Quoting Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org):
> This browser is based on the Firefox source-code, with minor
> modifications
>
> Yes, the UA string is a pretty minor modification.
As this thread shows, not for end users. Whatever importance this
might have, if our goal is to benefit our users, and that would
include those who are not geeky enough to mess uup with these things,
the change in the UA string is not a minor modification.
So is the name change, of course, but in that matter we have blockers
that we haven't been able to raise as of now (I still think this could
be possible in some way but that's certainly another story).
The question is: is there something that enforces us on changing the
UA string?
> Oh, and when I mentioned Minefield, which replaces Firefox in the UA
> string on Firefox trunk builds, I also falsely stated that was the name
> of alphas and betas. Reality is that the name changes at every single
> Firefox release. 2.0 betas were BonEcho, 3.0 betas were GranParadiso,
> 3.5 betas were Shiretoko, and 3.6 beta is Namoraka. None of these are
> called Firefox, and a whole lot of people are using them. Probably much
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not in the real world. I mean: in the world where people are building
up production systems for thousands of desktops....not in the very
small world of geeks who are using beta systems...:-)
I still use Firefox 3.0 on my company's master and we're *just*
beginning to consider moving to 3.5. This is what this thread is about
(see John Goerzen's initial arguments about the reasons that make ppl
not considering using "Iceweasel"....whether we consider them good or
not -because that fits *our* definition of Good- is not really
relevant).
> more than Debian users with Iceweasel. So, why isn't Mozilla adding
> Firefox in the UA of these builds ?
Because they know what the difference between a beta and a released
version is? :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature