Comments on: Raising the Bar on Linux http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/ fun and games with the politics of open source Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:53:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Wilson http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-104890 John Wilson Thu, 24 May 2007 01:25:32 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-104890 It's regrettable that GNOME is a requirement though with input from Ubuntu and Red Hat I'm not all that surprised. The very worst part of my daily experience with Firefox is having to deal with GNOME dialogs which are more than somewhat brain dead compared with their KDE counterparts. I don't have any other problem with what's being proposed except for the GNOME centricity which, I'm afraid, almost makes me long to be back using Windows again. It’s regrettable that GNOME is a requirement though with input from Ubuntu and Red Hat I’m not all that surprised. The very worst part of my daily experience with Firefox is having to deal with GNOME dialogs which are more than somewhat brain dead compared with their KDE counterparts.

I don’t have any other problem with what’s being proposed except for the GNOME centricity which, I’m afraid, almost makes me long to be back using Windows again.

]]> By: Johny Mnemonic http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-103428 Johny Mnemonic Fri, 18 May 2007 07:06:05 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-103428 I think that this is no problem,user of old distro can update old librares to new version,I am sure that new version of window managers will be released I think that this is no problem,user of old distro
can update old librares to new version,I am sure that new version of window managers will be released

]]> By: martin http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-103228 martin Thu, 17 May 2007 14:36:34 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-103228 Most of that looks good except the GNOME requirement. What is with that? Most of that looks good except the GNOME requirement. What is with that?

]]> By: rmathew http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-103116 rmathew Thu, 17 May 2007 06:52:30 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-103116 Please do not impose GNOME as a requirement. I am a happy KDE/Xfce user and I do not want to get into the GNOME hell simply to be able to run Firefox 3. Please do not impose GNOME as a requirement.
I am a happy KDE/Xfce user and I do not want to
get into the GNOME hell simply to be able to run
Firefox 3.

]]> By: moo http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-103007 moo Wed, 16 May 2007 21:17:52 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-103007 Are you planning to make Gnome a hard dependency or an optional one? I'd rather not be able to use some "helper apps" than being forced to install Gnome just to be able to run Firefox. Are you planning to make Gnome a hard dependency or an optional one? I’d rather not be able to use some “helper apps” than being forced to install Gnome just to be able to run Firefox.

]]> By: Sum Yung Gai http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-103002 Sum Yung Gai Wed, 16 May 2007 20:50:22 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-103002 A few things: 1.) If Firefox, going forward, is going to support only newer libraries, then you're going to leave "Enterprise" or "LTS" versions of GNU/Linux out in the cold (e. g. Ubuntu Dapper Drake, RHEL, and CentOS). That's not a good plan; I know a lot of schools that use K12LTSP in its CentOS variant. However, you could mitigate this by continuing to support the Firefox 2 train (say, Firefox 2.1, 2.2, and so on). This is not unprecedented; Linus's kernel team, for example, supports not just Linux 2.4, but also several versions of Linux 2.6. Why do they still support Linux 2.4? Because people still use and need it. The same goes for Firefox 2. 2.) Having Firefox depend on GNOME is really not a good idea. Nearly all of my GNU/Linux users run KDE, not GNOME. I don't see why the Mozilla Corporation should be trying to force-feed GNOME on people who don't want it. Also, you have a significant subset who use desktop environments such as IceWM (without the GNOME dependency) and XFce. I do this a lot in Linux Terminal Server (LTSP) situations to conserve on DRAM per user. 3.) Concerning F/OSS platforms, there seems to be this major focus on Linux, Linux, Linux to the point of exclusivity. The BSD's are quite important as well; FreeBSD and OpenBSD in particular are seeing increased usage. A few things:

1.) If Firefox, going forward, is going to support only newer libraries, then you’re going to leave “Enterprise” or “LTS” versions of GNU/Linux out in the cold (e. g. Ubuntu Dapper Drake, RHEL, and CentOS). That’s not a good plan; I know a lot of schools that use K12LTSP in its CentOS variant. However, you could mitigate this by continuing to support the Firefox 2 train (say, Firefox 2.1, 2.2, and so on). This is not unprecedented; Linus’s kernel team, for example, supports not just Linux 2.4, but also several versions of Linux 2.6. Why do they still support Linux 2.4? Because people still use and need it. The same goes for Firefox 2.

2.) Having Firefox depend on GNOME is really not a good idea. Nearly all of my GNU/Linux users run KDE, not GNOME. I don’t see why the Mozilla Corporation should be trying to force-feed GNOME on people who don’t want it. Also, you have a significant subset who use desktop environments such as IceWM (without the GNOME dependency) and XFce. I do this a lot in Linux Terminal Server (LTSP) situations to conserve on DRAM per user.

3.) Concerning F/OSS platforms, there seems to be this major focus on Linux, Linux, Linux to the point of exclusivity. The BSD’s are quite important as well; FreeBSD and OpenBSD in particular are seeing increased usage.

]]> By: Steve Richards http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-102984 Steve Richards Wed, 16 May 2007 19:45:32 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-102984 One of the issues I find with Firefox is the way it looks visually. It looks un-polished and very grainy on my screen as compared to IE 7 when using the same screen settings (1024 x 768 x 75Hz). Yes, I am sure the guts of the program is more advance than IE 7 however, most people do not see that. It is what's on that screen they see. You may have a good product but it is simply not as polished as IE 7. One of the issues I find with Firefox is the way it looks visually. It looks un-polished and very grainy on my screen as compared to IE 7 when using the same screen settings (1024 x 768 x 75Hz). Yes, I am sure the guts of the program is more advance than IE 7 however, most people do not see that. It is what’s on that screen they see. You may have a good product but it is simply not as polished as IE 7.

]]> By: Anonymous http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-102907 Anonymous Wed, 16 May 2007 12:37:19 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-102907 Most of this looks like a good idea, but I'm not so sure about binding firefox to GNOME, dbus and hal. Many people who will want to run FF 3 aren't running GNOME, and shouldn't be forced to. As for dbus and hal, I don't see any reason why FF should depend on these libraries, which aren't even available on several other platforms FF runs on (various BSD versions, for example). Most of this looks like a good idea, but I’m not so sure about binding firefox to GNOME, dbus and hal. Many people who will want to run FF 3 aren’t running GNOME, and shouldn’t be forced to. As for dbus and hal, I don’t see any reason why FF should depend on these libraries, which aren’t even available on several other platforms FF runs on (various BSD versions, for example).

]]> By: Anonymous http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-102887 Anonymous Wed, 16 May 2007 10:19:20 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-102887 GNOME 2.16.x I think is a bad idea... Let other gecko spinoff browsers do this integration. I'm still sad that galeon went gnome for 1 fucking spinner icon. And later got discontinued. GNOME 2.16.x

I think is a bad idea…

Let other gecko spinoff browsers do this integration. I’m still sad that galeon went gnome for 1 fucking spinner icon. And later got discontinued.

]]> By: Alex Owen http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2007/05/10/raising-the-bar-on-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-102869 Alex Owen Wed, 16 May 2007 08:30:58 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101#comment-102869 I'm with Chris Edelmann. The obvious thing is to pick an LSB version as the minimum requirement... providing that LSB stadardises all that is needed for mizilla on Linux. I’m with Chris Edelmann.
The obvious thing is to pick an LSB version as the minimum requirement… providing that LSB stadardises all that is needed for mizilla on Linux.

]]>