Fair points all around, Diogo. I completely forgot about the GUI
front-end. And I have been rather blind to upstream since I assume
package maintainers keep things pretty up-to-date. I think others have
addressed concerns about GTK2 &c, but I guess I have to concede the
closed software. There isn't much to say about that except for
usability: if Mozilla wants to play the usability game, it can't always
turn its nose up at codecs, Flash (which hopefully the web is moving
away from), or DRM. And I suspect not supporting all these (save for
Flash, or dirty Gstreamer plugins? not entirely sure) plays a part in
Epiphany's continued role as an underdog relative to Firefox. I suspect
much the same for the zealously ideal-centered Trisquel users, and
perhaps in a broader view many of the stricter approaches to free software.
I don't think we are owed anything by Mozilla, given their weighty task
across all platforms (something something open web), so I can't say
anything about upstream apparently snubbing Fedora. Compared to the
snippets about why Chrome/ium isn't packaged for Fedora, I think Firefox
should surely be one of our better options.
I add, also without sarcasm (I'm very wordy but I really, really hope my
sincerity comes across), that this is just my opinion. If everyone else
calls for Epiphany to supplant Firefox, I guess there must be some very
good reasons (currently beyond my grasp). I hope that someone will
change my view if this is so.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
