Re: iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:06:11 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 17:35:46 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:56:32 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness because
>> > there is a later version out.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>>
>> Many sites out there require fancy things like html5. And you cannot
>> fight against Google nor big sites about it: if you have an older
>> browser, forget about using many of their options.
>
> The version of the utility sort on this machine does not have a -h
> option. sort is designed to sort lines of text files. Without -h it
> still does that job. It has *lost* none of its functionality because it
> does not have -h.
I think that's not comparable with a browser functionality that is needed
for almost 50% of today's most used sites... how many people uses sort
every day and how many people uses Iceweasel every day? :-)
> Iceweasel on Squeeze may not do all of html5 compared with a later
> version but it too has not had its functionality *diminished*. It does
> not need to be current to be useful for the things it was designed to
> do.
If you say so... then why not keep Iceweasel 2.x branch? Let's patch it
"ad infinitum" to make it more secure and all happy, right? I don't think
so :-)
> Now think of clamv. What is it designed to do? Does it need to be
> current to be useful over the two year lifetime of a stable release?
> Does it lose any functionality over time? Would a program which was
> capable of detecting only 72% of malware be deemed ok?
ClamAV does not need to be up-to-date neither, it just need security
fixes. It's firmware files that keep the program useful not the program
itself.
> Your argument would have all of GNOME in squeeze-updates. :)
Nope, GNOME (hopefully!) does not have the same release cycle than
Mozilla.
>> > The later version may have a few more *additional* useful
>> > enhancements but that is not what point 4 is about, And what is in
>> > Iceweasel 7.0 which makes it urgent for *all* users to have it
>> > available in squeeze
>> >-updates?
>>
>> Mozilla quick release policy is very aggresive and -we like it not- it
>> affects their users. AFAIK, version 7 is not their stable branch...
>> yet.
>
> It will soon be in unstable. Is there something in it which *all* users
> should *urgently* consider using?
We are not talking here about the need of Mozilla packages to be updated
(it is obvious that is something users need and for that reason exists
Mozilla repo and backports) but the proper repo for where to put those
packages.
>> > Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
>> > packages. They are splendid resources.
>>
>> Not for many users, mostly newcomers. The less repositories to deal
>> with, the better for system stability and peace of mind.
>
> squeeze-updates has very few packages in it. You would have to make a
> conscious decision to have backports and mozilla.debian.net in your
> sources.list.
And that's the point.
I find "squeeze-updates" very useful and most of the users will already
have it in their "sources.list" file but the more repos you add, the more
chances you have to mess things up and "forcing" the user to take such
decision just to get Mozilla packages updated can be overly.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: