Open Source Madness! (Firefox "forked")

DesktopLinux.com ^ | Oct. 09, 2006 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[Golden Eagle]

Excerpt:

At the moment, I'm ticked off because the Debian community's recent hissy-fit over the Mozilla Corp.'s trademarked Firefox logo has led them, and others, to forking the Firefox code to avoid the use of the logo.

Gnutella, part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, is creating "the 'GNU/Linux' version of same, to be dubbed 'IceWeasel.'" This may, or may not, become the logo-free version of Firefox that Debian will ship in its next distribution.

Regardless of how this turns out, the Firefox "bug" has been removed from Debian.

What are these people thinking!

It will mean more work for programmers. It will mean more work for Firefox, or should I say IceWeasel, extension developers. It will be what all forks are: a major pain for both users and developers.

[Golden Eagle]

I think this one is stupid though. Typical leftists, shooting themselves in the foot.

Yep, but Stallman is showing his growing aggressiveness, and his new GPL license is probably going to cause even more calamity. It's been convenient for everyone to act like he didn't exist, but he is obviously going to make his presence felt more and more every day.

[N3WBI3]

1) 522 diferent distors, not versions. There is a difference! many distros are very compatable with each other For example RedHat, Fedora, and Mandriva all use RPM as their updater.

2) Nearly 50% of Linux users use either Mandriva, Suse, or Fedora. The top ten versions by use account for more than 80% of Linux users and the top twenty distros by use account for more than 92% of users. so while there might be 522 distros many are just peoples toys distros.

http://linux.about.com/library/bl/bluser_survey01_sum.htm

[antiRepublicrat]

it's clearly about leftists who refuse to use something simply because it has a trademark

Actually, no. It's because of Mozilla's terms of licensing that trademark; for example, demanding the right to code review for anything published under that trademark. Mozilla's demands are sensible, but they apparently don't work with the rules that the Debian uses.

but since it is open source they can make a free copy and put their name on it instead

And they can't do that with your beloved BSD license?

[Protagoras]

I asked a simple question on a different thread;

"Leaving aside the technical aspects of all this, is it legitimate to build software that cannot be run if it is pirated? "

I was called every name in the book. By "conservatives".

[Golden Eagle]

If Iceweasel steals Firefox's marketshare it obviously won't be a benefit to them whether Firefox can use that code or not. You seem to base one's succes on whether you can use the product that replaced them for free or not, in other words according to you SCO should be thrilled that they can use Linux even though it has completely destroyed their Unix business. Yep you probably do think that, business profits mean nothing, free software is all that mattersm just like Stallman believes..

[ShadowAce]

[zeugma]

With Linux, if you have multiple users on a box, they could all run their own copy of firefox very easily. Just untar the app to your home directory, then change the value of "moz_libdir" to "moz_libdir=~/firefox/firefox" in /usr/bin/firefox. This way, each user can run whatever version they want, and they can update it any time they want without having to have access to system files (i.e., root).

[zeugma]

They are not even necessarily "toy distros". Some are useful for very specific tasks, such as DSL, or some of the network security distros. Let's see someone install a working copy of MS-Windows on a thumb drive.

[Golden Eagle]

So you're saying 522 versions of Linux is a good thing, therefore 522 versions of Firefox wouldn't be a problem either? I disagree, as usual.

[N3WBI3]

Im saying if I created a new distro today it would not impact the linux landscape because I put an iso up on my website. Many of these distributions are barely used, the big dogs like Redhat/Fedora and Suse set the standards that any Linux distro will have to meet in order to be successful. Im saying your 522 number for linux distros is pretty useless considering no more than twenty of them capture 92% of Linux users.

As for this specific issue I really would prefer they don't fork, especially for something like trademark but a few fools wont sway me from using the best software for the job..

[Golden Eagle]

Again, I don't "love" any open source license, I've simply recommended the ones for you to use that weren't so clearly tied to Stallman. But you've always preferred Stallman's version of "free", even though it really isn't and has that nasty little catch in there where you have to give your own work away for free if you ever try to sell it for a profit.

[antiRepublicrat]

If Iceweasel steals Firefox's marketshare it obviously won't be a benefit to them whether Firefox can use that code or not.

Firefox gets free coding work, becomes the better browser. Plus, Iceweasel (BTW, who thought of that stupid name? He must have hated Firefox) will only be for Linux, and mainly for that distro, and will therefore always have a very small marketshare. The Mozilla Foundation can't lose either way.

You seem to base one's succes on whether you can use the product that replaced them for free or not

In case you haven't been reading, I base it on whether it is a better product.

according to you SCO should be thrilled that they can use Linux even though it has completely destroyed their Unix business

You forget that SCO was a Linux company, and they bought the UNIX business so they could get access to the UNIX distribution channels in order to themselves push Linux through to the high-value enterprise customers.

Yep you probably do think that, business profits mean nothing

SCO (actually, Caldera), planned to do exactly what IBM is doing now with Linux, only they got new management that decided the Lawsuit Lottery would give them better "business" profits than actually conducting business.

[antiRepublicrat]

But you've always preferred Stallman's version of "free",

Another one for your list of lies. I've stated to you before that I prefer the MPL.

has that nasty little catch in there where you have to give your own work away for free if you ever try to sell it for a profit.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Please explain.

[Golden Eagle]

Let's see someone install a working copy of MS-Windows on a thumb drive.

I just searched Yahoo for "booting windows thumb drive" and several methods came up, the first 2 hits from Tom's hardware and Information Week magazine which should be reliable sources.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Yeah, sure...those techniques are written by some hacker, require extra software, and don't have the support of the vendor (i.e., Microsoft).

Why would I want to waste my time on such nonsense when I can get a Linux distro made specifically to run from a USB drive?

[beezdotcom]

Why would I want to waste my time on such nonsense

If you wouldn't find it useful, then you wouldn't want to. I apologize for finding it useful.

[zeugma]

Why would I want to waste my time on such nonsense when I can get a Linux distro made specifically to run from a USB drive?

No doubt. Could you imagine how slowly a thumb-drive version of windows would run?

I'm sure the Brass Buzzard would be happy to tell us where we could download a copy of thumb-drive configured windows. LOL

[antiRepublicrat]

I just searched Yahoo for "booting windows thumb drive" and several methods came up

Now you're advocating the violation of Microsoft's Windows license? There is only one live CD/flash version of Windows that's legal according to Microsoft, and that's Microsoft's own WinPE, available only for enterprise use.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Probably so slow that one think might it wasn't XP, but some operating system called "Loading...Please Wait".

[N3WBI3]

The better question is why is GE recommending to freepers that they use some hacking software! its a hacker site! a hacker site! dont go there or you will get pwned!