[Mageia-dev] FireFox ESR <= we should totally go for this wrt stable releases

Fri Jan 13 15:00:26 CET 2012

Chris Evans a écrit :
+>
+>
+> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
+> *From:* Claire Robinson <eeeemail at gmail.com>
+> *To:* mageia-dev at mageia.org
+> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2012 6:45 AM
+> *Subject:* Re: [Mageia-dev] FireFox ESR <= we should totally go for 
+> this wrt stable releases
+>
+> On 13/01/12 11:37, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> > Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 11:21 +0000, Claire Robinson a écrit :
+> >> On 13/01/12 09:36, nicolas vigier wrote:
+> >>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Sander Lepik wrote:
+> >>>
+> >>>> 13.01.2012 03:20, Maarten Vanraes kirjutas:
+> >>>>> see 
+> https://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2012/01/10/delivering-a-mozilla-firefox-
+> >>>>> extended-support-release/
+> >>>>> see https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9d/Esr-release-overview.png
+> >>>>>
+> >>>>> ESR is a 1y extended supported release...
+> >>>>>
+> >>>>> looking at the image we'd be having supported versions for our 
+> 9month release
+> >>>>> schedule every time... we should totally use this release and 
+> not go towards
+> >>>>> FF11 for our release.
+> >>>>>
+> >>>>> We've been complaining about the too quick release schedule... 
+> this is our
+> >>>>> chance!
+> >>>>>
+> >>>>> ( i think if the FF maintainer wishes, he could also do 
+> backports of the
+> >>>>> regular releases... )
+> >>>>>
+> >>>>> i'm hoping everyone agrees? including FF maintainer?
+> >>>> I don't agree. But i'm not the maintainer.
+> >>>>
+> >>>> Why not?
+> >>>> * Since fx10 all non-binary extensions are compatible by default 
+> (so our
+> >>>> main problem goes away).
+> >>>> * fx10 in 6 months is dead old for users POV. Many unhappy users. 
+> Lower
+> >>>> popularity for Mageia. (Ubuntu AFAIK is going with fast schedule).
+> >>>> * We will miss too many new and cool features.
+> >>>> * When we release
+> >>>
+> >>> We could say the same about any other software. Firefox was an 
+> exception
+> >>> on updates policy because there was no other choice. But there's no
+> >>> reason to keep it as an exception when they provide a supported 
+> version.
+> >>>
+> >>
+> >> With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating 
+> in the
+> >> lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.
+> >>
+> >> Firefox is one of those programs that people like to be bang up to date
+> >> with.
+> >
+> > All softwares are one of those programs. The only one that some non
+> > technical users do not want to be updated are those that they do not
+> > know, like glibc, python, perl. But still, there is people that want it
+> > up to date, so firefox is nothing special.
+> >
+> >> It is 'bragging rights' to ship with the latest and something
+> >> reviewers always give version numbers of along with libreoffice, 
+> kde, gnome.
+> >
+> > Sure, and we neither update libreoffice, kde, gnome or the linux kernel.
+> > Some people do ( kde is upated by Fedora, as well as the linux kernel ).
+> > So that's a consistency issue, about what we promise to users.
+> >
+> > Stability is just that, stuff that do not have interface changes every 6
+> > weeks, stuff that do not have slight mistranslation everytime string
+> > change, stuff that do not risk breaking software after every updates.
+> >
+> >> I understand the arguments to go with the 12 months support but I think
+> >> for the reasons above we should stick with the normal release cycle or
+> >> maybe even offer both?
+> >
+> > Offering both would mean to double our workload of supporting firefox,
+> > and have no advantages by using the long supported release.
+> >
+> > And that's rather useless from my point of view, if the goal is to
+> > reduce the workload. There is already enough work to support the
+> > distribution.
+>
+> My meaning was that it isn't just general software. As I said, it is one
+> of those packages that reviewers quote version numbers and users expect
+> to be updated.
+>
+> IMO we should be on the latest version but I really do understand the
+> arguments against it so I understand why you disagree :)
+> ----(previous post)
+
+> This really doesn't make sense. The browser is our interface to the 
+> internet. I (as a user) feel a need to have the latest version of my 
+> browser complete with all security patches. I really couldn't care 
+> less if I have the latest gnome or kde. Surfing the net using a 
+> browser with known security issues bothers me. I think this is why so 
+> many people consider firefox to be an exception to the rule. Where 
+> most software that is older is considered to be more stable, when 
+> talking about a browser it is generally the opposite. It would be nice 
+> to at least give the users a choice, maybe have the LTR version as 
+> well as the latest release available. I have seen other distros 
+> provide chrome stable, testing, and unstable. Allowing the user to 
+> choose which version they are most comfortable with.
+
+Wait.
+A long-term release version is kept updated for bugs, particularly 
+security bugs, but doesn't add new features.
+Since it doesn't add new features, it is less likely to introduce new 
+bugs, and so would be more secure.
+(That is why, in case you haven't noticed, that Firefox has more 
+security issues than Seamonkey, which is one step behind Firefox in 
+adopting new features.)
+
+So if you want a stable, secure browser, prefer among Mozilla browsers 
+the Firefox long-term release, or for more stable, Seamonkey.
+
+For the minority of users who want the latest features, despite the 
+greater risk, like the cauldron of Mozilla, it is easy to download the 
+latest Firefox release, direct from upstream.  (It will be available 
+there at least a week sooner.)
+Upstream Firefox by default warns when the latest update is available.
+
+-- 
+André
+
+