Will Firefox no longer be named Firefox?
sciyoshi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 21:51:20 BST 2006
On 9/26/06, Eldo Varghese <poningru at ufl.edu> wrote:
> > 1) We patch it so it doesn't do autoupdate.
> Autoupdate is simply a userpref option, minor 'patch', they wouldn't care.
I don't see why this can't be a build switch - if I remember
correctly, didn't they say that using different build switches would
> > 2) We do security patches, not updating to the latest versions.
> I have always wondered about this, why do we backport security patch to
> the same branch? for example 22.214.171.124 patch backported to 126.96.36.199, why
> not just use 188.8.131.52
> > 3) We patch it to use the human theme.
> Again adding a new theme and setting it as default is pretty
> straightforward, they would not have any problems with it.
> > 4) I believe we turn on more GNOME integration stuff then upstream.
> Now this stuff they probably would care about, but why not gave through
> the approval process?
> - Eldo
Couldn't this also be in a switch?
Still, it seems to me that Mozilla is handling this quite badly - as
others said, maybe it's time to go with Evolution? :-)
(On a side note, I asked a couple of people in my residence if they
had heard of Firefox or Linux. Most either answered yes to both or to
neither, but not to JUST one. I therefore don't think that NOT
including Firefox as the default in Ubuntu would hurt it too much.
(sorry bout the double negs :-)))
More information about the ubuntu-devel