Bug 213177
| Summary: | Include Firefox 2.0 in Fc6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dustin Ratliffe <dustinratliffe> |
| Component: | firefox | Assignee: | Christopher Aillon <caillon> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 6 | CC: | christoph, d.bz-redhat, fedora, redhat, robatino, stevech, wtogami |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-10-31 03:03:01 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Dustin Ratliffe
2006-10-31 02:19:38 UTC
There is a false pretense that many users want Firefox 2. Most people don't know what versions are what. Upstream implemented the auto update feature because *most people don't care* what version they use, as long as it works. They'll update if something tells them to. Not because they know or want to. Just because a few people who understand packaging have made packages does not mean that everyone wants it. In fact, http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/ outlines reasons to not upgrade. (although 2,4,6, and 7 are the ones in the list I actually care about). And I outlined other reasons in the mail you quoted earlier. Simply put, having Firefox 1.5 instead of 2.0 is *not a bug*. Please stop pretending it is, and please stop pretending that the entire user base wants it. People want something that work, and right now, that is Firefox 1.5. In defense of the first poster, I think you're mostly talking about Windows users. Most people savvy enough to run Fedora know something about the difference between 1.5 and 2 - after all, Fedora is supposed to have cutting-edge software. I can understand not wanting to push 2.0 immediately, but it would be nice to at least learn whether there are plans to release any version higher than 1.5 in the roughly 10-month lifespan of FC6. Also, this bug would almost certainly have been posted as "enhancement" if that option had not recently been dropped. This is a qualitatively different type of "bug" and it doesn't make sense to try to shoehorn all bugs into a 1-dimensional scale. My reaction to this being called a "bug" was due to the fact that the poster wants this documented on the "known FC6 bugs" wiki page. The lack of a version number does not warrant a release note. As far as Fedora Users, you are right. Everyone wants to be bleeding edge, but nobody really wants to be bleeding edge (using rawhide). People use FCn because they want it to stabilize at some point with a system that works. But people seem to also think they are entitled to have every application updated when there's a new version out. I don't get it, really. People do want something. Is it a certain feature(s) that can be backported perhaps? Or is it really just the version number? (What's the difference between 1.5 and 2? 0.5, haha). Seriously, though I suppose it's just the firefox version number: there have been bugs filed where things broke because people *only* ever do things like "yum update firefox", and not core system libraries like nss. This is both humbling and frightening because I'm working both sides of the fence. I care about Firefox. I've submitted many patches and fixed many bugs upstream. I've worked with many of the developers whilst at Netscape and remain good friends with many of the developers. But I care more about Fedora and Red Hat and Linux in general. If there's a compelling reason to switch to Firefox 2, I'd do so, but it's really not compelling to do so. In fact, it's compelling to avoid it at the moment. Users *are* better off with 1.5 right now, but that will probably change. At that point, Firefox 3.0 will be out soon and *that* has *enormous* benefits. Firefox 3.0 will have full blown cairo support which will fix many rendering and printing bugs. It will also be compatible with XULrunner which will allow for one gecko on the system. That means less updating for security fixes -- only get one package instead of 3 and up depending on installed packages. Additionally, it is a real development platform. No need for silly hacks to Firefox to turn it into one, when it's not. This in turn means that extensions can be RPM packaged for both Thunderbird and Firefox. There are other benefits but those alone make it extremely valuable for Fedora. I have promised publicly I will push 3.0 to FC6 when its available with proper baking. So I guess that's the current plan. Things might be that I take 2.0 if cards fall into play for it, but I'd say 3.0 is the better bet (and I'm already committed to it). Perhaps the compromise is to push to updates-testing... and just leave it in testing. That doesn't sound too fun because it's yet another package I need to touch for FC6 when I don't think it belongs in FC6 at all, plus it forces users to take other packages in updates-testing they might not want.... Wouldn't that also force all Gecko-using packages in updates-testing to get built against 2.0, and thus impossible to push without pushing Firefox 2.0 first? In that case, pushing it to updates-testing with no plans to move it to updates is certainly a bad idea. I could finagle the buildroots, but it would get tedious. Especially since people would inevitably file bugs against it. Inline spellcheck, enhanced add-on support, and the fact that all new extensions might only work for 2.0 is not a compelling enough reason to put 2.0 in FC6? Just because a few Red Hat developers don't want to? Seems like Fedora is not as "community oriented" as we are lead to believe. Leave Fedora to the users - not RedHat. I am quite happy with 2.0 on Windows, as the above poster mentions there are some useful features that I don't want to give up when moving between 2.0 on Windows and 1.5 on FC6. I also detect a slight performance improvement on Windows, although it's hard to quantify -- it just seems a bit snappier. All of my favorite plugins have been updated by now as well. As for the aforementioned page about "9 Reasons Not to Upgrade to Firefox 2.0," I have only experienced a problem with very infrequent freezes. As in 2 or 3 times during the past couple of weeks of HEAVY use. Annoying yes, but 1.5 also would crash on me ocassionally, and then I had to find a task and kill it. 2.0 seems to clean itself up after a freeze so that all I have to do is re-launch it. Of course, again, this is my Windows experience with 2.0, not Linux. But I'm much more interested in upgrading to 2.0 on FC6 than waiting for 3.0. I'll be employing one of the above workarounds here in a few minutes. I'd also appreciate firefox2 in FC6. Various extensions already demand it! I'd tend to agree that this is needed as an update to fc6, depreciating 1.5.x for the simple reason that many firefox extensions tend to only support the version that's current when they release. I realize that there are problems with it, but there's also signifigant user demand, which will only grow as extension support for 1.5.X falls away. Please reconsider. I noticed that the security issues leading to the release of 1.5.0.8 didn't affect 2.0. If there's reason to believe that 1.5.x is likely to require more updates than 2.0, that's another consideration. From http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html: "Firefox 1.5.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until April 24, 2007". Since the last three versions have Fedora haven't followed the 6 month release cycle, what impact will this have on Firefox 1.5.0.x in Fedora? Firefox 2 have a mighty feature that some people find very, very interesting : the fact that when the browser crash, it restores my session with all the tabs that were opened before the crash. That thing alone made FF2 worthy for me. And yes, Firefox (be it 1.5 or 2) crash does happen, for me. So, when it happens, it's better if it restores my tabs. I don't understand all this hostility against Firefox 2 and all those arguments like "it breaks my extensions". You know what ? Fedora Core breaks things more important than extensions. It broke my wifi driver (that is not in the kernel from kernel.org), and i won't complain. Because it's a bleeding edge distribution, that pushes new technologies forward. Each version of Fedora Core breaks more applications and kernel drivers than Firefox 2 will break user extensions. Many important extensions like adblock works in Firefox 2. Fedora Core always have the latest glibc, gcc, kernel and all the core tools. So if you have an application that's not included in Core or maintened in Extras, there's a fair percentage of luck that it WILL break. Why are Firefox extensions considered more important than user applications or device drivers ? Nicolas, about your point with crash recovery: Try out the extension "Tab mix plus" (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1122/). That one is great, and also features crash-recovery with FF 1.5 already. You have to realize that there are more things than extensions that rely on Firefox. For example, epiphany, devhelp, the GNOME help browser (yelp), eclipse, etc. Some random other companies have applications they build against the browser, too, for embedding gecko. If it were just extensions, that's fine, people can update. But it's not. Firefox is not just a browser in FC6. It is an entire platform stack. It needs to perform the desktop app function and the middleware function. And that is just hard to balance properly. I don't see why people react to this bug so violently. Yes, most users don't care what version they are using as long as everything works. Some people actually do care, and the longer firefox 2 is around the more cases are going to come up where something just doesn't work on 1.5.x (some extensions already don't work on anything below 2.x). I also understand the point of not making major changes inside the release. As I understood the original poster, all he wanted to do is to add a clear directions on how to get firefox 2.x for someone who wants/needs it. What exactly is wrong with that? > For example, epiphany, devhelp, the GNOME help browser (yelp), eclipse, etc.
Rémi Collet rebuilt all these against 2.0 and they work, so I don't see what's
the problem there. Having to push an update for these? That has to be done for
a minor bump (like 1.5.0.8 or 1.5.0.9) too.
I would like like to have to wait for FF3 to get the features in FF2 (Windows) that I really like. Such as the close icon (red X) on each tab. I would NOT like to have to wait for FF3 to get the features in FF2 (Windows) that I really like. Such as the close icon (red X) on each tab Then get Firefox 2 from Rémi Collet's repo, that's what it is for. ;-) It is March on the street and soon we will see end of 1.5 branch support. Perhaps we should think again on update ? Christopher, please say out. Mozilla.org announced end of life for Firefox 1.5 to be April 27, 2007. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html What about all those FC6 Installations then? Will Firefox 2.x be available via normal OS Updates? Firefox in fact was the application that caused me to dump Ubuntu after one week, about two years ago. It was Firefox 1.5.0.7 with Javascript security issues fixed I think, and the only way to get a new packages was to look for backports, but NOT in Ubuntu updates. They took three weeks to publish a new version. And Ubuntu wanted to be the Linux for the masses. Huhuuu. Should people think about Fedora the same way? Please Christopher, think about it. Thanks in advance. Is someone with a brain announcing end of life for Firefox 1.5 and no support for 2.0? If you are using the RPM packages, then the EOL does not affect you. Your support comes from Fedora, which will not EOL anything in the FC6 line for a long time. And then, support will be transfered to Legacy. This is the way it works for all of the packages in the distro. Updates are still going to come from Fedora and Red Hat with help from Mozilla Corporation. Additionally, IBM, Novell, Debian, and others have interests in and have agreed to continue maintaining 1.5 still and will contribute resources to it. Last I heard, FC6 has no support for Firefox 2.x People are being referred to this bug for references on why RHEL will not support Firefox 2.0. The strongest case for that state of affairs may be made in the "Reasons not to upgrade" page. Unfortunately the link to it: http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/ is BROKEN, so people cannot get that information any more. |