Re: Re (4): Dying Iceweasel.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:17:02 -0800, peasthope wrote:
(...)
>> People who is interested in the Enterprise based version will know
>
> What about the other 90 or 99% who just want a working browser?
That they stick to the default browser (e.g., Epiphany)?
>> I was referring to the latest version of the stable branch, of course
>> (release).
>
> Sorry, I read "latest" in the mathematical sense.
Well, maths are not usually confronted with common sense: if you see
several versions available and you don't know what they are, you can ask
before blindly installing one of them :-)
>> Also, compare this output with the one provided by apt-get.
>
> root@dalton:/etc/apt# apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> root@dalton:/etc/apt#
Uh? Nothing? What a surprise :-?
> So until the next system upgrade, use apt-get rather than aptitude.
Well, I would be also interested in deciphering aptitude logic but to be
sincere, I'm not an aptitude user, I always go with apt-get, I find it to
be more clear and comprensible...
> http://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel#How_to_install_Iceweasel_.28Firefox.29
> instructed to install the Debian release. I've modified the text to
> suggest the backport. The page might bear further improvements, if
> anyone is interested.
Nice.
But I still prefer to get the packages directly from Mozilla site,
they're always up-to-date and easy to install (but don't put this in the
wiki or you'll be prosecuted -just joking :-P-).
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: