Mozilla Leaves Out Linux For Initial Web App Support

darthcamaro writes "Guess What? Linux is not a primary platform for Mozilla. For Mozilla's upcoming Web Apps marketplace, Linux support is not part of the initial release. Some Mozilla developers simply are shrugging this off as Windows and Mac dominate the Mozilla user landscape today."

Re:Chrome / Chromium

[AltF4ToWin]

And the marketplace works. Not that I or anyone in the known universe uses it. But at least it works.

Re:Fork it, then

[Ramin_HAL9001]

There are like 20 forks of Firefox for Linux already, I can't even keep track of them all: Iceweasel, Seamonkey, Icecat, Swiftfox, Flock, ...

There are even more based on WebKit.

Re:Fork it, then

[Vintermann]

Seamonkey isn't a fork of Firefox, it's the other way around. Seamonkey is what remains of the old Mozilla suite. I'm surprised it's under active development.

No need to fork, article is nonsense

[EMN13]

Seriously, RTFM: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193 [mozilla.org]

Re:... Has anyone actually bothered to RTFM (#7441

[Alex Belits]

Seriously, what the fuck is going on here? The comment about supported platform is from more than a month ago, the rest of the responses are about resolving it.

Re:Fork it, then

[Zero__Kelvin]

Er .. ah ...no [wikipedia.org]. They renamed it to get around trademark issues. Furthermore, each Linux distribution provides a separate kernel build (or more than one) with various patches applied and different configuration options enabled, etc. This does not constitute a fork. A fork happens when active development of source code occurs in a software product.

Re:Fork it, then

[marcosdumay]

The "trademark issues" were that you can't patch Firefox and keep calling it Firefox. Thus people had to rename it for applying patches.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it a shame however that because more and more people get more and more powerful machines, that the developers code more sloppily because "the machines can take it"?

If you want to run software from 20 years ago, go ahead. What you call "sloppy" I call "defense in depth". For example, chrome spawns a process for the renderer in each tab, so that a buffer overflow in webkit doesn't allow malware to do anything to your file system. It uses more RAM. This is a good tradeoff, because RAM is dirt cheep and cleaning up malware is expensive. Don't like it? Buy a VAX.

Re:Fork it, then

[Pausanias]

It's also one of the better lightweight HTML editors out there. Perfect for when someone without experience needs to edit a web page for content.

Linux Web Apps Development - How to Help Out

[jds2501]

Hi Everyone, Linux support for web apps is actively being worked on. Our contributor (Marco) is driving the implementation of it here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193 [mozilla.org] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744190 [mozilla.org] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745018 [mozilla.org] If you would like to help out, then feel free to drop a comment in those bugs!

Re:Fork it, then

[chrb]

The "trademark issues" were that you can't patch Firefox and keep calling it Firefox.

You can if you have permission e.g. Ubuntu patch their Firefox [launchpad.net], and yet it is still called Firefox. Debian also had permission, once upon a time. The dispute with Debian wasn't over source code patches, it was over the patch that removed the Firefox logo, because it was provided under a non-free license.

Re:Fork it, then

[washort]

You're right, and people are doing just that. A patch for Linux support is under development here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193 [mozilla.org]

Yes and No

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes and No, but first and foremost it was a trademark issue with regard to use of the graphics: The immediate problem caused by the new policy was Debian's inability to use the official Firefox logo due to its proprietary license failing to comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

The wiki also states: Additionally, as Debian releases are frozen on a long-term basis, software in the frozen stable releases needs to be patched for any newly-discovered security issue. Under the revised guidelines, in order to use the Firefox name, approval from the Mozilla Corporation would have been required for all security patches, but the Debian project felt it could not put its security in the hands of an external corporation in that manner.[15]

Note that the fact that Debian renamed it does not constitute proof of validity of Mozilla's claims that people can't apply patches from Mozilla's codebase and still call it Firefox. That claim never got tested, since they already changed the name anyway.

Re:Fork it, then

[groovepapa]

Mozilla *is* hiring aggressively - http://careers.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] - *and* actively recruiting more community contributors - https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Introduction [mozilla.org]. There's no such thing as "____ is not part of Mozilla's ____" because we can all be part of Mozilla. See washort's link to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193 [mozilla.org]