<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 02/06/2012 12:14 PM, Viktor Basso wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F2FA7ED.8080504@basso.cc" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 02/06/2012 10:22 AM, Jason Warner wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL2-1PvHXy768baB66tbdk0UBO2mdEhxMnVhkZ0sSg2ArehYMg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hi All -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Jason</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:21 AM,
Jo-Erlend Schinstad <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joerlend.schinstad@gmail.com"
target="_blank">joerlend.schinstad@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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?<br>
<br>
Thanks<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I can agree that Ubuntu "needs to be out in front of these
things".<br>
But I do not believe that the Long Term Support releases should.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
+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) .<br>
</body>
</html>