On Mon 06 Feb 2012 12:23:37 PM CET, Petko wrote:
On 02/06/2012 12:14 PM, Viktor Basso wrote:
On 02/06/2012 10:22 AM, Jason Warner wrote:
Hi All -
Firefox ESR is indeed interesting, and it would seem to answer some
of the question corporations might have about Firefox, but I think
it is less interesting for Ubuntu.
Firefox adopted a rapid release model for various reasons, but among
them was that they needed the browser to keep up with the pace of
innovation on the internet. Ubuntu needs to be out in front of these
things and be pushing the very edge of what is possible,
particularly in the browser. I do not think we can ship a browser
that will lag by 12 months in any sense; the risks too far outweigh
the rewards.
I'm afraid that even a year lag (ESR update period) would put Ubuntu
at severe disadvantage to other platforms. Imagine a world where G+
or Facebook or some new whizbang product didn't work on Ubuntu
because the browser shipped didn't support some new
technology/javascript engine/platform component. That is neither
something we want nor can afford. We have to be better, we have to
be faster and we have to be braver.
The browser is among the chief components of the desktop that needs
to keep pace (or better) and I feel adopting Firefox ESR would be
the wrong choice for Ubuntu desktop.
Thanks,
Jason
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
In Precise we've upgraded to version 11 of both Firefox and
Thunderbird. But the reason for starting to upgrade frequently
was said to be that Mozillas support periods were limited for
newer versions after 3.6. But now we have the 10ESR versions of
both. Why are they not used instead of the short-term 11?
Thanks
I can agree that Ubuntu "needs to be out in front of these things".
But I do not believe that the Long Term Support releases should.
+1 on that . That's the actual difference between LTS and regular
releases - that LTS provides a stable environment (which always costs
being aback on the latest technologies ) . So there's the choice -
stable&a bit otdated or changing&latest . LTS should provide the first
(say with the option to upgrade to the latest version from the
repositories) .
Yes!
The LTS should be secure, stable and supported.
Not "better, faster, braver" as Jason pointed out.
--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
