On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:00:12PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > 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. Agreed. From the average Firefox user's POV as they consider Fedora, assuming for a moment they're not put off by the lack of a browser they know and trust already, and install Fedora anyway. It's fair to say they'll visit Mozilla to download Firefox, and now they're simply using what we decided not to just provide them even though it's FOSS. Shipping an unbranded version also increases instead our reputation of making things hard for users -- one from which we've been steadily (and somewhat successfully) fighting our way back. I see no gain here, especially when it doesn't seem we're providing a counterbalancing benefit for most users. > 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. +1, that response seems out of proportion to me. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
