The Sad State Of Web Browser Support Currently Within Debian

[piorunz]

More insight into Firefox ESR problem in Debian:

https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/11/10/firefox-esr-91-creating-a-massive-headache-for-debian-11-gnu-linux/

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...gi?bug=1001234

[ssokolow]

You talk about RPM based ecosystems but also talk about caching up to SUSE which is a RPM based system and in any case, package formats don't affect the presence of package search web interfaces since all the major ones carry very similar metadata. So that's a bit confusing and it is unclear what you consider third party and why that matters. rpmfind.net has existed for ages and was originally maintained by a Red Hat employee IIRC and now is maintained by a Fedora contributor. If I am using the web interface, I prefer distro neutral sites like https://pkgs.org/ since I can compare across distros which is typically the only reason I am not using the package manager itself.

If you read it again, you'll see that, right in the text you quoted, I'm asking if Red Hat distros have caught up to SUSE there.

My problem with RPM-based distros is that I have yet to find one that checks off everything I currently expect out of APT. Some distros check off some things, and others check off others, but no RPM distro I've found gets them all.

As for rpmfind.net, I wasn't aware of that but, purely on UI alone, I much prefer packages.debian.org. Heck, even with its destestable modern/touch-first design with low data density, "prefer grids over lists" search results, and too much focus on "show one package over all releases" rather than "show one release across all packages", I still find software.opensuse.org easier to look at.

Search sites aside, the last time I looked around, it was more common to dismiss a distro because I found people arguing that things like Zypper and DNF were plenty fast, only to admit, when pressed, their equivalents to things like apt-cache search aren't as fast as what I expect, and they were trying to justify the difference with things like "but who needs things to be snappy enough to achieve that performance without an SSD in this day and age?"

[Danielsan]

Im sorry but this comment is completely misinformed.

Firstly browsers are extremely complex by design, they are basically pseudo operating systems that run in a sandbox so of course they are going to contain bugs for the same reason normal operating systems contain bugs. Using your logic we can also claim that Linux is not doing their job properly because its also full of bugs.

Secondly, there is no way in hell that Debian package maintainers have enough knowledge that they can apply security backports for such software. Debian/Ubuntu has already broken packages in the past because they incorrectly apply upstream packages because they don't know what they are doing (which is not surprising since they aren't maintainers of the software).

In the end, if the release timeline/packaging process of a distro cannot work with how a certain upstream project handles things, thats a problem of the distro and not upstream. Newsflash, different upstream projects have different software processes and if your distro cannot handle different cases than its a primitive one that probably needs to have another look on how it does things.

You may as well just use Gentoo then if thats your attitude, if you cant trust package managers/binaries then just install everything from source.

My comment is not misinformed, it is well known which garbage became the modern browsers and therefore internet. Here the point is since browser are released always more faster it is basically impossible keep up after them, maintainers try to do their best and I will not complain against them. Distribution with schedule release cannot avoid package at least one browser otherwise people lesser tech savvy will not be able for instance to access to internet and download a safer browser. The issue with Debian is that it must surely define a better strategy to provide to its users a better and safe browsers improving their communication and method to access to those.

For instance the Wiki Firefox page is not really ideal and the security issues aren't mentioned at all:

https://wiki.debian.org/Firefox

[mdedetrich]

My comment is not misinformed, it is well known which garbage became the modern browsers and therefore internet. Here the point is since browser are released always more faster it is basically impossible keep up after them, maintainers try to do their best and I will not complain against them. Distribution with schedule release cannot avoid package at least one browser otherwise people lesser tech savvy will not be able for instance to access to internet and download a safer browser. The issue with Debian is that it must surely define a better strategy to provide to its users a better and safe browsers improving their communication and method to access to those.

For instance the Wiki Firefox page is not really ideal and the security issues aren't mentioned at all:

https://wiki.debian.org/Firefox

And again, you completely missed the point. If your distribution cannot handle different release cycles (or speed) that other upstream projects have then simply put your distribution needs work to solve this problem. The reason why debian gets laughed at so much is the entire point release process that they use is inflexible and outdated and this is the precise issues it causes. Complaining that "browsers are garbage" is a scapegoat, debian shouldn't even care or know its a browser.

Debian worked in the 90's when the world wasn't as interconnected as it is now and when security landscape was different, now its another story and browsers have to update continuously as new bugs/security issues are found constantly. Furthermore this model of backporting fixes makes it a complete and utter nightmare for upstream to properly diagnose issues due because now they have to deal with some custom patched browser.

And regarding downloading a safe browser, if you are that obsessive about it then use lynx/wget/curl to do so.

[aht0]

You may as well just use Gentoo then if thats your attitude, if you cant trust package managers/binaries then just install everything from source.

Nope, because Gentoo has wholly different idea behind it and reasons for existing.

Can trust distributor, cannot trust random guy presenting his (or some randoms in forums advertising his) custom repo as "use it, its cool stuff" - unless its been verified/suggested by distributor (like OpenSUSE documentation points at Packman repos).
Get facepalm feeling each time somebody suggests some custom ppa for newer Mesa or whatnot..

Re-building package (and potential deps) from source ain't rocket science (unless there are deeper issues coming from stuff kernel etc support), anyone might need to do it (or try) at some point, you don't need to set up fucking Gentoo for that. Debian has good docs covering the process, including for building package from upstream sources, even from git, cvs etc. If it doesnt work out, well at least it was learning experience.. roll back, try again to figure it out or hop distro then

And agree with your response to Danielsan

[mppix]

Also outdated. Version in Debian Stable: 3.38, Version in Flathun: 41. Besides the fact that I don't want to know, how (in)compatible it is

Are you saying Gnome Web on Flatpak needs to save the world?

[mppix]

... The reason why debian gets laughed at so much is the entire point release process that they use is inflexible and outdated and this is the precise issues it causes. ...

Pardon me?

[avem]

Is there an inherent risk by just downloading the non-ESR version from Mozilla and running it? I've been doing that since Bullseye released and am always up to date (another idiot here apparently).

ff.png

I've been using a version from Mozilla's FTP servers since forever. That's what Windows and MacOS users use as well. I don't now how and why it could be considered "risky".

What makes you believe running an outdated version of the browser by your distro is less risky?

[avem]

Since 20 years I use Linux now and in these years *nothing* has changed, we are still at distro wars. No wonder the outside world looks at us like they do.

Distro wars exist only because there's no one Linux distro which just works. None.

RHEL comes close to it but it's saddled with its own share of issues, like a very limited selection of software and numerous severely outdated packages.

[EndOfFile]

I've been using a version from Mozilla's FTP servers since forever. That's what Windows and MacOS users use as well. I don't now how and why it could be considered "risky".

What makes you believe running an outdated version of the browser by your distro is less risky?

I never said an outdated version was less risky. I've always run direct from Mozilla on Windows, MacOS, and Linux. I was asking if there was a risk to bypassing 'packaged by Debian' because for whatever reason, people in the thread felt they were locked into what ever shipped with, or was available within the repo for, Debian.