abrowser version
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
How come abrowser in Brigantia is still version 14 when Firefox 16 was released today? Aren't abrowser versions supposed to track Firefox versions? Looking at the Ubuntu web site, it seems like Oneiric's Firefox is currently at version 15, so I guess Brigantia should follow suit?...
I am a member!
I'm taking a wild educated guess here although most likely some one in the chain is lagging behind. The browser in Trisquel is not straight up Firefox. It's a modified version so there has to be someone doing the modification even if this is just a script that runs or a patch that is applied as well as someone doing the packaging. If any of these people fall behind...
:)
Is there a special way I could ask for something to change in Abrowser ? I'm asking this because I don't understand why they use DuckDuckGo Lite.
DuckDuckGo itself is a very good search engine, but the lite version is very limited and almost only "great" for mobile :S... Because of this people normally use Google instead.
Yes, you can. Feel free to click on the bar, click on "Manage Search Engines", click on "Get More Search Engines", and then choose from the available options in Mycroft.
Personally I'm using Startpage.com for privacy and since it shows exactly what you'd get if you were on Google (Check Scroogle out as well if you like). Suggest you try out the omnibar addon as well for better effect.
I am a translator!
The Lite version is probably used because the full version requires non-free javascript.
Hum.. I didn't see this that way.. But then why there is Google Search on aBrowser and not on Iceweasel for example ?
That Mycroft sounds good. DuckDuckGo is kinda meh, and good for simple searches only. Many times I have to do my searching with Google after trying first DuckDuckGo.
DuckDuckGo is just fine. I like to support them because Gabriel (the founder) donates money to FS projects from his company's revenue besides partnering with them. But their reliance on cookies to customize are annoying as I browse in private mode. Yeah I can use some parameters in the URL but I don't know how to integrate them in the search bar.
But what do people here think of Blekko or Seeks?
Hmm, alright, it is worth to start searching with DuckDuckGo first then. Thanks of the info.
"I can use some parameters in the URL but I don't know how to integrate them in the search bar."
Type "about:config" (without "") in the address bar and change the value of "keyword.URL"; then, type your searches in the address bar instead of the search one ;-)
I will be honest. As a normal user, DuckDuckGo is very frustrating since it doesn't have all of the algorithms used by Google in order to almost know exactly what you are searching for. And worse then that, there is no "native way" to found images like with Google.
But as a developer an a Wikipedia lover it is so damn good to just type some "technical words" and having DuckDuckGo to show the exact technical output I was looking for without having to open any link :D (and this is why I wanted to ask to change from the lite version to the normal version. Since the lite version doesn't offer this option).
It is like the "I Feel Lucky" option when you try to search something using the url bar (Chrome habits)... If you search 1 word you will almost not find what you search, but if you search 2 or more words with spaces (without using the "+" symbol then), you will have a nice and beautiful error message.
Ubuntu should have 16 in their repos in the next day or so. I'm disappointed in Ruben for slacking in one of the more important Trisquel projects. Or maybe I'm not considering it is taking him forever to release 6 when the version he is basing it on was released 6 months ago!
You do have to hand it to Canonical for being consistent with their releases and support. Trisquel is a one man fly by night operation with no guarantee that he will even release new versions. What's stopping him from disappearing off the face of the eath tomorrow and this project dying as a result. Nothing.
I am a member!
Given your lack of contribution to this project, constant criticism, ungratefulness, dislike of the distribution, and dislike of the only thing which makes it unique why do you continue to hang out here? Just leave already. AND that is putting it nicely.
Trisquel is far from a dying distribution. It has everything it needs to continue beyond Rubén's death. The project is 100% free. This means it can be forked. The project has a significant (although small) user base. The project has one of the best advocates any project could ask for (Richard Stallman & the Free Software Foundation). There are financially successful business models developed around it contributing to its bottom line as well as other sources of revenue (membership and gift shop).
If it isn't already clear should anybody like to start a replacement project should the worst happen please contact me. I can personally guarantee that there will be something in the works to replace it. If no other developers want to take responsibility for forking it I will. I have the skills, abilities, and financials to ensure Trisquel's continuation.
I am a member!
>You do have to hand it to Canonical for being consistent with their releases and support. Trisquel is a one man fly by night operation with no guarantee that he will even release new versions. What's stopping him from disappearing off the face of the eath tomorrow and this project dying as a result. Nothing.
So what are you going to do about it? Bitch about it like you always do? Or are you actually going to start helping the project?
t3g pls go
As expected, Firefox 16 was pushed to the Ubuntu repos for you Trisquel 5.5 users: http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/firefox
Makes you wonder if Ruben skips 15 and goes right to 16. If he goes right from 14 to 15, then there's the risk of always being one version behind. Yikes.
I am a member!
Depending on what it is that changed it may not matter. abrowser isn't the only project which is 'behind' the official release. Until recently Canonical wasn't keeping up with the newer versions either. They stuck to a stable older supported (for the majority of the time it was included in Ubuntu) release and patched it as needed. When mozilla discontinued support Canonical continued to patch it.
The point of all this is stop putting people down when you obviously have no understanding of the issues.
There are other projects like Tor which also don't keep the browser in sync or "up to date". There simply isn't a need. This a is a project which is ultra concerned about security and privacy.
The point is there are reasons these projects are not always up to date and that is OK!
Each project has different goals and needs. If you absolutely must have an 'up to date' version because of some psychological defect go download it or switch to a distribution that is focused on such things.
Since I'm the original poster, let me make it clear that I absolutely don't mind not having the very latest version of any piece of software packaged in my distribution. But there may be something I don't understand about Firefox now that it is using a rapid release cycle. Do the new versions completely supersede the older ones? For instance, is FF14 patched for possible security holes now that FF16 is available? Security is my only concern.
My understanding is pretty much that only the latest release is supported by Mozilla. Version 10 is apparently still supported, though, for some reason.
Honestly, Firefox's scheme that started with version 5 is like a parody... hey, let's constantly upgrade Firefox and inflate the number, no plain old security fixes or minor versions like every other program, we'll just constantly throw a new version out every 2 months! Seriously, they might as well have just ditched the version number. It's not like they actually use it properly. Seriously, who is going to tell the difference between Firefox 16 and Firefox 8 just by looking at them? It's all security fixes and performance enhancements.
Remember that Mozilla doesn't have to support version 14 of Firefox for forks like Abrowser and IceCat to be supported at version 14. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I am a member!
I'm going to back up a moment just to clarify something for users.
What mozilla does and with support for Firefox and what the GNU/Linux distributions do are different. You can have a completely patched version of 14 when 16 is the only version supported by mozilla.
2nd. mozilla went back to having a rapid release where only the most recent version is getting security updates and a stable version where security updates are back ported. This version is for businesses, governments, etc to standardize on which can't/don't want to change.
I'm actually surprised Ubuntu is not sticking to version 10. It's probably for the better though as many web sites will nag you about having an insecure/out of date version of firefox and "unsupported" (false, but they propigate the myth anyway).
Debian sticks with ESR releases (Wheezy will have Iceweasel 10) but I'd assume Ubuntu doesn't because they like having bleeding-edge software.
As for Abrowser/IceCat versions, I don't really worry too much because I run with JavaScript disabled. Looking at Mozilla's Security Advisories, it seems that *most* Mozilla security bugs are related to JavaScript.
In fact, Mozilla even notes this:
"Note: In general these flaws cannot be exploited through email in the Thunderbird and SeaMonkey products because scripting is disabled, but are potentially a risk in browser or browser-like contexts in those products."
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/
For users that do have JavaScript enabled, compiling IceCat or similar shouldn't be too difficult.
I am a member!
I'm not up to date on what each project is actually doing. I'm just stating that each project is not necessarily dependent on mozilla for a patched version of firefox. Distributions and projects can apply patches to older versions. This was done with Ubuntu 10.04 with firefox after mozilla discontinued support (for a while).
Agreed - Mozilla discontinuing support shouldn't affect what Ubuntu or Trisquel do, if backporting is (or can be) done. Does anyone know if Abrowser backports security patches? I'm not sure myself.
Another thought would be that perhaps people other than Ruben could build Abrowser, or at least test to see if the patches work on later versions. On my summer holidays (southern hemisphere) I might look at compiling Abrowser for myself, and test out to see how difficult merging patches is. I've compiled IceCat a few times, but I haven't patched anything before.
I am a member!
What I would love to do is release a distribution based on Ubuntu LTS. Spend a year or so focused on getting it just right. Then let someone else worry about maintaining a few key packages.
We need a backports repository for abrowser, linux-libre, and hplip.
It shouldn't be too terribly difficult to do either. Such a distribution would give you the best of both worlds. That is long term support plus good hardware compatibility over the course of a three year period.
There actually is a repository for the linux-libre kernel which is managed 'just right':
Yeah, I have been thinking that too. But why you want it to be based on Ubuntu? I am interested to know why.
In my opinion Debian is a better choise because it does not have that much trademark and branding things like Ubuntu and when it gets good supplement repos the fact that there is not two annual distribution releases per year can release resources to keep the supplement repos in good condition.
On the other hand Ubuntu is a little bit more polished for average user and that average user can get more software installed out of repos (users must be able to do what they want to do). The polishing issue though should be solved by forking a polished version of Debian, and the software out of repos should be solved by good supplement repos.
Edit: By the way Debian already have official backports, which would help in doing supplement repo.
I am a member!
I'm assuming Debian does not have in its backports the packages which define Trisquel (abrowser, linux-libre, etc). The reason for using Ubuntu is that it is a bit more polished. I was thinking (or Debian) in my head. Chose not to write that though.
I am in total agree with Chris on this one (and expect that I understand it right). I think that making a distribution based on Ubuntu (only) could be the best solution, not that Debian is bad, but this could help everyone (mostly Ruben). And why this ? Because of all the support behind ! Trisquel could even become (ok I am thinking a little bit far but still) a "partner" of Ubuntu providing a Free-Software version of Ubuntu and could even receive some support (Money, Servers etc..) like Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc...
More than that, a Trisquel Software Center could be awesome ! Okay we are a few bunch of awesome people (:D) but just imagine Free-Software being soled on Trisquel (like on Ubuntu with the USC) that would make everyone happy and even help Ruben to earn more money to dedicated itself more time for Trisquel (if not working on it full time with a strong financial help behind).
A lot of people would have less fear to do the switch because it will stay (mostly) the same as their Ubuntu experience (like me moving from Arch Linux to Parabola GNU/Linux).
We could turn ourselves into a big community that could have the time to do more of the "secondary" work (since the major part is done by Ubuntu itself) and by this, focusing and more interesting stuff that would make Trisquel a better place (and yes, better than it is now :D).
(PS: Sorry for this but I was a little bit enthusiast about a TSC - Trisquel Software Center - For trisquel... maybe to much xD).
Hmm, patching stuff is not trivial unless someone has made it to be trivial. If you are doing it to be trivial you need quite some skills in programming and you have to understand the software you are patching, else nasty ooops can happen.
I am a member!
Did I or someone say or imply it was trivial? It certainly requires a technical user.
One said he could patch FF, but that he haven't patched anything before. The offer is appreciated but it implies that patching would be trivial. It is not unless you get the patch from somewhere. If you have to make the patch, then it is not trivial.
I definitely didn't think it would be a trivial task. I'm not going to overstate my abilities, because I've not done any serious programming (e.g. hacking Gecko). But I have written some small programs in C (and I know some other languages better).
I will at least check out what Ruben's done with the sources on my summer holidays and see what I can learn.
Ok, that's a great attitude and I think you can do it.
Startpage/Ixquick.com provides anonymous image search but they don't have custom image search.
If unhappy with DuckDuckGo, hack it http://duckduckhack.com/
Heh, the joy of the "latest and greatest".
Don't even know if this "bug" affects my 16.0 version of IceWeasel...
It most certainly does.
Yeah ! (not...) I had the little hope that it had been solved... silly me xD
Yeah ! (not...) I had the little hope that it had been solved... silly me xD
The fix was released the same day. The result is in the version 16.0.1.
It's the version that has been released :D Thanks for the information !
Just as a late update to this thread, I just got offered an Abrowser 16 update through apt-get today.
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 22:53 +0100, name at domain
wrote:
> Just as a late update to this thread, I just got offered an Abrowser 16
> update through apt-get today.
After updating I'm unable to open my Abrowser. I think it has something
to do with one of my addons because my daughter's log in on the same
laptop opens with no problem.
Anyone know how to open Abrowser without any addons?
--
Sent from Trisquel Gnu/Linux https://trisquel.info
Red Baptist
Blog: http://redbaptist.parlementum.net
Microblog: https://parlementum.net/redbaptist
XMPP: redbaptist [at] riseup [dot] net
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 15:14 +0800, Red Baptist wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 22:53 +0100, name at domain
> wrote:
> > Just as a late update to this thread, I just got offered an Abrowser 16
> > update through apt-get today.
>
>
> After updating I'm unable to open my Abrowser. I think it has something
> to do with one of my addons because my daughter's log in on the same
> laptop opens with no problem.
>
> Anyone know how to open Abrowser without any addons?
To answer my own question, I was able to open my Abrowser after a few
minutes. It notified me that there was a problem and I can open the safe
version with all the addons turned off.
Found the addon problem: Tor Button.
I've followed the instructions as per the thread in this forum and is
now running Abrowser again.
--
Sent from Trisquel GNU/Linux
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios