What is Digg?81 Comments
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42I'll introduce you to some of my ex-girlfriends.
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33"Why do you think Ubuntu would rather ship an Iceweasel over a Firefox?"
Well, it migh have something to do with the fact that Ubuntu gets their packages from Debian and Mozilla requires anyone using a modified version of Firefox to submit any changes to them before distributing them with the firefox branding, so they would not only have to get their own patches OK'd by Mozilla, but Debian's as well.
There is also the fact that Ubuntu currently doesn't use the official Firefox logo, and while they may compromise if it is either use the logo or loose the name, they obviously have some sort of objection to using the Firefox logo.
And last but not least, they have a wiki page DEVOTED TO ICEWEASEL ICONS. - open_sauce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I love this potential logo for Iceweasel.
http://dugnet.com/klown/pics/iceweasel3.png - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Then there's nothing against them having both firefox and iceweasel available, and let the user decide if they want to be a GNU-purist freak or not :)
- there4iam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"You can improve the humor value of almost any situation by injecting [the word] weasel into it." -Dave Barry
- muramasa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22The default Ubuntu install disc only ships free software, same as Debian. Firefox will have to go into the non-free repository. Thusly, Ubuntu will need to select a new default web browser, be it Epiphany or Iceweasel.
- Polygon89, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24who cares what the name is? id rather have a browser that is exactly the same with some small improvements minus the name firefox, and have it free and be free of any copyrighted stuff.
I stress this again, everything this is like 99% the same, except for the -iceweasel in the title bar.
go give opinions on icons :D - mr804, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23what the ***** is iceweasel?
- danakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16For those of you who have NO clue what Iceweasel is or the story behind it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel - virtualball, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Hehe America's getting anally raped by an iceweasel :)
- asadotzler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Why do you think Ubuntu would rather ship an Iceweasel over a Firefox? As far as I know, Ubuntu doesn't have the DFSG as a hard requirement for what it ships.
- A - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Right? I don't understand how they could use such an unbelievably bad name. I mean, I think these Linux app names are out of control. Names like "Ubuntu" are bad enough, but holy *****: ICEWEASEL? Yes, we all get the whole fire/ice fox/weasel thing, but it's funny as a suggestion, and it's scary as the choice.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Notice how when in Ubuntu, you don't have the official Firefox icon? That's because it's not an official build, and thus, they can't have the icon with the fox logo on it."
I thought it was because while the Firefox code is free, the icon itself doesn't qualify with ubuntu's definition of free.
"Since they don't have that icon, they can make whatever changes they want to firefox and distribute it."
Yes, but the point is that Mozilla are now saying that they can't stillcall it Firefox.
"I really don't know why poeple don't understand this, or why it's even a big deal..."
I'd say that such a fuss over what's probably the best known open source brand is a huge deal. - Eldoo77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Reminds me of the FireSomething extension that I installed back around Firefox 1.0... Good times.
- chad3405, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11For some reason they didn't want to use the firefox icon, and that didn't set will with the mozilla group.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The issue is that Mozilla wanted the distros to either use the Firefox name and logo (both together) or neither of them.
Since Firefox is free software, it's within Debian's rights to make another product called IceWeasel, but since Mozilla has a trademark on the Firefox name, they can specify how it's to be used, and apparently it has to be used with the logo.
Debian doesn't like this, as it won't include non-free things, which the logo is. - epohs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Couldn't Mozilla create some sort of a verified repackaging program, where Debian and/or Ubuntu could become authorized to make certain modifications while retaining rights to the logo?
...cause this is really lame sounding. - Sutoka, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"All this stemming from a little tantrum by the debian devs in response to Mozilla's request that they subit their changes for aproval by Mozilla..."
The problem with doing that is Mozilla hasn't been releasing security updates to older versions of their browser, and Debian is back porting them. So if a new hole is discovered, Mozilla fixes it in latest, Debian back ports it, then they would have to call up Mozilla, and wait maybe a couple weeks for them to do something. Theres also been problems with Mozilla doing a crappy job of releasing the updates of Firefox for Linux in packages in a timely manor. - pauleric, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10That'll probably happen as soon as I'm allowed to put the debian logo on any random unofficial changes I make to debian's distribution.
http://www.debian.org/logos/ - arrenlex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Groggyboy: How can you be so very wrong? Have you been following the debate at all?
"I can't believe Debian (and now the FSF) have the nerve to backstab such an upstanding member (that member being Mozilla) of the open source community."
Debian nerve to backstab --> Mozilla nerve to backstab.
It went like this.
Mozilla: "I don't know if you should be using our name for your heavily patched browser..."
Debian: "Pleeeease?"
Mozilla: "Well, ok."
Debian: "Yay!"
Mozilla: "Okay, now you can't. Psych!"
Debian: "What?!"
Mozilla: "Use the official logo and run all your patches by us."
Debian: "We kind of can't!"
Mozilla: "Why?"
Debian: "We backport security fixes! You'd have to go through hundreds of bugfixes to versions you no longer support. We can't afford the delay in getting security fixes out. We physically CAN'T use your nonfree logo because the very reason Debian exists is to provide a 100% free software operating system!"
Mozilla: "Oh. That's tough. Well, cya."
Ubuntu: "Iceweasel is a cool name. I'm going to make a wiki page for logos."
Digg: *asplode* - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I can assure you, that was only semi-intentional. And thank you :)
- redcard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Ehh.
Lot of momentum now is swinging towards getting Epiphany as the Ubuntu default. We might just move Firefox into its non-free, move IceWeasel to free, and use Epiphany as default.
I'd be thrilled with that choice, to be honest. - tapo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Same here. Many people don't get the point of having Epiphany as the default browser, but it's really a smart idea.
1. Epiphany releases, and security releases, are synchronized with GNOME releases. Since Ubuntu synchronizes itself to the GNOME release schedule, you'll always be getting the latest version of Epiphany.
2. Epiphany uses native widgets, letting it perform much faster, especially on older hardware.
3. Epiphany does a much better job of integrating itself into the GNOME desktop.
4. It lacks the trademark issues that Firefox presents.
So for most people, Epiphany would make a fine default. Firefox should still be treated as a first-class citizen though, and those who want it can go ahead and install it. - Sutoka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually when compiling FireFox from source you have to use a special make switch ( --enable-official-branding ) to use the normal firefox logo, otherwise is uses a kind of generic icon, which is most likely what Ubuntu is using (and I don't see how Mozilla could get pissed at them for not claiming their build is official).
- Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Thanks! I actually do have a wallpaper site
http://www.dugnet.org/klown/wallpaper/ - ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I think MarkRiedesel's looks the best. He should do some SVG desktop wallpaper. I really like that style he uses.
- jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I believe that's Ubuntu, not Ubunto. Unless I'm mistaken and there's a new distro in town.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15This is absolutely the stupidest name and icon... All this stemming from a little tantrum by the debian devs in response to Mozilla's request that they subit their changes for aproval by Mozilla or use a differnt name and icon. Ubuntu would be smart not to follow Debian on this. I completely understand the technical reasons that Ubuntu and Debian have for not using vanilla Firefox, but I do hope that Ubuntu will think this through first.
I think that ubuntu should just change the name to something ambiguous like "Ubuntu Web Browser" or just plain " Web Browser" and just specify in the description and opening page that it is based on Firefox. They could do the same with Thunderbird and Sunbird naming thme "Ubuntu Mail" and "Ubuntu Calender" respectively.
Actually, I think renaming several applications in this manner would actually be good for new Ubuntu users. People that are familiar with Linux will understand that these Apps are just renamed, but people new to Linux will have an easier time adapting to all these applications that they probably have never heard of. Yes, that includes Firefox as well. Many Windows users have never heard of Firefox, so losing the Firefox name will probably not be that big of an issue for users new to Ubuntu. - ericesque, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6nope. you're wrong.
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@muramasa said:
###
"The default Ubuntu install disc only ships free software, same as Debian. Firefox will have to go into the non-free repository."
###
This is just wrong. Straight from their page: "Some software from restricted will be installed on Ubuntu CDs but is clearly separated to ensure that it is easy to remove." from http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/components .
Most likely, if the Ubuntu team decides that they want to use Firefox instead of Iceweasel, then they will ship Firefox. There is no precedence/restrictions for shipping 100% free software ("free" depending on your definition) with Ubuntu. - stateq2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6nope...debian recompiles firefox w/ extra patches and stuff....so basically according to mozilla, it's not really "firefox" anymore....so they can't use the name or icons.
- slackerhobo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Weasel humping the earth FTW
- magister, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15I really don't think that Ubuntu will switch. They've been in compliance with Mozilla's requirements since the beginning.
Notice how when in Ubuntu, you don't have the official Firefox icon? That's because it's not an official build, and thus, they can't have the icon with the fox logo on it. Since they don't have that icon, they can make whatever changes they want to firefox and distribute it.
I really don't know why poeple don't understand this, or why it's even a big deal... - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@ Sutoka
Read my comment again... I'm am fully aware of the reason debian has chosen to rename FireFox and why ubuntu really has no choice but to rename it too. However, the name "IceWeasle" is an immature shot at Mozilla and has no place in a respected Linux distribution. If debian wants to do this, that is fine, but ubuntu should not endorse this immaturity by using that name. - ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that's already possible, if Debian would be okay with having their patches approved and authorised by Mozilla. Unfortunately Debian doesn't want to have to do that, and thus their changes do become "random unofficial" changes in the eyes of Mozilla.
- benplaut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5it gets better:
http://mik.unpackable.org/humping_iceweasel.gif - redcard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Epiphany may not offer all the extensions that Firefox/Iceweasel offer, but it is Gnome's official web browser, and it does meet a lot of the specifications for a browser. Further, it uses Gecko as a rendering engine and is incredibly snappy.
I, and a lot of other linux pros, have been using Epiphany for a while now and find it a very successful replacement. - Sutoka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7@jbus,
The Debian devs didn't come up with the name IceWeasle (and it wasn't meant to be a shot at Mozilla, just a name thats similar to Firefox but still different). Also the Debian devs have reason to be pissed at Mozilla Corp, first they told Debian that they could use the name Firefox with their browser long as they didn't use the official artwork, then they out of the blue just change their mind, telling them they couldn't make any modifications and still call it Firefox. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's the new name for firefox on debian and ubuntu because mozilla doesn't let you use the firefox icon and name if you make changes they can't verify, or something very similar to that.
so it's firefox + the usual debian and/or ubuntu patches and a new name and icon. yay for retarded license issues. - arrenlex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uh, no? You're not even allowed to redistribute swiftfox.
- nyinge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A very good point made by Stirling, on ubuntu forums, about why Firefox is protecting its logo and name.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1599301#post1599301 - Shadowman, on 10/12/2007, -17/+19You can have your "Iceweasel". I'll stay with Fedora and Firefox.
- nyinge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2shokk said, "If you're a real Linux user..."
Please note that majority of end-users are not tech-savvy as you are. "./configure && make && make install" is still a nightmare to others. - Nodren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you guys realize that debian has already been releasing a changed version of firefox, ubuntu has this, its nothing new. they already had to change the graphic, so there changing "firefox" to "iceweasel" really, is this a big deal? i use ubuntu at home/laptop/work and i fail to see how this is a big deal. i'll install swiftfox anyway.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@ Sutoka
If you don't think that name is a shot at Mozilla, you need to read it again. Ice=Cold & Weasel=A sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person. Basically they are naming it in a way to spite Mozilla. Regarless of WHO came up with this name it is still petty and childish and the fact that it's going to be used is ridiculous.
Regardless of your opinion on the name or the situation surrounding it, Mozilla has the right to defend its trademarks and copyrights. Asking debian to rename and not use their artwork for altered versions of their software is within their legal rights and within Mozilla's interest. - nyinge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I heard that Swiftfox hasn't been complying with the GPL, since it has been adding its own non-free stuff in addition to Firefox' codes.
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Couldn't this whole thing be avoided if Debian just used the offiical Firefox icon? Mozilla have given them permission to haven't they? The whole thing seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill top me.
- benplaut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can have your 'firebird'
I'll stick with AIX and emacs - biffta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You can have your "Firefox". I'll stay with Amiga and Firebird.
- Sutoka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@jbus,
Debian WASN'T using Mozilla's artwork, the Mozilla Foundation and Debian had an agreement that Debian was allowed to repackage and patch Firefox and keep using the Firefox name long as they didn't use the Firefox artwork, but when the Mozilla Corporation took over, they decided they didn't want to honor the agreement that was made when they were the Mozilla Foundation and told Debian they couldn't make any modification and keep the Firefox name even if they didn't use the official artwork. And again, no Debian developer has anything to do with the IceWeasel name, it was just something thrown out on a blog rant by a random commenter like subgeniusd said, and apparently some Ubuntu users liked it and just made a wiki page and posted using that name to the Ubuntu forum as if it was official. So if ANYONE is childish, it would be the Ubuntu posters, and the random commenter. And Ice = kinda opposite of Fire (at least as far as RPs ;-) ) and Weasel = an animal that looks a lot like a Fox. Claiming its meant to be a slam at Mozilla would be jumping to a conclusion that you don't know about. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
