code problem in the latest release. Again, I think the very fact that Mike has the access he does, and how quickly he gained it is proof that when people come along who have the talent and understanding of the project, they are accepted into the fold, not turned away.
FF isn't a factor so much in the health problems, infact it probably helps him destress more than anything else. I wouldn't so much call it scary as I'd say it speaks for his abilities that he's climbed the ladder so well as a volunteer and is trusted to do a good job with it. I'd say it'd be more scary that someone capable would be turned away because they're not an employee.