1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Maarten Vanraes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alien@rmail.be">alien@rmail.be</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Op vrijdag 13 januari 2012 20:59:19 schreef Jeff Robins:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:00 AM, andre999 <<a href="mailto:andre999mga@laposte.net">andre999mga@laposte.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Wait.<br>
> > A long-term release version is kept updated for bugs, particularly<br>
> > security bugs, but doesn't add new features.<br>
> > Since it doesn't add new features, it is less likely to introduce new<br>
> > bugs, and so would be more secure.<br>
> > (That is why, in case you haven't noticed, that Firefox has more security<br>
> > issues than Seamonkey, which is one step behind Firefox in adopting new<br>
> > features.)<br>
> ><br>
> > So if you want a stable, secure browser, prefer among Mozilla browsers<br>
> > the Firefox long-term release, or for more stable, Seamonkey.<br>
> ><br>
> > For the minority of users who want the latest features, despite the<br>
> > greater risk, like the cauldron of Mozilla, it is easy to download the<br>
> > latest Firefox release, direct from upstream. (It will be available<br>
> > there at least a week sooner.)<br>
> > Upstream Firefox by default warns when the latest update is available.<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > André<br>
><br>
> I think André is entirely correct and the ESR should meet the requirements<br>
> for a long-term Mageia. The ESR will get all of the security updates, but<br>
> not the new features so any argument about needing the latest to stay<br>
> secure is invalid. (<br>
> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/show/5378/mozilla-announces-firefox-extended-suppo" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/show/5378/mozilla-announces-firefox-extended-suppo</a><br>
> rt-release )<br>
><br>
> Also, the next upstream will be moving to quiet updates, unless Firefox<br>
> hasn't been restarted in the last 12 hours. So, users that want the latest<br>
> can use the upstream and be automatically updated.<br>
> (<a href="http://letsbytecode.com/general/10-firefox-will-be-updated-on-the-quiet/" target="_blank">http://letsbytecode.com/general/10-firefox-will-be-updated-on-the-quiet/</a>)<br>
><br>
> My only concern is the difference in release times. Mageia's is 9months<br>
> and Mozilla is 1year. Nine months from Mageia's 1st long-term release,<br>
> Mozilla will still be on the same FF, and will update FF in the middle of<br>
> the second Mageia long-term release. This would create more work and a<br>
> long-term Mageia, which will have a major component update during the<br>
> long-term support period.<br>
><br>
> --Jeff<br>
<br>
</div></div>look at the picture for the support period, the 1y warranteed versions cross<br>
over for 2 or 3 months<br>
<br>
so it's going to fit for as long as we have 9m release schedule<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>
The 2-3 month overlap doesn't solve our problem. Assuming that we both start on the same month of the same year, which we aren't, and call it January 2012:<br><br>Jan 2012 (good):<br>We do long-term 1 and Mozilla does ESR1.<br>
<br>Sept 2012(good):<br>We do long-term 2 and Mozilla has just released FF ESR2.<br><br>June 2013(bad):<br>We do long-term 3, but Mozilla won't release FF ESR3 until Sept 2013. FF ESR2 is defunct as of Jan 2013. We only get 3 months of support on ESR2 for long-term 3.<br>
<br>March 2014(good):<br>We do long-term 4 and Mozilla released FF ESR3 in Sept. We get support until Dec 2015, which is when we release long-term 5.<br><br>--Jeff<br>
|
