Firefox crippling

Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
Mon Jun 6 17:51:31 UTC 2005


caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) writes:

>> 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.

I do not care whether Windoze or Emacs keybindings are the default
ones (as long as they can be configured). As expressed several times,
I am just pissed off by the Gnome2 practice to *override* existing
installations with their ideas of usability.


>> 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.

Having an update functionality helps to reduce this risk. But this
functionality was removed to avoid complains of novice users which try
to update the firefox application and get error messages.


>> 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?

Mmh... let's compare both patches:

current patch:
* removes functionality to update both firefox and extensions
* 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Matthew Miller's patch (bz #136080)
* removed only the functionality to update firefox
* 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


So, the alternative patch is less intrusive and simpler, has the wanted
purpose and does not have unwanted side-effects.


> I've already vocalized that upstream doesn't want those patches in our
> tree.

And upstream accepts the current patches?


>> 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.

Let me guess who gave these positive comments... Gnome2 developers... right?


> And yes there have been a few complaints.

Why was there no response on these complaints? E.g. these about invisible
icons (#138986) or the uglyness of the icons itself (#138984, #138988).


> Much like some people prefer Firefox, some prefer Epiphany. Some
> prefer GNOME, some prefer KDE.  Some prefer to troll, some don't.

Trolling is sometimes the only way when the bugreports are ignored...




Enrico
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20050606/aab571ea/attachment-0002.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list