OSNews

Their definition of "old", according to the german Linux news site pro-linux.de, is Ubuntu Dapper Drake (last year) and anything older. Quite hefty, if you ask me, because this will also exclude many enterprise oriented, more conservative distros.

Well reading his blog (from the story), here are the proposed new requirements:
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Linux/Runtime_Requirements

It doesn't look to me bleeding edge at all.

So post-Dapper/Etch is not bleeding edge?

If not, I don't what is.

Well reading his blog (from the story), here are the proposed new requirements:
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Linux/Runtime_Requirements

It doesn't look to me bleeding edge at all.

Yeah it cuts off Dapper thats not reasonable.

Basically Mozilla ships precompiled firefox builds built using GCC 3.x along with glibc 2.3.2. That box runs Redhat 8/9 I believe.

To run these builds on any recently linux distribution you have to install the comatibility library for GCC 3 called libstdc++5 or similar on most distros as most have moved over to GCC 4.x now.

They are using this as their "target" platform and all code had to build successfully on this machine. So I guess now they are planning of moving to newer build boxes possibly with GCC 4.x and so wont have to hack around their code so it perfectly compiles and runs with the now legacy GCC 3.x and glibc 2.3.x on their current build systems.

Oh and of course they are also only depending on older versions of libraries such as GTK2, pango etc so they have to hack their code to make sure it works with these older libraries.

But as they mention of course since its open source you will find patches that will still enable you to compile with legacy systems if required.

Edited 2007-05-16 21:34

> It helps innovations. It leaves less time for
> vulnerabilities explotations. It leads to cleaner and
> more robust code.

And it is a pain in the arse to keep with, especially if youre a unknowledgeable desktop user, or working for a company which doesn't update their distribution every single year.

It wouldnt be a bad idea for them to make a release policy like Ubuntu: provide LTS releases every two years, and keep them up to date for four or five years, regardles how long you support the smaller releases in between.

Cutting off everybody except the last few bleeding edge releases is bad, just bad for the perception of Linux.

You get what you pay for.

Yup, youre right. Im 100% positive that any second now people all over the world will see the wisdom you presented in your post and start going back to IE in droves.

You're implying that IE8 will be backwards-compatible with Windows Vanilla XP. Will it?

They don't say it is not possible to backport. They say that *they* aren't doing it.

Even if they backported to Ubuntu LTS, Ubuntu would most likely not include it in their repositories; versions are mostly frozen upon release, and only security updates or fixes for serious flaws are pushed. Debian would likely do the same.

As for Redhat or SUSE enterprise distros, they are free to backport 3.0 if they want to. For the money they charge, I'd expect them too.

Anyway, if you like using old distros, and don't want to upgrade, then you can bask in the warm feeling of enjoying old friendships, and just keep on using FF2; it is not as though it will stop working just now.

I agree... If you are using old distros - then what's the point in getting the latest Firefox anyways? Debian Sarge only had Firefox 1.5 on stable for the longest time. So people with old distros can just stay with their old versions of firefox (like 2.0.0.3).

When there are showshopper bugs or when the hardware retires - then it's time for them to move up to 3.0.

People are making this a bigger deal as it is.

Individuals staying with old distros are probably not going to use bleeding edge releases anyways.

Actually Debian Sarge has Firefox 1.0 + lots of patches by Debian (unless you use backports). I still have Sarge on a couple of machines running. I haven't found time to switch to Etch yet. Maybe when Debian 4.0r1 is released...

"""
Anyway, if you like using old distros, and don't want to upgrade,
"""

Except that some of these dependencies are only a few months old. About the same age as Windows Vista. Perhaps they should cut support for XP, too?

Do you have anything to backup your claims about Mozilla showing less interest in Linux? If you keep in touch with Mozilla development you'll see that if anything the OS X version probably gets the least attention.

At any rate it is irrelevant discuss maintenance/long term support issues without looking at the specific of every platform. By its nature Linux and the ecosystem surrounding it does not emphasize backwards compatibility, instead it tends to stay pretty close to bleeding edge. It's one of the benefits of open source that you can patch it yourself if Mozilla doesn't want support it. And it's not like Mozilla is being uncooperative on this issue. They accept contributed builds as long as your build is up to standard.

And it's not like they're dropping legacy support for only on Linux, pre-win2000 systems and OS X 10.2 are also getting the axe. They have to move on, if they had the resources to support these systems, I am sure they would.

For most enterprise distributors this is a none issue. Red Hat have an awesome relationship with Mozilla and I don't think Red Hat are as paranoid as you are. And people who run Debian will simply use Debian's patched builds.

Your post reminds me of a typical FOSS camp reaction to decisions made my Mozilla that are perceived to violate the FOSS ethos. Remember the creation of the Mozilla Corporation? So has anything changed?

Like making IE7 only run on XP (leaving out 2K) and up?

Yep. The response was quite different.

Or making Direct X 10 only run on Vista?

If it weren't for Firefox, XP wouldn't have gotten IE7.

If it weren't for Firefox, nobody would have got IE7.

"Like making IE7 only run on XP (leaving out 2K) and up?"

Yes, like Microsoft doing that, and thanks for proving the sappyvcv's point. Because the fact is that Microsoft was trashed on message boards for doing that. Yet Mozilla doesn't get trashed for their plans to drop Win9x and old Linux distro support for Firefox. On the contrary, I see a lot of Firefox apologists spinning this away. And Apple didn't get trashed for making Safari 2.x require OSX Tiger.

Edited 2007-05-17 13:59

Why would you use OpenBSD as a desktop?

Nothing seems to be stopping distro's from backporting bug fixes etc... so I don't see the issue.

It might lead to more distro's forking Firefox though, as Debian has already done.

> Why would you use OpenBSD as a desktop?

Because you can. I use it here w/o problems and the system is so rock solid that i won't remove it for nothing.

/*Why would you use OpenBSD as a desktop? */

I use OpenBSD everyday as one of my desktop OS. I build websites, practice my progamming,surf the net,etc on OpenBSD it does everything i need as a desktop OS.just because it does not have little cute configuration menus,wizards like many OS it does not mean it can not be used as a desktop OS. I feel i need to post this from OpenBSD fag site:

1.10 - Can I use OpenBSD as a desktop system?
This question is often asked in exactly this manner -- with no explanation of what the asker means by "desktop". The only person who can answer that question is you, as it depends on what your needs and expectations are.

While OpenBSD has a great reputation as a "server" operating system, it can be and is used on the desktop. Many "desktop" applications are available through packages and ports. As with all operating system decisions, the question is: can it do the job you desire in the way you wish? You must answer this question for yourself.

It might be worth noting that a large amount of OpenBSD development is done on laptops.

"""
I feel i need to post this from OpenBSD fag site
"""

I happen to be Gay, myself. And I've been a Unix/Linux admin for 19 years.

But I have never heard of this "OpenBSD fag site" you refer to. ;-)

/*But I have never heard of this "OpenBSD fag site" you refer to. ;-)*/

sorry, it's a typo, i meant faq as frequently ask questions.

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Desktop

Edited 2007-05-16 22:28

"Why would you use OpenBSD as a desktop?"

Because it suits your needs.

Why use OpenBSD as a desktop? Well, why not? It is stable, secure, well documented nice little (small and simple is good!) operating system. The only problem I have encountered is that the OpenBSD packages/ports collection is a little bit limited but I've found that all the "essentials" are there (yes, soon even OpenOffice port will be ready, with a huge amount of bugfixes).

OpenBSD offers lots of security features which are up and running by default (you might want to see slides on "Exploit mitigation techniques" http://www.openbsd.org/papers/ven05-deraadt/index.html). Many of these techniques help securing things such as web browsers and other desktop apps (fully randomized malloc(3) for example).

One might also choose OpenBSD because they offer fixed release schedule (new release is made every 6 years, a release is supported for one year). This helps to plan upgrades. Installing new versions is also usually very painless because new versions are evolutionary improvements over the old versions (as opposed to revolutionary, usually revolutionary means "causes breakage and nightmares to sys admin").

FYI, OpenBSD is already porting gnome 2.18.1. Doesn't have hal though, but dbus is already on it.

alemao:4$ pgrep dbus ; uname -a
11086
2045
2659
OpenBSD dub.int 4.1 THC#0 i386

OpenBSD running gnome 2.18.1:

http://humppa.nl/~jasper/gnome/screenshots/gnome5.png

Edited 2007-05-16 20:57

Pardon? 2.16 was released last year, 2.18 has been released in the last couple of months, and by the time 3.0 of firefox is released, 2.20 will almost be complete - three whole release cycles of GNOME have come and gone - I'd hardly call that 'bleeding edge'.

With that being said, I don't know where HAL falls into it, I could possibly understand dbus, but in the same situation, I doubt it would need 2.16, more like certain components from GNOME 2.16 such as ORBIT and the likes.

"What about operating systems like OpenBSD that has gnome 2.10 and does not use hal or dbus?"

OpenBSD has dbus (but not HAL) and gnome 2.18 is in the works. Also note that it says *Linux* requirements. OpenBSD isn't Linux.

Edited 2007-05-17 04:31

because dbus is a great tool for interprocess communication, so any program that could make use of interprocess communication should use it.

Better questions are:
Why does a web browser need a text editor with spelling correction built-in?
Every linux distro includes many text editors all of which are better, why not just cause them.

Why do I need, CSS and javascript support to view 80% of pages I visit?
Because designers broke the web and nobody will be able to fix it.

because dbus is a great tool for interprocess communication, so any program that could make use of interprocess communication should use it.

Sure, if you don't want to be portable. That's fine if you don't want you code to be portable, but then it isn't fair to claim your code is portable "because you can port my dependencies, too!" which is pretty much what Mozilla does.

Since you are replying to a statement about D-Bus: I think the only Mozilla target platform which doesn't have a fully implemented D-Bus yet is Windows, where the developers still need to (AFAIK) sort out some of the things that are different on Unix/POSIX, e.g. user credentials, transport (instead of unix domain sockets)

Currently, sure. What about other platforms? BeOS doesn't use dbus. Nor does SkyOS. If we want to port Mozilla to Syllable, we have to port dbus (Even though we already have a perfectly good IPC mechanism).

As you point out yourself, it's difficult to even get it to work on Windows, where there are far more developers looking at the code. New and innovative systems are burdened with a whole bunch of dependencies which they don't want and shouldn't need. dbus is a system component of a certain operating system and it was designed to solve a problem on that platform. Same for HAL. Dragging them along to other platforms is just added cruft and extra work.

For example detection of changes on network hardware, e.g. recognizing offline states, switching to a different caching policy when on modem, etc.

Or different animation/plugin policy on low battery.

Just because an application does not use any hardware directly doesn't imply that it can't improve the user experience by knowing what is going on.

Agreed...

Or more adoption of Epiphany and similar...

Makes Konqueror much more appealing too... especially if they do import WebCore in KDE 4.x

I wonder if the Firefox maintainers realize they're killing their browser right now?

Makes Konqueror much more appealing too... especially if they do import WebCore in KDE 4.x

I've been working on a fork of konqueror to focus more on the web browser usability. Nothing really worth releasing at this point, but I've gotten a pretty good look at the state of khtml in kde 3 and 4 as well as the current status of the qt webcore port. Webcore's still got a fair walk ahead of it before it's really usable outside of osx. Obviously it's rather nice though, even if a bit rough around the edges at the moment. If I recall, the kpart hasn't been updated in some time now and I don't think it even builds anymore. Still, I didn't give it too much of a try as I was more interested in just getting the gist of how well the qt port in general was going.

Saying that though, I've been really surprised by how nice khtml has become. I always thought of it as little more than a toss in for reading help files in html, but it's really pretty darn nice. The updates for kde4 even more so...especially once the ssl code is updated. It's really easy to write a browser around the rendering engine as well. I'd never really done any coding with kde before, and doing so has impressed me pretty highly. After I initially became disillusioned with firefox's performance in linux, or at least on my linux install, I played around a bit with its code. For the most part I found it fairly painful. It just wasn't very fun code to work with. konq/khtml on the other hand is actually 'enjoyable'.

If anyone ever felt like building a browser around khtml and the related libs, they'd have something comparable to firefox in hardly any time at all. I had almost no free time, no experience at all with kde coding, and wound up implementing what I thought would be fairly huge inclusions in about a weeks time. I have little doubt that someone more experienced could have build a browser around the bare khtml/kjs/etc in a couple days.

I hope your project leaves to see the light of the day outside your development machine and then manage to get some contributors and shape into something good enough to compete with Firefox, but based on KHTML/WebCore instead.

While I have nothing against Dolphin per se, I think that this time the KDE developers took the wrong approach. There wasn't anything wrong with Konqueror as a file manager (although I do agree that the UI could have be made a little bit simpler). Quite frankly, it is the most powerful (arguably the best) file manager in existance right now. It was the web browser portion of it that required some care. Even using different profiles, things like clicking on the Home icon would lead you to to $HOME on your file system instead of the home page on the web browser. The configuration window can be rather confusing at times, mixing file manager and web browser options in the same panels.

No, they got it wrong. Instead of working on Dolphin, they should have ditched the Konq-as-a-web-browser idea (Konq should keep its ability to use KHTML as a KPart, though), get KHTML back in shape with the changes that Apple made in WebCore and create something along the lines of Safari. That would have been much better.

But I will reserve my judgement until KDE 4.0 is released in a usable form and give some credit to the devs for the time being, as I have yet to be disappointed by these clever guys.

I don't. This whole announcement is about reducing the amount of Linux only hacks in the codebase, that increases maintenance and disro-specific patches, the cause of many Firefox-on-Linux complaints.

There are still plenty of distro's that are not willing to require users upgrade... and those distro's will simply fork Firefox, and maintain their own code.

I believe Ubuntu is even following Debian already, so that already accounts for more than half of current Distro's.

It will happen, although I commend Firefox for trying to simplify the codebase. Distro's like Fedora will be fine with it I think.

Why? Perhaps there'll be one or another more unofficial build of firefox but I can see no reason why anyone would fork firefox for this reason.

Depends what market you look at. On weekends, some countries have over 30% usage. Most people don't have control over their enterprise desktops, so don't have a choice in what browser they use.

/*Depends what market you look at. On weekends, some countries have over 30% usage. Most people don't have control over their enterprise desktops, so don't have a choice in what browser they use.*/

understandable opinion on why firefox has a global 15% market share.

"Seeing how they HAL will be required, how will this work with OSes that dont have a Linux HAL implimentation?"

Those usually aren't Linux.