Mike Hommey wrote: > Another pragmatic approach would be to upload a Firefox package in > non-free. This is not very pragmatic, since that cannot be installed as part of the default Debian desktop. > Also, for Joey, who talked about chromium being a solution, is that [1] > really the kind of solution we want ? > 1. http://codereview.chromium.org/19025 It may help to explain why the chromium-browser package I have installed here is nearly ten times as large as the iceweasel package. ;) It still starts and runs much faster tho. > 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 > more than Debian users with Iceweasel. So, why isn't Mozilla adding > Firefox in the UA of these builds ? Maybe they are willing to give up some usability for people who have already chosen to give up a lot more by using a development build. A group of people who are more likely to be able to use a UA switcher if necessary than their regular userbase? Possibily with quite good intentions, such as bringing at least some pressure to bear on sites that depend on UA hardcoding? Hard to say; the only thing that seems certian is that their situation, and the expectations of their userbase are both significantly different than ours; and so that can't be used to justify us making a similar choice. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature