Re: [Linux-aus] FireFox vs IceWeasel

[Paul Wayper <paul.wayper@anu.edu.au>]

Neill Cox wrote:
> I understood that much of the motivation for IceWeasel was that Debian
> (and Ubuntu and Fedora and everybody else) cannot ship security updates to
> Firefox without the Mozilla Foundation's approval.  In fact no-one can
> ship anything but the unmodified "official" binaries and call it Firefox.
>   
Ah, so security patches are involved now too.  Righto.

So, can I just check one thing here.  These security updates - were they
patches filed in the Mozilla Foundation's code control system (CVS or
whatever) against bugs in their bugzilla database?  Or were these
external patches applied 'in parallel' - i.e. the Mozilla Foundation was
just too slow at applying security updates so the Debian and Ubuntu
developers decided to take matters into their own hands?

> Personally I put Ubuntu's ability to release security patches ahead of
> concerns over branding.  You're free to choose differently, that's the joy
> of free software.
>   
That's a very extreme way of putting the issue - it's like saying that
because you found that a particular component in your car wasn't good
enough, you repaired it yourself, but still want the manufacturer's
warranty.  In my minority experience, the Mozilla Foundation has been
quick to release updates especially for security issues.  How much
quicker were the same Ubuntu or Debian updates?  Has it been worth
causing a fork in the entire codebase and losing the support of a major
contributor to the free software movement?  Because it seems like a
rather high price to pay to me.

What's worrying me, as an observer, is the proliferation of reasons why
the Mozilla Foundation are suddenly the Big Bad Boogey-men who go around
beating up innocent developers.  When each person offers a different
'real reason' why things are going to the dogs, I start to wonder what
the real issue is.

Aaaaanyway, that's enough from me.

Have fun,

Paul