They are interchangeable when they are the same version numbers. Your point is mute because you keep going on about with same misguided idea.

Firefox 8 is NOT Firefox 9 yet Iceweasel 8 IS Firefox 8 etc. Just because Debian has changed a logo and name does not mean Iceweasel is diffferent to the equivalent Firefox it was built from. Understand this small, but important, point and a whole new world of posting will open up for you

1 members found this post helpful.

Yes, nice patronisation.
There are two points here:
1) They are different because they are -- the code is not identical in both.
2) The version of Iceweasel included with Debian can lag behind the latest Firefox version.

Point 2 may seem irrelevant to you especially if you only use Iceweasel but it means that telling someone who is moving to Debian that Iceweasel is Firefox could lead to them posting a pissed off reply when their add-ons don't work or Icewesel doesn't yet support something Firefox does in its latest version.

If Debian included a Firefox which was a version behind the latest then people would point this out, as they do for some other packages. The fact they label it another name and it is very slightly different means that it is both correct and easier to just say that Iceweasel is not Firefox, but very close to it, and have done with it.

I am not sure how far back you have to go to find a big "lag". Haven't seen more than 2 and 1/2 day lag in 3 years and that was the only time that it was more than a day.

Wouldn't even swear that it was that much as Lenny was not the OS I used regularly. Could be I just didn't upgrade at the right time.

The Iceweasel in the Squeeze repositories is identified as 3.5.16-11 in Synaptic yet the latest Firefox version in Ubuntu, for example, is a 5 release and the download from Mozilla is 9.
I realise that Mozilla rush out release numbers nowadays but version numbers occasionally matter.

Not at all, it was fact not patronisation.

Did you read any of the links provided and the reasoning for it? If upstream wishes to use Debians code adjustments (security) then this is a good thing. If they don;t then so be it. However, the release is the same apart from branding and name when they are released.
Only if the user chooses to let it lag. There is plenty of documentation that shows how to stay with the latest.

Again there is plenty of documentation as I said in my point above.

But that would be misleading wouldn't it? What would be better is to tell them the truth and show them how to get the latest version to use if they so choose.

So it is not necessarily identical then is it? It's a version of Firefox shipped with Debian but to just tell people "It's Firefox" is as misleading as me telling them it's not.

I think that people say that Iceweasel is Firefox so that newcomers don't get confused but I feel that is misleading. It is both not pointing out why there is Iceweasel, which matters because people may want to get in touch with Mozilla to ask why not, and it can also be confusing because it may not be immediately apparent that the version numbers do tie up.
I don't see how it's better to say "Debian, by default, provides you with an older version of Firefox labelled as IceWeasel" than "Debian provides Iceweasel, based on Firefox of the same version number.

I think you both are right. Iceweasel is Firefox, but only as long as the version you speak of is supported by Mozilla. After that it is patched and maintained by the Debian developers, which makes it different from Firefox. But I never had any problem that an add-on or plug-in became incompatible or something similar back in my Debian ways. And that versions in Debian Stable for any software lag behind the newest should be clear to anyone who knows what the "Stable" in Debian Stable actually means. If you are after the latest software use Debian Sid, if you can handle it.
By the way, if your add-ons/plug-ins don't work it is in 99% the fault of the plug-in, not Iceweasel. Just because they check for Firefox, but not for Iceweasel. Most of the time it helps to change the user-agent string.

TobiSGD: To me that's almost exactly how I think it ought to be explained and I'm not just saying that because you suggested I may have something right.
Personally I think there's an attitude that if Iceweasel cannot be said to be Firefox that is somehow detrimental to Iceweasel. I simply think they should not be referred to as the same thing because it can cause confusion.
I did read years back of changes to Iceweasel making it function differently to Firefox. This was what I was trying to get at about ensuring that they "kept up". Things are great now by all accounts but with potentially different maintainers it's not set in stone.
The Add-ons I appreciate has a lot to do with hard-coded version numbers or names and can be worked around. But, as mentioned above, I think this is something which can catch new users out and is not solved by pretending that Iceweasel is what they know as Firefox.

Nothing much has changed apart from the creation of the mozilla.debian.net repo which makes things a bit simpler for newer users. Later versions of Iceweasel have always been available in the backports repository for as long as I can remember.

But anyway... all packages in the Debian Stable release "lag behind", yet you only seem to be worried about Iceweasel and it's changed branding? The Stable branch freezes on release and there are almost no version upgrades from then on to any packages. If you don't like this then you should switch to a rolling release or a more bleeding edge distribution.

I doubt it really matters how you or I see Iceweasel, it's much more important to know the real facts about why it exists. Despite the abundance of bullshit on this subject, the Debian project do not endorse it for "relgious" reasons. If Debian were strict about non free software, they wouldn't host the contrib and non-free repos and Debian would be listed on gnu.org. If you read the links which have been posted you'll see that Iceweasel exists because Mozilla do not permit the modification of Firefox and redistribution under the Firefox name. This in itself is incompatible with Debian's release model - which involves backporting security/bug fixes into older versions of software to maitain a stable system.

If you dislike this backporting of security bug fixes, then I feel I should warn you that if you run Debian 6, you're not running "the Linux kernel". You're running a 2.6.32 kernel which has a lot of code introduced from newer kernels... thus Debian may not be for you.

caravel: I explained in one of my posts how I would explain Iceweasel to someone and I don't think it lacks any facts. What it does do is seem to annoy people who think that calling it something other than "Just Firefox" is a bad thing.
I am fully aware that it's "Mozilla's fault" as far as it goes and that's actually a reason I stated why, perhaps, people should not simply say "Iceweasel Is Firefox" as many seem to. Personally, I agree with the Iceweasel developer in one of the articles linked -- I think it would be good if Firefox could be included in Debian without having to worry about branding.
The reason I think versions matter more when talking about Firefox is that for most other applications you take the version or upgrade -- but this may not be the full solution for, for example, name-sniffing plugins.
As I said, this matters to new users and frankly the attitude of "Iceweasel is Firefox" isn't helping anyone. Iceweasel's great, I'm sure (I know the versions I tried were), but why say it's Firefox when the situation is more complicated?

Because it IS Firefox. Extensions, Themes, and plugins all work exactly the same on Iceweasel as they do with Mozilla's Firefox.

The only real difference is the name and artwork.

# apt-cache policy iceweasel
iceweasel:
Installed: 9.0.1-1
Candidate: 9.0.1-1

Which is the exact same browser as:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1

Debian User Forums • View topic - Iceweasel IS Firefox - http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=73796

It's works with extensions _now_ but it's a kind-of fork so is this guaranteed? Is it just a direct copy of Firefox with strings changed for name and icon? How about version 3.x or 5.x -- who are they maintained by? Which versions are code-identical apart from strings?

Also, since you're insisting they're the same then I take it you prefer Debian to have it's own labelled version named Iceweasel if so, why? I would imagine it would be better if Mozilla changed their policy a little and Debian got Firefox like everyone else -- even if it was just so that there's not a tonne of duplicated files sitting around on their servers.

So lets get this right are you also inferring that Ubuntu's Banshee or Rhythmbox are not Banshee or Rhythmbox because Ubuntu has added code (Ubuntu Music Store) to them? Are you also saying that any delay at all in releasing the latest and greatest means they are not the same? If the answer to either of these is yes don't you think you're being a little to pedantic?

I think if Ubuntu have changed the code of the players themselves -- i.e. they're not plugins then they are different versions of the players at the least yes. If someone had a problem with Banshee and didn't tell you it was Ubuntu you'd either not know what they were taking about or potentially not be able to recreate the problem. If they're some kind of plugin you'd still need to know of course but the players would be the same.
If Iceweasel can be a different version of Firefox if only because of Debian fixes and it's labelled differently then why insist it's the same?
A delay is expected and is often the cause of user dificulties with stable distributions. Ordinarily you'd say "my Wine version is older" (for example) but what people seem to be suggesting is that for Iceweasel you say "My Firefox version is older". Apparently this is because they are the same even when they are not. I'm not sure how it helps anyone saying they're the same.

This is a user problem not a program problem. If a user says they are having an issue with Banshee but doesn't tell you what version of Linux they are using then they are going to get a generic answer
Um who, apart from you in this discussion, is saying Iceweasel is a different version of Firefox. Iceweasel is Firefox, like it or lump it, that is the fact of the matter.
it is par for the course. Up until recently Mozilla did not have a release every couple of months. Trying to keep up with the likes of Gnome means they will have a Firefox 99 in a very short time.
Debian users call it Iceweasel, others call it Firefox. It is the same as people from the USA saying Trash and people from England or Australia saying Rubbish. Same thing different name.