Fedora ain't playin' around w/Firefox 3.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 11:43 -0400, Mauriat wrote: 
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> <pocallaghan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> indirecty we have to accept or disable the "services".
> >
> > 1) The "services" aren't the browser and thus are in no way involved
> > with the freeness of the software, and 2) if you disagree then simply
> > disable them.
> 
> 1. The "Services" are built into the browser provided by the company(+
> its partners) that produces the browser. They are coupled, no?

The browser provides access to the Services. The Services are not part
of the browser and they can be disabled without losing any browser
funcionality that doesn't relate specifically to them.

> 2. Perhaps they should not be enabled by default in Fedora?

Agreed. My only quibble about all this is that the Services are enabled
by default, but against that you do get asked the question before
proceeding so it's not like it's behind your back. I imagine that
enabling by default is hand-holding mostly for the Windows crowd (I'm
not justifying it, but I can understand the argument).

> >>  This is all and it is simple, right.  But that does not mean that
> >> they do not have any trackware/spyware added?  Are there other things
> >> that we need to look out for?
> >
> > If you are worried then download the source and look at it. Rebuild it
> > if you want. That's the ultimate guarantee of free software.
> 
> That's unrealistic to the average user don't you think?

As it always is for free software, but you can be sure that if you don't
do it someone else will. The ability to read the source is important not
because the vast majority are going to do it because they aren't. It's
because it keeps the producers honest.

> Some people believe there is some implicit "trust" in using open
> source software. I disagree, the only thing you are guaranteed with
> open source software is the agenda of the developers (in all fairness
> this most often aligns with the users desires). However seeing that
> Mozilla Corp is 85% (?) funded by Google, is it unreasonable to
> question their intentions?

It's entirely reasonable and I don't question it.

> >> * To those that also use Ubuntu,  Did firefox do the same thing on
> >> Ubuntu? or did it just happen here?
> >
> > I installed FF 3 on Ubuntu yesterday and can't honestly remember.
> 
> Well it would have helped if you noticed.

I would have if I had thought of it. Since I didn't think of it, I
created a new virtual machine and installed Kubuntu on it. I then
installed FF3 using apt-get. The only difference I can see with the
Fedora version is that Ubuntu doesn't present the Web Services page, but
the options are all enabled exactly as with the Fedora version.

> Someone using Ubuntu - I would ask if these "Services" are enabled by default?
> 
> >> Now the same can be said of firefox.  You can tell firefox, which
> >> sites are safe and which ones are not, google collects some data about
> >> which sites you visit and ..., this is the part that makes me
> >> concerned.  Otherwise, I would not have responded or asked in the
> >> first place.  We have to read carefully and the fine print that is
> >> also hard to read.
> >
> > Once again, if this worries you then disable it. At least Mozilla
> > clearly states up front what is involved, which cannot be said for a lot
> > of other crapware out there.
> 
> Well seeing as Fedora doesn't ship with so-called crapware that
> comparison is meaningless.

Antonio mentioned something called AVG, which AFAIK is not a Fedora
package either (maybe I'm wrong), so that's why I brought it up.

> While I agree some people maybe over reacting - seeing as they can
> totally disable this (as I do), but I disagree that everything is
> clearly stated. It did seem a bit confusing on this rather unusual
> start page, as well as having to accept any agreements.

The page in question opens in a tab and you don't have to click on
anything. It's a not a click-through dialogue.

poc