IceWeasel — Why Closed Source Wins 551
engtech writes, "There's been some hype about the Debian fork of FireFox called IceWeasel. Politics aside, this is a bad idea because it fragments the user base, divides the focus, and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare."
Seamonkey (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seamonkey (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seamonkey (Score:5, Insightful)
Ice Weasel sounds like it will be only installable on Debian, perhaps Debian-descended platforms like Ubuntu. Of course, since it's open source, anyone can port it to other platforms, I suppose. But why bother, all Ice Weasel is, is Firefox devoid of any nonfree trademarked art. And any updates to Firefox will be bought to Iceweasel.
But there are already other variations of Firefox, like Swiftfox. Firefox will be the main flavor for a long time.
The only way a fracture in the community will happen is if the releases are not compatible with each other, but the projects don't sound like they will develop on their own, but always staying with the main branch of Firefox. They can't really afford not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seamonkey (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't the 1990s. The "Linux distros" are now quite different from each other, and often binary-incompatible in some ways. Granted, it's very easy to port software between them (if you have source code, which you usually do), but they are most definitely different OSes now.
There are (or will soon be) more similarities between e.g. Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD than between Debian GNU/Linux and Mandriva Linux or Fedora Core.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, if everyone is so fucking concerned with "unity" in the userbase stop using vi, vim, Emacs, pico, nano, joe, and echo and instead just come up with a standard editor and u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seamonkey (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seamonkey (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that nobody reads them. It's just that the intersection of (dotters who read the articles) and {dotters who post} is the empty set.
Re:Seamonkey (Score:5, Informative)
Time to classify the word "fork" (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe something along these lines:
Any other suggestions? Any preference from the above? This clearly fills a need that I see in the community, so I shall leave it to the community to decide what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every package is a fork (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seamonkey (Score:5, Informative)
Err (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The policy says that if you change it, you can't use their name or logos, so I would guess new agent.
Stop marginalizing us! (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Pag
*0.00005 millions
Re:Err (Score:4, Insightful)
"Iceweasel" is a name chosen out of pure spite.
What kind of message do you think this sends to the small business and enterprise markets about the maturity of the FOSS community?
Debian marketshare = ??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Debian marketshare = ??? (Score:5, Funny)
I am a Linux user but let us all get a grip. Firefox on Linux is a tiny blip... Firefox on windows is where what scares Microsoft.
Even then Suse, Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu, and Linspire all use Firefox.
So I would rate this news as two yawns and a stretch.
Not entirely. (Score:3, Insightful)
it's bad either way (Score:2)
Re:it's bad either way (Score:5, Insightful)
Debian's goals are to quickly patch security problems, and to backport fixes to versions declared stable for the benefit of their users.
Both these goals a) good, useful, helpful, and worthwhile, and b) in conflict with the wishes of the Mozilla Corporation.
Perhaps Mozilla could give a little here, instead of Debian. Hmm?
Re:it's bad either way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's been tried, the core of the issue was that Mozilla included non-free(as per Debian's DFSG) images along with Firefox, presenting Debian with the two following options:
1) Not distributing Firefox
2) Finding a way to distribute Firefox without the offending image
They picked two, which caused the uproar, which caused the request from Mozilla not to use the Firefox name if the non-free images weren't there. Debian said "We'll fork and use a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it's bad either way (Score:4, Informative)
Re:it's bad either way (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it Mozilla used to let them call these versions "Debian Firefox" but now they don't anymore. I'm not entirely sure this is quite right. Also there's a DFSG issue that I don't remember the details of.
Mozilla Foundation doesn't have to "deal with" Iceweasel at all, except to respond to all of this publicity. This looks "big-picture bad" to some people but to Debian keeping the stable branch secure is more important than Firefox advocacy. In other words, the "small-picture" disagreements that made this happen are actually the big picture.
For most users there's not much of a reason to use package management for a program like Firefox. It's frequently-updated and for most people frequently-used, and it has an auto-update system if you use the official binaries. People will usually want the updated version. For people that have a good reason to stick with a really old version, or who don't use the browser enough to keep it updated independently of other software Iceweasel gives them their security backports. And I can understand why MoFo wouldn't want their trademark applied to software that's maintained by Debian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, on Ubuntu you'll probably wind up with both Mozilla and Firefox installed (grr), but you see my point.
Re:it's bad either way (Score:5, Informative)
Missing the point... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missing the point... Yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see anything wrong with asking someone who forks your codebase to use a different name to avoid confusion. What's the problem with that?
Plus, there is this thing about Trademark law. If you don't actively police it, you can lose the right to the mark.
Misunderstanding trademark law (Score:5, Informative)
I hear this repeated a lot. It's not true. If you allow your mark to become generic you can lose your right to it. Firefox is not at risk of this happening. Google is. You can be selective about enforcement as long as you don't allow the mark to become generic.
Debian has handled this problem, for years, by having an official-use and an un-official-use logo for their own distribution. This allows people to package the program with modifications and still use consistent branding.
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never EVER heard a lawyer say this. On the other hand, I have heard lawyers say that to hold a trademark, you must control the quality of the goods described. But what do lawyers know about the subject?? After all, this is the same Bruce Per
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I have this from Pixar's head attorney, Larry Sonsini, some years ago. At the time, we were considering how much we needed to enforce the "Renderman" mark.
But I looked at 14 USC 1064 (3), which says you can lose your trademark if:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, they can actively police it *and* grant permission to use it. That didn't work in this case, because the conditions Mozilla placed on that permission weren't acceptable to Debian.
Also, I seem to recall something in the DFSG such that licenses *must* be transferable to derived products. I suspect Mozilla's trademark license would have been specific to Debian, and therefore not q
What the DFSG says (Score:4, Informative)
That said, a well-designed trademark policy (like Debian's) provides a mark that they explicitly recommend that you to use if you modify the product, which does not throw their own branding out the window. The Mozilla.com people simply haven't thought that through sufficiently.
Bruce
WHEN did closed source win ? huh ? (Score:2)
They hate our Freedom(TM)! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you may have a point there. But it's not just geeks. It's any counterculture. Look at indie music -- once an unknown band becomes a mainstream hit, suddenly they've sold out and are beneath contempt.
Some subsets of our culture have an attitude that quality is inversely proportional to popularity. Others have the opposite tendency.
My Thoughts on the Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
After stepping back for a moment, however, I realized that the problem isn't as complex as it seems. In fact, I think it highlights something I've been saying for a while: Package systems under Linux are a broken concept.
When I was working on the Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future [intelligentblogger.com] article, I received quite a bit of criticism for calling the package management systems a major source of breakage. In the follow-up [intelligentblogger.com], I was forced to point out that complete system packaging creates a massive, monolithic code base:
What we're seeing here is a legal extension of that same problem. By integrating the software into the codebase, Debian is attempting to take legal responsibility for the software. Yet the software provider (Mozilla) is already handling that responsibiity, and does not wish to give it up. On any other operating system, the binaries would get bundled (or not at all, if they're too untrustworthy) as a self-contained application, and the software provider would be allowed to continue handling updates. End of story.
In this case, Debian wants this software to be managed like all the other software they manage. Which means that taking responsibility becomes easier for them, rather than allowing the software producer to handle their own software. While this theoretically allows for a more cohesive system, that cohesiveness only goes as far as the packages checked into Debian's repository. Mozilla should be outside of that repository, but any software that's not in the repository is not well supported by the packaging system. Ergo, the process breaks down.
That's just my thoughts, anyway. I'm sure many will disagree. Loudly. And rudely. Oh well.
Distros are response to configuration problems. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I'm not sure that people haven't at least realized some of the underlying concepts behind your point before. The complexity of packaging systems is what leads to specialization in distros.
It's possible to take Debian and install packages on it, and make almost anything you want. A PVR machine, a digital audio workstation, a web server, a firewall, whatever. You can do it (and frankly, it probably works well in all of those roles, because they're fairly well-tested).
But rather than doing that, lots of people who want a machine in a particular role, don't just get "Linux" and then install a lot of packages on it, but get a particular, preconfigured distribution that already has a lot of packages installed and tested, and uses that.
The diversity of distros is basically an attempt to take the huge number of possible configurations possible with Linux and its ecosystem of packages, and produce a smaller number of well-tested configurations. So rather than building your own digital audio workstation, you get a digital-audio-workstaion distribution that already has everything rolled together. It's convenient, and it's less likely to have bugs.
So while I think that the diversity of packages is a source of possible conflicts because of the huge number of possible configurations, I don't think it's a totally insurmountable problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not even theoretically possible to fully test an individual program in the time you would have to do so - the complexity limit is that low. This has spurred the development of functional programming, as the only programming paradigm that has a hope of mathematical verification in a reasonable amount of time, but that has not reached the point of practicality for most development.
A package repository is a col
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After stepping back for a moment, however, I realized that the problem isn't as complex as it seems. In fact, I think it highlights something I've been saying for a while: Package systems under Linux are a broken concept.
Funny, but when I stepped back for a moment, I didn't see a problem anymore.
It seems to me that there are people who like Firefox and see this as some kind of an attack from Debian people. There are people who like Debian and see this as Mozilla trying to inhibit their freedom. People
Parent Post is overrated ! (Score:5, Informative)
Since every package modifies the base system, the only way to prove that a package will work is to test it against every possible package configuration available!
Each package is independant with others except with its own dependencies. Those dependencies happen to be linear : for P packages, nP total dependencies, with n an integer independant of the number of packages. It's the job of a Debian package maintainer to check the dependencies are fulfilled and working : each maintener just needs to check n dependencies. That's part of the job people are doing to move a new version of a package from sid (unstable) to testing. I will add that chain of dependencies are irrelevant : if A needs B and B needs C, maintainer of A checks his program working against B, while it's the duty of the maintainer of B to check his program works with C. The only cross-dependancies are for kernel-mode code, that is only drivers.
In fact it's better than the windows "DLL hell", because the state of the system is known (for a Debian stable for exemple), while on MS Windows... Your program has been developped and tested for DirectX 8, will it work with DirectX 9 ? No way to know what the state of the user's system will be (and no developper includes DirectX as a static dependency, it isn't even possible). It's no wonder that most OSes are using repositories (Linux, BSD, QNX, BeOS with software wallet, that one being somewhat different IIRC).
any software that's not in the repository is not well supported by the packaging system.
You seem to ignore that there isn't a single central repository. Want Opera browser ? Just add http://deb.opera.com/opera/ [opera.com] in your repositories list, and you get the official binary matching your version of Debian, checked against it.
If something is not clear, feel free to ask for details.
Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Paradox of Choice (Score:4, Interesting)
The article brings up an interesting question: to what extent does having multiple choices "split the vote" (as the article put it)? Let's take two scenarios:
Is someone more likely to choose IE in scenario 2 than scenario 1?
Possibly yes, if the paradox of choice [slashdot.org] holds true. If the number of options paralyze your decision, you'll be more likely to stick with the status quo... which for Windows users means Internet Explorer."
Should proponents of alternative browsers pick one to rally behind? If so, should it be Firefox? Would it be worth voting third-party (so to speak), but pooling resources to campaign for the lead challenger?
typo (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the problem will be relegated to people who use Linux, and more specifically, Debian and derivatives (I guess). Issues with extensions and themes not working for whatever reasons and so on are possible, I suppose, but people who use Firefox on other platforms wouldn't even see Iceweasel at all.
marketshare? (Score:5, Insightful)
Focus on users, not the competition (Score:2)
Listening to a user base and delivering will do a lot more than trying to expend effort in trying to compete against MS/IE.
Not exactly related, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Reality called... (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure all those dedicated Debian users are going to have a huge impact on browser use numbers. If they all switch over to IceWeasel, IE 7 might pick up two, even three hundredths of a percent. That would definitely spell the end for Firefox.
Isn't this a strength of open source? (Score:2)
Firefox and Ubuntu (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Download it from some 3rd party website
2. Download the source, compile it, package it up and host it on my website
And to be honest I'd encourage everyone else to do the same. I'm really not trying to troll, I just don't want to one day find a vulnerability or incompatibility in IceWeasel that's not in Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
> want to one day find a vulnerability or incompatibility in IceWeasel that's not in Firefox.
Two options:
1. IceWeasel IS the Moz Corp codebase with patch es to change the name and artwork. Plus patches to integrate it into Debian (current situation) plus security patches (current situation). Difference is that IceWeasel can continue to be patchesd long after Moz Corp would demand FireFox be ve
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't want to one day find a vulnerability or incompatibility in IceWeasel that's not in Firefox.
What about vulnerabilities in Firefox which are not there in IceWeasel?
whine (Score:2)
Debian vs. Mozilla.COM (Score:5, Interesting)
Debian can't carry the browser in their distribution under the "Firefox" name if they are to have any ability to tune it for their distribution or to fix bugs before the Firefox team makes their own release.
The software will be essentially identical to Firefox. I think we may see other distributions doing the same thing, as it's just not tenable for ANY distribution to contain software that it can't service.
And then hopefully we'll see the Firefox team go back to the policy they negotiated with the Debian organization only a year ago, before their new .com folks took charge, which was that they would agree to
trust some people to modify the code and not make a fuss about it.
The author of the quoted piece is being absurd to say this is "Why closed-source wins". It's not about fragmenting the user base, it doesn't have much effect on the brand and won't be very visible to naive users. It's just turning an obnoxious trademark policy that is flagrantly in conflict with the purportedly Open Source nature of the product on its head.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
The "Firefox.com folks" are called Mozilla. And true, they forced the issue, they didn't force them to come up with such a stunningly idiotic name.
Re:Debian vs. Mozilla.COM (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course nobody likes the name. You're not supposed to. It's Firefox turned on its head. It's supposed to be annoying to the Firefox developers, to spur them to do something about this.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Debian Official Use Logo License
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
1. This logo may only be used if:
* the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation)
* official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose
Re:Debian vs. Mozilla.COM (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of thought was put into that. It would be fine if there was an "Official Firefox" and "Firefox", similarly to the way Debian handles their trademark.
Bruce
Re:Debian vs. Mozilla.COM (Score:4, Funny)
Supprisingly that option _IS_ available in firefox as a compile time switch. However (and the irony doesn't escape me here) Debian has patched firefox in such a way that this switch no longer works! Hurah!
~ Anders
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, Bon Echo and Deer Park are version names. We need non-version-dependent stable branding that unifies modified versions and the official firefox into a consistent branding program. The Official Debian CD (really the only place Debian uses their official-use logo) and their unofficial-use logo seem to do this well.
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Ubuntu put a glaring bug in the code the Firefox folks have reason to complain. Just complain, not ban use of their name entirely. They should have an official and non-official use logo policy, as Debian has. That allows people to use consistent branding on modified versions.
Bruce
Re:Debian vs. Mozilla.COM (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, you lose. This is not allowed - unless you remove the firefox artwork and change the name, or submit to specific per-change licensing from Mozilla (which Debian's policies do not permit, for a number of practical and philosophical reasons). That is what Mozilla have said to Debian [debian.org]. If you do not agree with this, feel free to take up the issue with Mozilla, because Debian will presume them to be correct on any matters regarding what is and is not acceptable here.
This is not at all true. Debian has been saying to the Mozilla crew for a long time (since several years ago when this first came up): "we'll leave the name alone if you don't give us a reason to change it, but we'll change it if you want". Mozilla previously said "okay, leave it alone for now" but now they came back to Debian and said "you've got to change it now". At no point did Debian attempt to "get a free ride", they just did exactly what the Mozilla developers asked for.
This option has never been offered by Mozilla in respect of Debian's support for Firefox 1.0 (which is still having security fixes applied in Debian, and which is known to have users that are either unable or unwilling to upgrade).
Let us recap with a statement from Mike Connor, speaking officially on behalf of Mozilla (on the subject of whether or not Debian can call the version it ships "Firefox"):
This doesn't hurt Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
What do I care, I use Ubuntu. Debian is becoming the new XFree86.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could simply have moved it to non-free
No they couldn't. The objective of the Debian Project is to create the universal free operating system. The existance of the non-free branch is a minor evil, and there have been discussions not too long ago to remove it.
What do I care, I use Ubuntu. Debian is becoming the new XFree86.
You sir are an ignorant. Read the words of Mark Shuttleworth [markshuttleworth.com] when he says that I'm of the opinion that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian . Debian is a much bigger and imp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Second is that, were they to have been shipping Firefox, the Firefox trademark graphic (which comes in a file) is also copyrighted, and not licensed for modification. Debian says that trademarks must be modifiable because they might be usable in a different trademark field. This problem is solvable, as you say, either by putting it in non-free, or
Er, what? (Score:2)
So it looks to me like open-source only gives more abilities in this case, not less.
(Yes, I realize that the reason they wanted package changes was because it conflicted with their license. That's rather tangential to the discussion.)
Microsoft? So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do all 6 Debian users care ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I only used Debian for apt. It totally blows away yum. But, with the slow ass release cycles I can't take it much longer.
I wish more Distros would base on Debian, rather then base on Red Hat. I really don't care for RPMs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a feature. A slow release cycle is a benefit in many environments - a high-end teaching environment, for example, absolutely can not be deploying a functionality-changing upgrade more than once a year, because you'll screw over all the work currently in progress if you do it in the middle of the academic year. A lot of businesses also need to keep disruption to a minimum, which means infrequent upgrades - any high end sysadmin will tell yo
Politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, trying to fight those things IS politics. The Debian project has never been interested in fighting those kinds of battles. They don't care about market share. They have a single focus: Making the best possible distribution, which can absolutely, no questions asked, be used by anyone for any purpose.
I for one am glad they put those principles first. I don't want compromises for the sake of market share.
Not "Open Source Enough" (Score:2)
opens the path for Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a worthless mindset. The goal should be to release a good product that end users appreciate. Competition will make both products better.
Debian users? Forking the Firefox userbase? (Score:2)
Icon? (Score:2)
Maybe a frozen rat humping an ice cube?
(as opposed to a red dog humping a blue beach ball)
overestimating your importance (Score:2)
Methinks someone overestimates Debian's relevance in the browser marketplace. And yes, I know about Ubuntu.
Is it just me? (Score:2)
There's something just plain disturbing about this...
Look at it this way (Score:2)
Take for example browsers. In the open source world, we have Mozilla, KHTML and other rendering engines, plus all the different browsers that are based on those engines. Some are created for special circumstances (mobile platforms, consoles), but many are just
Mozilla strikes back (Score:2)
(disclaimer, this is supposed to be a joke, if moz corp is doing this it's not my fault, and I'll might actually call back the nice nigerian gentlemen that requested my banking infos).
----
Some times late at night my computer speak with itself, or maybe with an elbonian computer
Spine (Score:2)
They do what's right, according to their policies and to the law -- even when its difficult and non-consensual.
They should be applauded for this.
If some policy has to be changed, its the Firefox name policy.
Polarising the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
The sheer lack of foresight amazes me. For years afterward we'll be hearing damaging myths that "FireFox doesn't install on Linux". Newbies coming into IRC to ask how to install FireFox will be pointed to what's later knows as the longest running $TOPIC in history. 'IceWeasel' just adds needless noise for all those millions considering switching to a Linux OS. FireFox is arguably the most important FOSS application for the desktop, if only because of it's notoriety. The name itself is larger than the software it represents. fscking with this reveals new depths of disregard for the adoption of Desktop Linux more generally.
Re:Polarising the argument (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is interesting how the dialogue has changed (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a few years ago we were talking about making sure Open Source software provided users alternatives to proprietary software. Forking has always been an issue, but the gestalt view seemed to be that ultimately even in a forking situation, the better software would "win" in the sense that it would continue to be developed. The focus was not on defeating proprietary software in the marketplace, but in making truly great software.
Now it's 2006. Linux is a huge force in the IT world. Firefox has stolen marketshare from IE. These nibbles of success have changed the dialogue, and now marketing is as important if not more important than diversity. Choice is good and all, but getting computer users to make "the correct choice" is perhaps now the ultimate goal. Consumers may become confused by so many browser choices! Ah yes, let's not confuse them. Let's market and package Firefox so the choice will be clear.
I understand the rationale for not forking Firefox. But that's a tactical issue in a small skirmish. The real war is about choice. I'm for it.
Re:Computer Hippies are the Worst (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact - most distros make changes to Firefox. They include unofficial patches and make changes.
Fact - Linspire claims to make "hundreds" of changes to Firefox.
Fact - Firefox says on their own website that if you change it, then just make it known that it isn't an unofficial build, and don't use the official branding artwork.
Fact - When people don't share patches and fixes upstream, it hurts the overall quality of the project.
How is any of thi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)