[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 07:33 +0000, Tom Potts wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 20:39, Simon Waters wrote: > > Simon Avery wrote: > > Mozilla corporation asked Debian to choose between the DFSG and using > > the Mozilla trademarked names, and gave them about 1 month before > > release of Etch in which to make a decision. > > > > So they made the only reasonable decision possible and dropped the names. > Sorry - but are you suggesting that everybody drops everything for Debian? No - just that everyone expecting packages to go into Debian main *MUST* abide by the DFSG. http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines If not, you only get to choose between the graveyard of non-free or not being in Debian at all. > > I guess they could have moved Firefox and Thunderbird to the graveyard > > that is "non-free", and removed the Debian customisations that upset > > Mozilla, but then it wouldn't have been part of Debian at all, and > > couldn't be included in the default install for a Desktop, and that > > would have been stupid. > Oh! You are suggesting everybody drops everything for Debian! Not at all. Mozilla shouldn't have been so dumb and arrogant as to think they could push Debian around. Tough. > Firefox and thunderbird live on happily in ubuntu and other debian children. > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=iceweasel-l10n suggests that iceweasel > is about as popular as IE on Debian. Even after its been assimilated! Either you are being deliberately misleading or you are incompetent. Use the correct page if you want to quote figures: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=iceweasel (i.e. the main package, not a minor localisation package.) 50,415 installs (65.17% of popcon users), ranked 407 of ~20,000 27,374 popcon users (42.32%) load iceweasel regularly, ranked 217 of ~20,000 (The total number of packages in Debian changes every day and depends on whether you count oldstable and non-free etc.) For a package outside Essential or Required, this is *extremely* high - the top 200 ranked packages are nearly all installed by default as core system components and are used as regularly. The iceweasel figures are very close to the popcon figures for X itself: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=xorg-server 52,929 installs (68.42% of popcon users), ranked 345 of 20,000 34,425 popcon users (53.22%) load xserver-xorg-core regularly, ranked 160 of 20,000. i.e. only ~2,500 popcon users out of 77,357 run X without iceweasel. (The 77,357 figure comes from perl-base where installations == 100% and which is ranked 1 for both installs and regular usage) http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=perl (popcon is written in perl and perl-base is Essential in mainstream Debian.) I make that 97% of all popcon users with X installed also have iceweasel installed. That is a staggering statistic because it includes users of all X environments, not just KDE and GNOME. I doubt that any other GUI application even comes close. (Certainly icedove is nowhere near.) Compare with: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=epiphany-browser (the default GNOME browser) 38,944 installs (50.34% of popcon users) rank 749 but only 13,195 (20.40%) are regular users. rank 370 i.e. iceweasel is installed and regularly used by just under HALF OF ALL DEBIAN BOXES running popcon (which was installed by default in Etch). Nearly two thirds of all popcon users have iceweasel installed - this includes SERVERS THAT DON'T EVEN RUN X. Iceweasel has a massive userbase in Debian - one of the biggest of any GUI application for any environment. (Konqueror doesn't count - it's a file manager and a default component for KDE so the popcon figures are skewed, especially the vote figures). > Believing in the free software movement surely should allow > others the freedom to chose their fix and release methodology. Choose a different distro or choose to download FireFox from Mozilla just like any other non-free software. You will be in a tiny minority. > Groups advocating freedom should not enforce their idea of freedom on others! To be free for any reasonable length of time, you also have to remain legal. The GPL enforces a particular brand of freedom that differs from the BSD brand of freedom. Are you saying that you disagree with the FSF? Should all FLOSS be available for incorporation directly into the next flavour of Windows without any contribution or copyleft? Do you want all software to be public domain and do away with copyright completely? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html