Re: basilisk-browser
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:13:20PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
> On 10/18/2018 04:49 AM, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02:42AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.
> > > >
> > > > More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
> > > Indeed, it does look good.
> > No, it does not. UXP means Palemoon Browser.
> > Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].
> >
> > Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?
> >
> > Reco
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
> >
> >
> I would like to know what you mean by "extremely hostile upstream"--
> I have been using PaleMoon Browser for several years and I like it.
Please note that I haven't qualified the browser itself.
Using Palemoon is OK for the upstream. More users = more recognition.
If it works for you - more power to you.
> Unlike Firefox, it doesn't change its stripes every few weeks. I am
> happy with an app that retains its interface for years and years and
> doesn't mess with my head. YMMV.
But, in this particular thread Palemoon or Basilisk qualities are not
relevant, as this discussion is about the possible inclusion of these
fine browsers into Debian main archive.
And for such inclusion certain criteria must be met, and one of those
is the ability to build the browser from the source the way that
maintainer sees fit. Upstream opposes that, see the link above.
Reco
Reply to: