Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Kubuntu 12.04 To Drop KDE Support For Firefox

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,245

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote 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 !

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote 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 at 04:50 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •