Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #165379 > unrolled thread

Re: Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Re: Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy "Laszlo T." <tlacix@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:50 +0100
    Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 23:10 +0100
      Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:10 +0100
        Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-03-16 11:50 +0100
        Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-03-16 13:50 +0100
          Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-03-16 17:00 +0100
            Re: Firefox vis a vis source of Chrome (was: Iceweasel update  error...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-03-16 18:10 +0100
              Re: Firefox vis a vis source of Chrome Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-03-16 19:20 +0100
                Re: Firefox vis a vis source of Chrome Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-03-16 19:40 +0100
            Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-03-16 18:30 +0100

#165379 — Re: Re: Iceweasel update error on Wheezy

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

No more Iceweasel brand. The Debian can use the Firefox name. So change the
repository

deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ jessie-backports firefox-release

remove Iceweasel, install Firefox and you will have fresh browser,
currently v45. It works fine for me.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#165390

On 2016-03-14, Laszlo T. <tlacix@gmail.com> wrote:
> No more Iceweasel brand. The Debian can use the Firefox name. So change the
> repository
>
> deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ jessie-backports firefox-release

In the case of wheezy, that would be wheezy-backports. Also, note that
firefox-esr is available as well as firefox-release. The former is
closer to the iceweasel experience in Debian.

>
> remove Iceweasel, 

Various metapackages depend on iceweasel. It might be prudent to leave
it in place for now, depending on your circumstances.

> install Firefox and you will have fresh browser,
> currently v45. It works fine for me.

Using firefox-esr on jessie here. No complaints so far.

-- 

Liam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165458

On 03/14/2016 02:59 PM, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2016-03-14, Laszlo T. <tlacix@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No more Iceweasel brand. The Debian can use the Firefox name. So change the
>> repository
>>
>> deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ jessie-backports firefox-release
> In the case of wheezy, that would be wheezy-backports. Also, note that
> firefox-esr is available as well as firefox-release. The former is
> closer to the iceweasel experience in Debian.
>
>> remove Iceweasel,
> Various metapackages depend on iceweasel. It might be prudent to leave
> it in place for now, depending on your circumstances.
>
>> install Firefox and you will have fresh browser,
>> currently v45. It works fine for me.
> Using firefox-esr on jessie here. No complaints so far.
>
What is the difference between firefox-esr and firefox-release?  I have 
been downloading the tar file from mozilla since this whole thing 
started.  How different is what Debian now has from the Mozilla tar 
file?  Will Debian keep up with the Mozilla releases, or will they 
remain behind until the next point release.  I am perfectly happy to 
continue downloading from Mozilla if that will keep me current, and 
Debian's repo will not.

Marc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165464

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 16/03/2016 3:05 PM, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> What is the difference between firefox-esr and firefox-release?  I have
> been downloading the tar file from mozilla since this whole thing
> started.  How different is what Debian now has from the Mozilla tar
> file?  Will Debian keep up with the Mozilla releases, or will they
> remain behind until the next point release.  I am perfectly happy to
> continue downloading from Mozilla if that will keep me current, and
> Debian's repo will not.

ESR releases are more like "Debian Stable" .... I think it stands for
"Extended Support Release".  This is the sort thing that big business
might do and also what is used with Tails [The Amnesic Incognito Live
System].

Normal releases push things via updates to more people, the masses.

There are typically different release "schedule" types, anyway, that's
enough for now.

Cheers
A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165472

Marc writes:
> I am perfectly happy to continue downloading from Mozilla if that will
> keep me current, and Debian's repo will not.

Why do you need to keep current?  Just curious.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165487

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 16/03/2016 11:40 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Marc writes:
>> I am perfectly happy to continue downloading from Mozilla if that will
>> keep me current, and Debian's repo will not.
> 
> Why do you need to keep current?  Just curious.

Well, security is a good reason to remain current; but those ESR
versions get security updates.

It /may/ be better to stick with ESR on the basis that Mozilla likes to
change things up regularly and it breaks how Firefox works :(

Latest case in point, Firefox 44.x would allow nice and easy copy of a
section of a webpage (links, pictures, everything) -- ready to be pasted
in to an email or a document of some type (fully formatted with relative
link adjustments).  It worked very well, better than saving entire pages
or printing to PDF or similar.  Now with Firefox 45, all you get is
plain text; it seems to be formatted plain text (color?) .. but that's
it.  This is a significant change.

Going forward, lots and lots of extensions will likely need complete
re--writes due to Mozilla changing how they will support extensions (old
extensions that are abandoned and have worked well for years, won't get
any love).

I want updates, but I don't want functionality to change so much that
things that worked easily before are now impossible or much more difficult.

Oh and they took away tab groups reently too, but there is a current
extension that adds that facility back.

Part of the problem with Firefox is that it is too driven to compete
with Chrome -- all the reasons that I prefer Firefox are being
destroyed, rather than fixed or cherished.  And I don't want to use
spyware that is Chrome unless I have no choice.  Let Firefox stand on
it's own, it doesn't need to be a Chrome clone; heck Chrome was born out
of Firefox in the first place.....


Kind Regards
AndrewM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165495 — Re: Firefox vis a vis source of Chrome (was: Iceweasel update error...)

Andrew McGlashan composed on 2016-03-17 02:52 (UTC+1100):

> ...Let Firefox stand on
> it's own, it doesn't need to be a Chrome clone; heck Chrome was born out
> of Firefox in the first place.....

Chrome/Blink was begotten/forked from Safari/WebKit. Blink was 
begotten/forked from WebKit. WebKit was begotten/forked from KHTML 
(Konqueror). Firefox (Mozilla/Gecko/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird) had nothing to do 
with Konq's, Safari's or Chrome's inceptions.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165500 — Re: Firefox vis a vis source of Chrome

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 17/03/2016 4:04 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Andrew McGlashan composed on 2016-03-17 02:52 (UTC+1100):
> 
>> ...Let Firefox stand on
>> it's own, it doesn't need to be a Chrome clone; heck Chrome was born out
>> of Firefox in the first place.....
> 
> Chrome/Blink was begotten/forked from Safari/WebKit. Blink was
> begotten/forked from WebKit. WebKit was begotten/forked from KHTML
> (Konqueror). Firefox (Mozilla/Gecko/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird) had nothing
> to do with Konq's, Safari's or Chrome's inceptions.

Okay, then the "Chrome" name at least come from Firefox, I thought it
was more than that though.

A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165501 — Re: Firefox vis a vis source of Chrome

Andrew McGlashan composed on 2016-03-17 05:16 (UTC+1100):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Andrew McGlashan composed on 2016-03-17 02:52 (UTC+1100):

>>> ...Let Firefox stand on
>>> it's own, it doesn't need to be a Chrome clone; heck Chrome was born out
>>> of Firefox in the first place.....

>> Chrome/Blink was begotten/forked from Safari/WebKit. Blink was
>> begotten/forked from WebKit. WebKit was begotten/forked from KHTML
>> (Konqueror). Firefox (Mozilla/Gecko/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird) had nothing
>> to do with Konq's, Safari's or Chrome's inceptions.

> Okay, then the "Chrome" name at least come from Firefox, I thought it
> was more than that though.

Chrome in a Firefox context had and has nothing to do with the naming of 
Chrome. Chrome in a Firefox context is the same as in other GUI applications. 
It applies to the UI layout, theming and decorations of GUI apps generally, 
nothing Firefox-specific.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165496

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 17/03/2016 2:52 AM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Latest case in point, Firefox 44.x would allow nice and easy copy of a
> section of a webpage (links, pictures, everything) -- ready to be pasted
> in to an email or a document of some type (fully formatted with relative
> link adjustments).  It worked very well, better than saving entire pages
> or printing to PDF or similar.  Now with Firefox 45, all you get is
> plain text; it seems to be formatted plain text (color?) .. but that's
> it.  This is a significant change.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1113486

Okay, it's a bug, there is a work around and I expect they'll fix this one.

Cheers
A.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web