digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

We haven't forgotten Linux in Firefox 3: Mozilla

itwire.com — Mozilla Foundation has defended itself against claims from sections of the Linux community that it has ignored Linux in the development of Firefox 3, the next generation of the browser. Mozilla's chief interface designer says Linux is very much included in the development project.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 14, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

106 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ptFoe, on 12/14/2007, -2/+61They better not have, Firefox has been instrumental in making the transition from Windows to Linux smoother for new users.
  • baalzebub, on 12/14/2007, -4/+28thats good, but on the other hand i sure as hell would not switch to windows just to run firefox...
  • goyney, on 12/14/2007, -3/+25You mean "We haven't forgotten Firefox 3 in Linux"?

    Otherwise, sweet Jesus! They figured out how to run Linux in Firefox 3!!!
  • SuperDelen, on 12/14/2007, -0/+22Apple fanbois will never die will they?
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/14/2007, -0/+22yeah its pretty smooth having the web browser be identical.
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/14/2007, -1/+22Whore?

    I think it's bad enough that people are calling people names for using a whole other OS, but a Linux user not being Linux enough?
  • z0mbie2099, on 12/14/2007, -1/+17Please have non-GTK alternatives. ::cough::(KDE 4).
  • andycr512, on 12/14/2007, -0/+15I don't think that's something that is up to Mozilla.
  • mcgarry83, on 12/14/2007, -0/+13Of course not!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
  • Bridea, on 12/14/2007, -1/+14this is great, not that I have problems with FF2 right now...
  • eean, on 12/14/2007, -3/+15I've always gotten the feeling that Linux is an afterthought for Firefox. The best example of this is how when you select a program to launch a file type you are forced to specify the full file name of the program, as if Unix didn't have a working PATH.
  • j.carcinogen, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14Firefox runs best on linux and it is apparent that the devs favor linux based on the tools they use.
  • inactive, on 12/14/2007, -4/+16I'm a KDE user, not a KDE/QT whore as Urusai asks, but have you ever tried opera on Linux?
    did you see how fast it is?
    gtk may be as good/nice looking as you want (even if i dislike them) but they are a pure hog on firefox.
    i feel depressed having firefox always open and dealing with gtk.

    Not to mention that the fonts are rendered differently from the rest of my applications.
  • evilregis, on 12/14/2007, -1/+12While I use Firefox, I would agree... Opera is a better browser. If it had support for extensions (I loathe Widgets) it would probably be my default browser. But it doesn't and Firefox does AND it is still a great browser. So here I am posting this in Firefox.
  • wtsexton00, on 12/14/2007, -5/+15I feel that way about QT.
  • andycr512, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10Blocked and reported for spamming every single post with nothing more useful than "get a mac".
  • mrsteveman1, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10Firefox has many strengths and one of the biggest is the ability to use it on any of the 3 common desktop platforms, OS X, Windows, and Linux.

    If they stopped the Linux releases, no one could actually call the port Firefox which would cause all sorts of problems.
  • bruenig, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12I think he is referring to the branding issues.
  • timf, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12and replace it with what?
  • akkibaba, on 12/14/2007, -3/+12Firefox source code is available under the GPL if you wish, making it Free software.
  • mrsteveman1, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9The problem isn't Gnome, using a GTK app on a desktop based around QT causes all sorts of problems, just like QT apps have all sort of problems on Gnome etc. KDE has managed to at least partially integrate GTK apps by using specific fonts and styles for them, but its still ridiculous. Want an example? Open a file dialog box in a GTK app, then a QT app, and tell me this isn't ridiculous. New users are never going to use Linux if stupid stuff like this persists.

    The only reason any of it works at all is the common freedesktop.org components like the way apps put icons in the system tray and panel etc.

    The problem is also not GTK itself, the problem is we don't need 2 huge desktops each built around a widget toolkit. It's an unnecessary split for little gain at this point. The original point of GTK was to avoid future problems with the QT license and KDE, neither of which are a problem anymore.
  • missingnoh4x, on 12/14/2007, -4/+12Even if they did stop putting out Linux releases, the browser is open source. Someone can always compile a port.
  • Chandon, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8> New users are never going to use Linux if stupid stuff like this persists.
    Normal users don't care about this stuff. At all. It's only us computer geeks who even notice things like slightly different file open dialogs. Hell, why are they going to be doing "Open File" in Firefox anyway?
  • fluoro, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7"The original point of GTK was to avoid future problems with the QT license and KDE, neither of which are a problem anymore."
    No, the original point of GTK was to make a UI toolkit for GIMP that doesn't suck. At the time of the original conception, there weren't many alternatives. GTK was not created as a reaction to KDE, and it was not created for GNOME.
  • inactive, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9Since Debian can go off and make "Iceweasel", the branding is a moot point. Surely even Dickie Stallman can allow a company to have a valued brand to differentiate solutions based on code that is given away for free - especially since you're supposed to be able to make all this money off stuff that's given away.
  • lemur, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6Iceweasel was created because of a trademark dispute with the Mozilla foundation. Debian wanted to patch Firefox before distributing it, Mozilla said no. You make IW sound as if it's specially written for Linux, but I'm under them impression that it's just FF source with the trademarks hacked out and just a handful of other patches (patches which are probably on their way going into FF as soon as Mozilla OK's them and turns them around)
  • missingnoh4x, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Firefox's ram issues have nothing to do with gtk, as you'll notice the same problems on even Windows and Mac.
  • andycr512, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6Have you tried FF3 Minefield? There's tons of Linux improvements, including using your theme's icons in the toolbar, using all-native controls in forms on web sites, and more. I have little issue with where they're taking 3 for Linux.
  • BinaryFragger, on 12/14/2007, -4/+10No thanks, I like being to play games with my computer.
  • fluoro, on 12/14/2007, -2/+8"Please have non-GTK alternatives.."
    You want a non-GTK alternative? How about ***** Firefox itself. Firefox does not use GTK, I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Firefox uses XUL, which is not based on GTK. It has a layer that mimics your GTK theme, but that's it.
  • init100, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Yeah, and whose fault is that? Hint: It isn't Gnome's.

    QT previously had an onerous license that precluded its use in GPL-licensed programs. That is (AFAIK) the reason why Gnome was initiated. And once this happened, you could not really tell them to lie down and die.
  • inactive, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6I can't use konqueror (or opera) for many reasons
    firebug is the most important.
  • missingnoh4x, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5What if you run iPodLinux on it?
  • mossblaser, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5Yep - cos all those windows users just hand over their cash...
  • mrsteveman1, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5Let me be the first to congratulate you on not understanding the topic of your ridiculous rant.
  • CrackyJSquirrel, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6Why dig me down for giving the true linux port of firefox? Sometimes you people make no sense..
  • fluoro, on 12/14/2007, -2/+7Uhh.. wtf are you talking about? Firefox isn't built on GTK. It has a layer that mimics your GTK theme, but that's it.
  • andycr512, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4I really don't know what you're talking about - I doubt anyone, including you, does...

    1. Since when do you have to pay for Firefox on Windows?
    2. They get money from Google every time someone uses their search box on any platform.
  • MrTea, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4how about thumbnail view with the upload dialog?
  • DAaaMan64, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4God I am sorry, but as KDE user, Firefox is a dog on kubuntu. It really bothers me and I am testing out Opera because of it now.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 12/14/2007, -2/+6The Firefox binaries include 'Talkback', which is proprietary. They are also trademark-encumbered. These two things mean that they do not meet the definition of 'free software' (which != open source). I'm not a FSF zealot (using the proprietary Firefox binary on Vista at the moment) but 'free software' is a term which has a precise meaning and Firefox doesn't meet it, fantastic software though it is.
  • beatryder, on 12/14/2007, -2/+6What's wrong with having two choices for Widgets? I find it funny that the GTK guys are the ones ATTACKING the QT guys who simply request more choice. Isn't that what FOSS is all about?
  • init100, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4The issue is not that Mozilla ever considered not putting out Linux releases, it was that Mozilla initially didn't seem to care as much about integration with the desktop environment in Linux as they did with Windows and Mac OS X.
  • willfe, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3(I voted you up, for the record) It's probably because it's not the "true Linux port of Firefox." The "true Linux port of Firefox" is just Firefox -- it is a cross-platform, portable program that compiles on many different platforms. Source is available at http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozi ... (follow the instructions there -- search the text for "Firefox").

    Iceweasel/Icecat are forks of Firefox, made by Debian and GNU respectively, because those organizations believed the licenses of some of the assets (graphics, mainly) distributed with Firefox made it incompatible with the licensing Debian uses (and that GNU authors and distributes). They're no different from the original Firefox except for the branding. Plugins, add-ons, and themes for Firefox work just fine in the forks, because they're identical engines with almost identical code.

    It's not "specifically for Linux." It's "specifically for Debian" or "specifically for the GPL," depending on whose fork you download :)
  • baalzebub, on 12/14/2007, -6/+9please, get rid of sathia. please.
    gtk is great! just as long as the applications made to use the gtk toolkit do not depend on gnome being installed too...
  • VenTatsu, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Arguably the choice to not honor the PATH environment variable is correct.
    A program's environment will depend on how it was started, that means Firefox opened as part of the WM launch vs. opened through the WM interface vs. opened from a shell prompt may each have a different environment.
    That may not be an issue, and it could even be a feature, but it can also cause unexpected behavior for some users. If you really really want the path to be searched you might try using "/usr/bin/env [command]" I don't know specifically that it will work with Firefox but I would expect that is should.
  • mrsteveman1, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Firefox development is much more top down than community. Most FOSS apps are, very few are community efforts.
  • inactive, on 12/14/2007, -4/+7Ok, how would you feel if Firefox would be QT only?

    I tell you, you would feel bad.
  • domlachowicz, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3In an ideal world, users wouldn't care about widget sets. To get there, we (the FOSS community) need to improve toolkit integration.

    There's nothing wrong with requesting more choice. But users have to recognize that it's a *lot* of work to port Mozilla from GTK+ to QT, and then maintain that port for the life of the product. A lot goes into integrating Mozilla's toolkit (XUL) with the native toolkit's look and feel. It's probably not time well-spent for the Mozilla folks to do this, especially when there are 2 decent QT-based browsers out there.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.