----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kalev Lember" <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:00:12 AM > Subject: Re: Case against Firefox in FESCo > > On 01/10/2016 11:29 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 14:26 +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > >> Hi, > >> there is currently a case against Firefox discussed in FESCo: > >> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1518 > > > > We have many different opinions in this thread. Clearly, there is no > > solution that will make everyone happy. I tried to formulate a > > consensus position based on the comments in this thread, which I > > suspect the majority of us can support: > > > > "Fedora Workstation prefers to ship the latest release of Firefox, not > > ESR releases. Shipping an unbranded version of Firefox is acceptable to > > us, but not ideal. Shipping a version of Firefox that blocks unsigned > > extensions is also acceptable to us, but not ideal." > > > > In other words: we're fine with FESCo deciding for either unbranded or > > locked-down Firefox, but we won't be very happy either way. Does this > > seem fair? > > My personal take on this is that we need to ship with a mainstream > browser that is actively developed and that web sites support. These > days, I think it's a choice between either Firefox or Chrome. > > We don't have Chrome in Fedora so this leaves Firefox. > > Also, shipping a browser with a widely recognizable name (Firefox) as > opposed to shipping a minor fork (Icecat) has a huge benefit when it > comes to people finding the web browser -- they will have used the same > browser on other operating systems, making switching to Fedora easier. > > Habit plays a huge role. Take a familiar name away and it's suddenly > much harder for us to compete. > > I think it would be fine to ask Firefox upstream to support additional > trust chains to support locally packaged extensions, but if that fails I > don't think we should go with anything as drastic as switching to an > unbranded Firefox fork. I agree with this; yes, lets work with upstream to try to resolve this and leave any thoughts on drastic action behind for now, even if that means we ship a Firefox which only supports signed extensions either temporary or permanently. Our browser team is overworked as it is, we don't need to add to the burden. Christian -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
