On 01/11/2016 07:00 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 01/10/2016 11:29 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 14:26 +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>> there is currently a case against Firefox discussed in FESCo:
> We have many different opinions in this thread. Clearly, there is no
> solution that will make everyone happy. I tried to formulate a
> consensus position based on the comments in this thread, which I
> suspect the majority of us can support:
> "Fedora Workstation prefers to ship the latest release of Firefox, not
> ESR releases. Shipping an unbranded version of Firefox is acceptable to
> us, but not ideal. Shipping a version of Firefox that blocks unsigned
> extensions is also acceptable to us, but not ideal."
> In other words: we're fine with FESCo deciding for either unbranded or
> locked-down Firefox, but we won't be very happy either way. Does this
> seem fair?
My personal take on this is that we need to ship with a mainstream
browser that is actively developed and that web sites support. These
days, I think it's a choice between either Firefox or Chrome.
We don't have Chrome in Fedora so this leaves Firefox.
Also, shipping a browser with a widely recognizable name (Firefox) as
opposed to shipping a minor fork (Icecat) has a huge benefit when it
comes to people finding the web browser -- they will have used the same
browser on other operating systems, making switching to Fedora easier.
Habit plays a huge role. Take a familiar name away and it's suddenly
much harder for us to compete.
I think it would be fine to ask Firefox upstream to support additional
trust chains to support locally packaged extensions, but if that fails I
don't think we should go with anything as drastic as switching to an
unbranded Firefox fork.
"I'll also add that the accessibility of those firefox forks is
sometimes not as good as and sometimes much worse than firefox itself.
This isn't always the case, but with icecat 24 for example, there were
lots of little things, orca not being able to track the focus, controlls
not being focusable, and when I brought them up to joanmeri I was told
quite bruskly to "just use firefox". I don't like chrome or chromium,
and my main reason for that is as I've said, google not talking to the
assistive technology API's available on whichever platform it's running
on, instead expecting you to download their own addon which somehow
turns their internal representations of webpages into spoken text, using
their own tts voices, instead of the system ones. In other words, I'm
for sticking with firefox, but I will keep going if we switch to a fork,
I'll just have more bugs to file.