sense of packaging firefox' addons?
Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Feb 28 15:59:26 UTC 2008
Le jeudi 28 février 2008 à 04:14 -0600, Arthur Pemberton a écrit :
> 2008/2/28 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>:
> > Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 13:22 -0800, Andrew Farris a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > The builtin firefox addon update system works far faster for most desktop users
> > > than getting a new rpm packaged, built, and shipped...
> >
> > I works far faster for update freaks that love hunting the internet for
> > software bits and always update to the latest version.
>
> You know Firefox checks for updates automatically, right?
Ever tried to use this behind a corporate firewall? The firefox system
is a joke, can't even use its own proxy settings, it only sort-of works
for home users.
> > It's pretty
> > useless for the large class of users who want their apps to just work
>
> Requiring admin to install some addons via RPMs is your idea of just work?
That's how it works both in corporate context and in computer-illiterate
nephew-support contexts.
> > and are not willing to invest large parts of their time in extension
> > hunting.
>
> As opposed to searching through the repos with yum for the extension
> you want? How much easier is that than going to addons.mozilla.org?
Our package descriptions are localized. addons.mozilla.org is
English-only. Even ignoring the various ways the Firefox extension
system is broken, this alone makes it unsuitable for a large class of
users.
> > And some extensions have been known to have security holes, so
> > relying on users to update extensions when all do not is going to bite
> > us sooner or later.
>
> So the users won't hit install when Firefox offers them the updates,
> but they will run yum update to get updates?
Many users have learnt that "just-say-no" is the right answer to any
browser popups
> > The Firefox addon update system is far from awesome when you're the one
> > who has to install and update Firefox extensions manually on a pool of
> > systems because users don't bother (additionally that's one reason
>
> And how many people are there like that?
Only needs one to justify a Fedora package.
> You know you can just create
> your own RPM for your pool of users, and get what you want done.
>
> > Firefox fares so bad in the enterprise — geek-oriented installation
> > system without any provision for centralised management).
>
> What kind of enterprise is willing to run Firefox on Linux but not
> willing to roll out their own supplemental apt/yum repository?
The kind of enterprise that decides it has better ways of spending money
than filling out the missing pieces in Fedora.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080228/26f81137/attachment-0002.bin
More information about the devel
mailing list