Re: basilisk-browser
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:16:54AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:49:44AM +0300, 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].
>
> Thanks for the link, very instructive.
>
Yeah, that was ... something.
> That would mean (in the context of Debian) that one would have to
> (a) use the Basilisk-bundled libs (generally a no-no in Debian)
> or (b) use a different name & brand. Yes, we know this story with
> Firefox/Iceweasel. That'd mean that the packaging effort would
> be a bit... more interesting.
>
The main distinction, however, was that in the Debian case, Mozilla
objected to the backporting of security-sepcific fixes and then
continuing to call the patched version "Firefox." As I recall, all that
was before they started offering ESR builds, so every version of Firefox
was a quickly moving target with at most a few months of support.
Once the Firefox project started offering builds that made sense within
Debian's stable release process, the Iceweasel branding could be dropped
and builds could be included in Debian which both satisfied the needs of
patching security vulnerabilities and the upstream branding
requirements.
A project that says "you can't even change the build flags" strikes me
as not especially inclined to display the flexibility that Mozilla
eventually did. In fact, since they are so concerned about "disastrous"
library combinations and insist on their bundled/patched versions being
used, I find it surprising that they do not specifically dictate which
compilers are authorized to create branded builds.
> I think both sides have their point, and the sad part for me is
> that they didn't manage to tackle the conflict in a more civil
> manner. Perhaps a lesson in humility for us all.
>
Sadly, this sort of conflict seems to be increasing in frequency, rather
than decreasing. I can think of two other large projects just in the
last two or so years that have been exceptionally hostile to downstream
packagers/maintainers. So much so that the packagers/maintainers just
gave up.
What seems to be the impediment to civility and humility is that people
tend to become very emotionally invested in their work. That
exaggerates very minor things to the point where there is a
disproportionate reaction from one side, which thusly triggers a
disproportionate reaction from the other side. This then results in raw
emotions, public humiliation, etc. Once the situation escalates like
that, it is difficult to diffuse and return a reasonable and collegial
discussion where the (usually very minor) root issue can be identified
and dealt with.
> > Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?
>
> What the world needs (badly) is more browser alternatives. I'm
> seeing everything converging towards the dystopia where one huge
> corporation controls the server and the client. We had that, and
> it wasn't pretty; nowadays with smartphones, always-on, IoT and
> perhaps worse, we are far more vulnerable to that (business?) model.
>
I agree. I have already begun encountering sites which behave badly in
Firefox, requiring me to switch to Chromium (and in case Chrome itself,
uggh). I definitely do not want to return to the bad old days where
most websites had something like "Best viewed in Internet Explorer 5.5+"
on every page :-(
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: