I was under the impression version 3.1 wasn't supported by Mozilla, or have I got the wrong end of the stick? I also thought I read that changes were made by the Iceweasel team which are fed back to Mozilla for inclusion, or not, in Firefox.
If I'm wrong then why does it require a dedicated guy to strip the branding from Firefox? Why does he want Firefox back in Debian?

Can't answer that one for you.
Because Mozilla has a license on the trademark. If you had really read the links provided you would know this.
Probably to stop the confusion people such as yourself create everytime you post something like this.

I meant that just stripping branding ought not to be very hard though, perhaps, it is far too hard to just automate.
I also understood it that Mozilla are fine with people packaging Firefox (everyone else seems to do it) and Debian devs aren't always bothered about trademarks (as they weren't about Firefox). Isn't the whole reason why they can't use the trademark because Debian devs were or are patching Firefox independantly of the Mozilla branch so they are not allowed to call it Firefox? The reason I brought up the support for 3.1 is that if Mozilla aren't patching it and Iceweasel is Firefox without chnages then Debian are shipping, in their stable relesae, a browser which will remain unpatched.

The Mozilla license doesn't allow anyone to modify Firefox and use the branding. Debian, being socially adept, understand that things need fixing occasionally so they fix security issues. They don't do anything else. Mozilla forbids this IF the group fixing issues use the Mozilla trademarks. Yet, lo and behold (detect the sarcasm yet), Iceweasel and Firefox ARE the same thing JUST with different branding AND security fixes IF Mozilla hasn't fixed the security issue before Debian does.

When it is all said and done the exact same things work with Iceweasel as they do with Firefox (assuming of course the developer for plugins does a thorough job) and even then (as already pointed out) you can change the user agent setting to fix any issue caused by developers who aren't doing a thorough job. Now you can't use a Firefox plugin on IE (or Chrome etc) and expect it to work, even with a user agent change.

What would you prefer, a name change or a security hole? If you don't mind a security hole by all means use Firefox 3.1 or whatever.

As I said, it's the same except when it isn't. Calling it the same, full stop, is missing the point to my mind.

Which begs the question, what is your point? You just stated it's the same so what's your point, is it you have a problem with Debian not using the Firefox name or is it you have a problem with the terms of the Mozilla license?

You are correct on the version number in Squeeze. How you compare it to Ubuntu is silly.

Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is based on Squeeze. It does use a different version of FF 3.6.

Newer versions of FF are used in newer versions of Ubuntu because they are not based on Squeeze. They are, for regular releases, based on Debian Sid which is in fact using Iceweasel 9. The Ubuntu LTS currently under development is also using FF9 I believe or will be shortly.

I am posting this from my Squeeze install that I do not use much because I had to check to see what version this is. I also fired up the wifes laptop to check what 10.04 is running.

You are comparing different, unrelated versions of OS's and for some reason think this has something to do with FF/IW.

You could save yourself a lot of grief, and folks here a lot of time by simply going to the FF website and the IW website and seeing what is being offered on them. This would be comparing actual offering of a browser not comparing what different distros offer in different release version.

A basic understanding of the release cycle for Debian Stable, Testing and Sid along with Ubuntu LTS and regular releases would also go a long way to bring a modicum of understanding about what folks here are trying, with a lot more patience than I have today, to explain to you.

This is not being patronizing in the least. This is simply a grumpy geezer being really tired of folks that think the name and logo count as meaningful code.

If you have trouble with add ons I would suggest using the ones for the version you are using.

I use both FF and IW. I am having some trouble with add ons in both where I am using the newest versions. This is because the add ons are not keeping up. This does not in any way effect many add ons but it does some. This is a problem with Mozilla and the speeding up of their release cycle and the add on devs having trouble keeping up.

This again has nothing to do with Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora or any other distro.

The Debian GNU/Linux FAQ - Getting and installing Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/de...s-updatestable
Newer versions of Iceweasel can be found in the mozilla.debian.net repo.

Although the version number in Stable isn't the same as the current release version it does have all of the security fixes backported. So even though it doesn't say Iceweasel 9 all of the security/bug fixes are backported to it.

Which is the main reason Debian calls it Iceweasel and not Firefox, as Mozilla doesn't like patches.

Debian will have just as many files on its servers with firefox as they would with iceweasel.

Please read the posts here and the links provided, they explain everything. Or provide some evidence that iceweasel is not firefox, and/or stop with this pointlessness.

I read the posts Cascade9 and the reason given was as I described -- Mozilla would not let the Debian team patch Firefox independantly and release it as Firefox. Have I read this wrong?
If it's patched to a different level, as Iceweasel 3.1 must be, then it's a different browser as it could end up functionally different to Firefox 3.1.
If the above is false then I'll admit they're the same -- but nobody has disputed this.
If Iceweasel is Firefox then what version is Iceweasel 3.1? Is it now unsupported and, therefore, unsafe? Which browser exploits which are found for Firefox 3.1 apply to Iceweasel 3.1?

I mentioned the version numbers in Ububtu and as release because someone suggested that Debian was not behind on version numbers. I know why it's like that and have no problem with it.


"It is the same except for when it's not." is a jokey expression meaning that it cannot be guaranteed to be the same. I know it's a little quoloquial but I would expect the "except for when it's not" to show that there is some doubt inferred. Yes, I do think the Mozilla licensing problem is a bad thing as, I beleive, do the Iceweasel team themselves unless, again, I misread.

Yes, you're completely missing the point.
MoCo has a user/community edition. All distributions patch it to fit in their distro.

Problem for Debian:
*You're only allowed to use it under MoCo's terms.
*Debian support more architectures.
*Debian aims to keep every package in stable the same (backporting fixes instead of upgrading/breaking everything).

Renaming it was the *only* legal option.
MoCo's development model simply isn't usable for Debian (this has nothing to do with the actual source code).

PS: Did it ever cross your mind that Mike Hommey is both a MoCo (firefox) employee and the Debian Iceweasel maintainer.

It is you who is missing the point here. You are in fact arguing about something you have obviously read next to nothing about beforehand. If you had read the links provided and the many posts in this thread you would now know that:

- Firefox in Debian is called "Iceweasel" due to Mozilla's licensing and trademark restrictions, not because of this perceived "stallmanism" or adherence to GNU philosophy.

- The version of Iceweasel in the stable branch goes through the same process as any other Debian package - thus it does not get version updates and security issues and bugs are fixed in that version - they are not "fixed" by uploading a newer version. The same goes for the Linux kernel, xorg, etc, etc.

- Debian could include Firefox if they simply packaged it and uploaded it - this does not suit the Debian release model however (which aims to produce a tried, tested and stable release and then maintain, polish and fix security holes, etc) and one package should not be an exception - especially something like a browser which a good percentage of users may not even use.

- The argument "lags behind" is an invalid one. Every package in the stable branch "lags behind", if this is a problem - run testing or unstable, backport your own software or switch to another distro which has the newer versions you want.

- As an example Chromium also lags behind: http://packages.debian.org/search?su...romium-browser

Though you see very few Chrome/Chromium users complaining about this (or that Google Chrome is not included...).

- The version of Iceweasel in testing / unstable is usually just a re-branded Firefox built for the platform with changed branding. It does not get security updates, it's simply based on new upstream releases (from Mozilla).

- Newer versions of Iceweasel for the stable branch are available from the mozilla.debian.net repository or from backports. These are usually built from the Debianised source from the unstable repo.

- The add-on issues are Mozilla issues and either Mozilla or the add-on developers are responsible, not Debian, not Iceweasel.

In my experience those complaining the most vocally about Iceweasel fall in to two categories:

1) Those that generally have not read any documentation as to the reasoning behind the re-branding, do not understand the Debian release model, have not bothered to check if newer versions are available, expect Firefox to just update itself as in windows and misguidedly believe the re-branding is purely the product of "stallmanism". These people only notice because of re-branding and renaming - they are ignorant of countless other Debian packages with backported security fixes.

2) Those misguided/misled by the former.

When all is said and done, you can still go on claiming "Iceweasel!=Firefox" if you wish, but then I feel you may be missing one of the main advantages of open source software - plus it is not at all helpful to newer Debian users who will on reading these types of comments "simply fall at the first fence" and go and install Firefox based on bad or inaccurate advice. Those same users will then go forth spreading the same FUD to others.

This is wrong because Iceweasel IS Firefox in the same way that Chromium IS Chromium despite numerous security patches: http://packages.debian.org/changelog...eze6/changelog

The Linux Kernel IS also the Linux Kernel: http://packages.debian.org/changelog...2-38/changelog

Do you also intend to advise every user about these packages? Or are they simply ok because the branding and name are unchanged from their upstream branding/naming?

So Iceweasel 3.1 with a backported fix is identical and will always behave identically to Firefox 3.1?
I'm afraid you're contradicting yourself here -- if Debian weren't doing something to Firefox that other distro's don't then there would be no problem.

This bickering on a subject you do not, obviously, understand is childish.

I recommend that you use either Ubuntu or Mint (Ubuntu for MS users) as those users really enjoy this type of ignorant FUD and propagate a good percentage of it.

You may, however, if you get the time wish to consider exactly why those distros base their eye candy enhanced releases on Debian in the first place.

In spite of your bullheaded insistence that the universe is the shape you have been lead to believe, in time, you may decide to actually consider the documentation more important than the hysteria of the blogosphere.

I'll ask again:
So Iceweasel 3.1 with a backported fix is identical and will always behave identically to Firefox 3.1?
If Iceweasel is Firefox then what version is Iceweasel 3.1?
Is it now unsupported and, therefore, unsafe?
Which browser exploits which are found for Firefox 3.1 apply to Iceweasel 3.1?

Surely you ought to be happy that Debian has made a more stable version of an old Firefox, rather than claiming it's the same?
I love the asinine assumption that I'm anti-Debian or anti-stable releases or anti-Iceweasel.