Why don't we use Mozilla ESR in Precise?

[Viktor Basso]

On Mon 06 Feb 2012 12:23:37 PM CET, Petko wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 12:14 PM, Viktor Basso wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012 10:22 AM, Jason Warner wrote:
>>> Hi All -
>>>
>>> Firefox ESR is indeed interesting, and it would seem to answer some 
>>> of the question corporations might have about Firefox, but I think 
>>> it is less interesting for Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Firefox adopted a rapid release model for various reasons, but among 
>>> them was that they needed the browser to keep up with the pace of 
>>> innovation on the internet. Ubuntu needs to be out in front of these 
>>> things and be pushing the very edge of what is possible, 
>>> particularly in the browser. I do not think we can ship a browser 
>>> that will lag by 12 months in any sense; the risks too far outweigh 
>>> the rewards.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that even a year lag (ESR update period) would put Ubuntu 
>>> at severe disadvantage to other platforms. Imagine a world where G+ 
>>> or Facebook or some new whizbang product didn't work on Ubuntu 
>>> because the browser shipped didn't support some new 
>>> technology/javascript engine/platform component. That is neither 
>>> something we want nor can afford. We have to be better, we have to 
>>> be faster and we have to be braver.
>>>
>>> The browser is among the chief components of the desktop that needs 
>>> to keep pace (or better) and I feel adopting Firefox ESR would be 
>>> the wrong choice for Ubuntu desktop.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad 
>>> <joerlend.schinstad at gmail.com <mailto:joerlend.schinstad at gmail.com>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     In Precise we've upgraded to version 11 of both Firefox and
>>>     Thunderbird. But the reason for starting to upgrade frequently
>>>     was said to be that Mozillas support periods were limited for
>>>     newer versions after 3.6. But now we have the 10ESR versions of
>>>     both. Why are they not used instead of the short-term 11?
>>>
>>>     Thanks
>>>
>> I can agree that Ubuntu "needs to be out in front of these things".
>> But I do not believe that the Long Term Support releases should.
>>
>
> +1 on that . That's the actual difference between LTS and regular 
> releases - that LTS provides a stable environment (which always costs 
> being aback on the latest technologies ) . So there's the choice - 
> stable&a bit otdated or changing&latest . LTS should provide the first 
> (say with the option to upgrade to the latest version from the 
> repositories) .

Yes!
The LTS should be secure, stable and supported. 
Not "better, faster, braver" as Jason pointed out.