Firefox crippling

[Christopher Aillon]

Enrico Scholz wrote:
> alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) writes:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:30:14PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>>
>>>why they could not be patched into Ooffice; RH is crippl^Wpatching other
>>>programs (e.g. firefox) already, so Ooffice could become a little bit
>>
>>Actually firefox support for unixlike keybindings is something from
>>the Firefox community rather than RH as I understand it.
> 
> 
> The broken (windoze-like) keybindings (which appear suddenly and without
> prior confirmation although formerly the Unix like keybindings were
> active) are probably caused by a Gnome2 misbehavior.

This is controlled by GNOME, actually.  If you want the old bindings, 
there is a setting you can add to your rc file which I don't remember 
off the top of my head.


> The firefox crippling is the result of %patch25-29 in the src.rpm: it
> removes the functionality which allows to update extensions with
> potential security leaks, and it replaces the nice looking default
> icons with butt-ugly icons from a Gnome2 theme.

Installing third party software, which includes Firefox extensions is 
always at your own risk.


> There exists a better patch for the first issue (which disables only
> the capability to upgrade the application but still allows to update
> extensions) but it is silently ignored by the firefox maintainer.

Better in whose eyes?  I've already vocalized that upstream doesn't want 
those patches in our tree.  There is a plan to get this done right. 
It's not done just yet.  It missed the FC4 final cutoff but as soon as 
the proper fix gets done, it will be included as an update if possible.

> 
> Regarding the ugly icons, I do not see how this change can be justified.
> The new icons are objectively ugly, the default firefox icons are much nicer
> and there are now some missing icons. 

Thanks for the comments.  Some share your opinion, some don't.  I have 
had many positive comments about them.  And yes there have been a few 
complaints.  Much like some people prefer Firefox, some prefer Epiphany. 
  Some prefer GNOME, some prefer KDE.  Some prefer to troll, some don't.


So it seems that these icon patches
> are only applied to satisfy some brainless Gnome2 ideas about consistent
> lookout of applications (which might have different functionality and can
> never have the same lookout therefore).

Hey, be fair.  They are my brainless ideas, too.


> Based on the discussion regarding the "Firefox" branding, I do not see
> how the FC4 firefox can be stilled named "Firefox" as it is destroys the
> reputation of the project.

By getting the patches we use approved by upstream, as I make sure to 
do.  It's not really rocket science.