User Feedback :: Firefox



Quote
I was just pointing out that you can't really use that to justify your argument about including flash/Opera.

Didn't realize I was "arguing" for that, especially since I wrote that further modularization helps remove objections either way because it puts all those decisions in the hands of end users instead of developers. When one chooses to use Flash, Opera, or ndiswrapper, one is ultimately choosing to use closed source. The only difference between the three is ndiswrapper is a tool for allowing the use of something *else* that's closed source. If there's any ethical problem with Opera or Flash, it should also apply to anything else that's related to closed source -- directly or indirectly. Obviously, though, it doesn't.
Quote (lucky13 @ April 14 2008,23:12)
Quote
I was just pointing out that you can't really use that to justify your argument about including flash/Opera.

Didn't realize I was "arguing" for that, especially since I wrote that further modularization helps remove objections either way because it puts all those decisions in the hands of end users instead of developers. When one chooses to use Flash, Opera, or ndiswrapper, one is ultimately choosing to use closed source. The only difference between the three is ndiswrapper is a tool for allowing the use of something *else* that's closed source. If there's any ethical problem with Opera or Flash, it should also apply to anything else that's related to closed source -- directly or indirectly. Obviously, though, it doesn't.
Well, indirect debate if you prefer that (semantics and interpretation of a language again, neh?).  I see your point about ndiswrapper, since I don't think there are any open source windows drivers of those sorts (or is there - I guess it's different from how Firefox allows the Flash plugin...).  Since I am neither an expert in law, licenses, etc. I wouldn't know the "correct" way.  It's probably a "gray area" for most
Quote (lucky13 @ April 14 2008,19:08)
Quote
I too use and like Opera. However, Opera is not open source.

Users ultimately want things to work with minimal (i.e., zero) fuss. They don't care for the religion of Stallman and his demented, frothing hyperbole about evil except with occasional lip service and petty rants against "winblows." I think most are really only interested in free as in beer; and Opera is free as in beer.

A free beer sounds good to me. Most people don't care about the means to an end, they only care about the end!

I had a lapse of thought and forgot about Opera and open source for a second. Looks like the S[tallman] Inquisition will be out soon for me.

If the license for a blob approves distribution, then I see nothing wrong with blobs if there is no open source alternative. And if someone tries to say including blobs will not inspire people to write an open source replacement, thats just BS.
Of course if the DSL mission (forgive my ignorance, I have not read the mission statement in awhile) is to provide a 100% open source distro, then firefox should stay, and Opera should be in MyDSL where is belongs. Perhaps adding some better directions to Opera for newbs on slow hardware.
It is this that gives us pause to remove/strip DSL.
bulldozer wrote:
Quote
Perhaps adding some better directions to Opera for newbs on slow hardware.


We now have a better mydsl browser/loader tool with search.
It is now even easier to find and load extensions.

Perhaps a compromise would be to have download script(s) on the menu like there is for gnu-utils and dpkg-restore (Enable Apt)
Scripts that automatically replace FF for Opera, or FF for FF2 would be a really good idea actually. Then the Stallman Inquisition wont be after RobertS ( ;-) ) cos FF1 is in there and thats open source, and the people with low end PC's (and the guys who love Opera) are also happy cos they can use Opera. And in the end everyone is happy cos even those who want to use FF2 can do that easily!

IOW: downloadscripts are the best compromise!
Next Page...
original here.