Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kubuntu 12.04 To Drop KDE Support For Firefox

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheCycoONE View Post
    I'm an ArchLinux user myself, and consequently consider the best distribution for me; but in this case how is it ArchLinux ftw. Arch has never produced, or officially packaged firefox-kde. There is an aur package that contains the suse firefox-kde patches, but any distro might have an unofficial package with the Suse patches. If anything, OpenSUSE FTW.
    What you find in the AUR about firefox-kde-opensuse 11.0-1
    https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32598

    But you are right : not official ; that's why I like in Arch, full of possibilities

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Btw. rather than playing with some patches it's better to install this theme:

      http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=117962
      Debian FTW!!

      I use this theme and it is quite elegant and well maintained and there will be an update for FF 11 most likely.

      Comment


      • #18
        How to add kde integration to firefox.

        1 In firefox about:config search and edit ui.allow_platform_file_picker to false. (use an more kde friendly file browser instead of firefox default)
        2 Stop firefox if it is running
        3 Delete or rename the mimetypes cache (where firefox keeps its file association settings): $ rm ~/.mozilla/firefox/<yourprofile>/mimeTypes.rdf
        4 Start firefox again
        5 Download any file if you had not done this before
        6 Open that file from the “Tools > Downloads” menu (by right-clicking on it and selecting “Open“). When asked to choose the application for opening the fike, browse to “/usr/bin/xdg-open“. then check the checkbox to “Remember your choice“.


        Source: http://alien.slackbook.org/blog/make...nloaded-files/
        https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...949/comments/3

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TheCycoONE View Post
          They do, the news you missed is that Cononical is dropping Kubuntu, so it is essentially a pet project (after this release).
          I know that, but there's a difference between not producing a separate spin/distro and not supporting KDE use on Ubuntu.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
            “No longer willing to maintain the patch”??? Canonical, as usual, did nothing. It never was maintained by anyone from Canonical. The patch is a SUSE product and it's being dropped from Kubuntu because the patch was broken for Firefox 10. The patch was updated and is now being shipped to openSUSE users as part of the Firefox 11 update: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746591
            Thanks for this info. I was naive enough to assume they were using their own patch. Does Canonical ever do things for other distros the way other distros help Ubuntu? No one can even get Unity working in other distros, meanwhile OpenSUSE spend a Google Summer Of Code project taking their library that lets programs run with a GTK, QT or ncurses interface and separating it from their YaST system tool so that other distros could use it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
              “No longer willing to maintain the patch”??? Canonical, as usual, did nothing. It never was maintained by anyone from Canonical. The patch is a SUSE product and it's being dropped from Kubuntu because the patch was broken for Firefox 10. The patch was updated and is now being shipped to openSUSE users as part of the Firefox 11 update: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746591
              Canonical did nothing? We actually fixed the patch to work with Firefox 10. I just checked the OpenSUSE repo, and the changes they're shipping to make it work with Firefox 11 are the same changes we applied in Ubuntu to make it work with Firefox 10.

              But, feel free to continue your ill-informed Canonical rant rather than actually checking facts. It's always much better when people do that.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                Unless you know of somebody paying developers to work on it that I'm not aware of.
                Ok, they are unpaid, but the patch is already done by Canonical and OpenSUSE. Distro hopping from fork to fork seems unnecessary.
                I just don't like popular releases that say they're open source, but won't accept input like its a pet project.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by downer View Post
                  Ok, they are unpaid, but the patch is already done by Canonical and OpenSUSE. Distro hopping from fork to fork seems unnecessary.
                  I just don't like popular releases that say they're open source, but won't accept input like its a pet project.
                  I don't think they're unwilling to accept input. If you volunteer for the project and maintain it, I imagine they'd be happy to let you. And again, at this point Kubuntu IS a pet project. Complain to Ubuntu if you don't like that fact.

                  Anyway, Kubuntu developers have always been focused on creating a "pure" KDE distro, without anything non-KDE like Firefox. So I don't think this should be surprising - it's what they've always wanted to do, but weren't allowed while Ubuntu was running things.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by downer View Post
                    Why are Linux developers unafraid of derailing their popular releases by treating them like a pet project?
                    (Seriously)
                    Because of their nerd rage. Weather they're being paid on not they aren't the only one using the software, they can't accept the fact they they are making something that is being released to the general public, a public that doesn't appreciate things being broken for arbitrary reasons.

                    It's funny that I don't remember seeing this kind of thing with closed source freeware on Windows and OS X, only with self righteous OSS devs, which doesn't make any damn sense.

                    Take that however you like, I may not be a dev, but I also have no non OSS software outside of some games.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cyring View Post
                      Bye bye FF & Chrome : there are full of Google craps
                      In fact the question is : which one is the most neutral for web browsing ?
                      Um, what in Firefox is controlled by Google? Google only pays them to make the default search plugin and urlbar search Google, but both can be changed trivially, learn to about:config already, had both set to duckduckgo ssl for a very long time now.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                        Um, what in Firefox is controlled by Google? Google only pays them to make the default search plugin and urlbar search Google, but both can be changed trivially, learn to about:config already, had both set to duckduckgo ssl for a very long time now.
                        Very nice source !

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by cyring View Post
                          Very nice source !
                          DDG still has a long way to go with search relevancy and search features, but I trust Google about as much as I trust alphabet soup agencies.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                            Anyway, Kubuntu developers have always been focused on creating a "pure" KDE distro, without anything non-KDE like Firefox. So I don't think this should be surprising - it's what they've always wanted to do, but weren't allowed while Ubuntu was running things.
                            But in my experience KDE's Konqueror and Rekonq browsers fail with many sites that require a login, sometimes interactive forms don't work, and they overwrite gnash/flash installed for Firefox. KDE's browsers work fine for most websites, but Firefox has never let me down (except for sites that require Adobe's Shockwave Player or for Unity browser games --which can't be helped without Wine).
                            Last edited by downer; 03-18-2012, 03:50 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by chrisccoulson View Post
                              Canonical did nothing? We actually fixed the patch to work with Firefox 10. I just checked the OpenSUSE repo, and the changes they're shipping to make it work with Firefox 11 are the same changes we applied in Ubuntu to make it work with Firefox 10.

                              But, feel free to continue your ill-informed Canonical rant rather than actually checking facts. It's always much better when people do that.
                              Yeah, you did so much great work that you drop that work… right…
                              Even if you were right: Why did you not upstream the updated patch to openSUSE? openSUSE is the upstream project for that patch.
                              So I may have been wrong, you yourself wrote that Canonical did another typical Canonical thing: Take some FOSS code, modify it slightly and not work upstream to integrate your changes.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                                Yeah, you did so much great work that you drop that work… right…
                                Even if you were right: Why did you not upstream the updated patch to openSUSE? openSUSE is the upstream project for that patch.
                                So I may have been wrong, you yourself wrote that Canonical did another typical Canonical thing: Take some FOSS code, modify it slightly and not work upstream to integrate your changes.
                                I dropped it because I don't want to have to support it for 5 years.

                                I had been reconsidering my decision to drop it, but reading the misinformed comments here from people like you who are making the assumption that I contribute nothing back upstream has only made me realise that I made the correct decision.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X