The Latest Reason Fedora Users Have Been Questioning Firefox As The Default Browser

[OneTimeShot]

Ah Open Source Zealotry: Protecting my freedom by preventing me using the software I want.

Fedora has a really nice Software installation tool. Maybe they should stop installing things that they think I want, let me install stuff I actually want. Yes - maybe even **SHOCK** commercial software? People say that Apple has a walled garden, but actually it was the GPL people who decided that there was "no way" to distribute software via App Stores. Coz freedom.

[blackiwid]

icecat would be better then iceweasel, would help that important project and would help to ensure freedom in the internet. javascript is not real free or open software, even if you maybe have the freedom to read it, and even tthere you have problems, optimised code makes it also very hard to read or you need programs like disassamblers (I know its not binary but still optimised to read for computers not for humans) to read it sanely.

but even if you say thats good enough you dont have neccessarily the right to copy and change and rerelease your version, etc...

http://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/...avascript.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

[mudig]

It regularly baffles me that no one of the vocal "Mozilla is taking my freedumbs!" people is asking why Mozilla is doing this.

[gerddie]

Ah Open Source Zealotry: Protecting my freedom by preventing me using the software I want.

Fedora has a really nice Software installation tool. Maybe they should stop installing things that they think I want, let me install stuff I actually want. Yes - maybe even **SHOCK** commercial software? People say that Apple has a walled garden, but actually it was the GPL people who decided that there was "no way" to distribute software via App Stores. Coz freedom.

I think you're missing the point here: In order to have and App-Store that distributes commercial software you would also have to implement a billing system. Since Fedora is a community managed distribution, there is no one who would take care of this. Debian also doesn't provide it, and has only the non-free repo that is not part of the official distribution and takes care of all packages that are not free in the "Debian free software guidelines" sense - without any kind of infrastruture that would support the "commercial" (i.e. selling/bying) part of the software distribution process.

I seem to remember that Ubuntu provides an App-store that also sells some software.

[reub2000]

Going with a fork like Iceweasel is one idea.

Even better would be using something that uses a native widget toolset. QupZilla would likely be the best option here.

Also, Fedora does not restrict you from installing other software. Don't confuse a developer not providing you something with restrictions on your freedom.

[Tomin]

The code is open-source, but Mozilla owns "Firefox" the branding, and says that you can't use it if your browser isn't identical to Firefox as published by Mozilla. If Fedora wants to patch Firefox (such as to permit unsigned add-ons) they will have to re-brand it. (Debian already rebrands Firefox to Iceweasel for this reason.)

Well, that's one reason why Debian packages Firefox as Iceweasel but it is not the reason. I think the original reason was (and still is) that the logo is not free to modify or something which is what Debian requires.

There is a article about this in Wikipedia (I read it some time ago).

[OneTimeShot]

App-Store that distributes commercial software you would also have to implement a billing system.

Not necessarily - the billing can come as a separate license sign-up, or with in-app purchases, or just free as in beer like FireFox... The issue here is that software is deemed "not pure enough" and expunged from the system.

I looked at the possibility of doing third party repositories in Ubuntu (admittedly a few years ago) for an "internal" corporate software server. Short of rewriting the internals, it just couldn't be done... Although maybe it has changed since; it looked as though there was a bit of code that would do it that wasn't fully wired in.

I don't mind that there was no support for what I was trying to do, but I don't expect my Linux distro to censor my choice of software. A "License type: GPL" description field is fine: I don't expect Fedora to make "morality" choices for me.

[eydee]

That would basically be Iceweasel. They're not allowed to distribute binaries called Firefox. Only distros like Gentoo can get away with packaging Firefox in such a way that it'll actually be called Firefox after it's built because the end user builds it themselves.

I'm sure people want the features, not the brand, so it shouldn't be a problem.

[rabcor]

That is a pretty compelling reason... Especially since fedora is dev focused, doesn't make sense for the default browser to be unfriendly to unsigned extensions (Also, how the hell are extensions for firefox to be developed if they can't be tested in the browser?)

But then again, it's just the default, it can easily be replaced... No big deal, I think fedora should simply allow a default browser to be selected during installation, and problem is solved.

[yacc143]

I looked at the possibility of doing third party repositories in Ubuntu (admittedly a few years ago) for an "internal" corporate software server. Short of rewriting the internals, it just couldn't be done... Although maybe it has changed since; it looked as though there was a bit of code that would do it that wasn't fully wired in.

sorry then you obviously did not spend longer than 5 minutes looking. Debian supported 3rd party repositories in apt since the stone age.

For an example see how the mongodb team distributes their software: for Debian and Ubuntu they offer their own repository. Nothing to stop a company to operate a repository internally. Ubuntu adds to this by standardizing PPAs for public (experimental) repositories.