My Problem with Debian
I use Debian based distros. My favourites are Ubuntu, Sidux and MEPIS. In fact, I am solidly in the Debian camp. Despite this I have a problem with Debian and Debian users. It goes like this.
I installed Sidux the other day. I like it. I will keep it, but not run it as my main distro. In using it I encountered an attitude that I have a problem with. I was using the package manager to install a browser other than Konqueror. I wanted to install Firefox. I did a search for Firefox which is the most common open source browser. It came up blank. No Firefox. I did the same for Thunderbird. Same result. Next I tried Seamonkey. Nada!
You see Debian does not like these names. They use all of these programs, but insist on branding them with their own names. This is all fair. They are released under GPL. So what is the problem? If the GPL is good enough to allow Debian to use the programs, why can’t they credit the developers by allowing the familiar names to stand?
These same people criticize Ubuntu for doing the same thing to Debian. They claim that Ubuntu does not give back to the Debian downstream work and does not credit Debian for the work it does. Am I missing something here? Isn’t Debian guilty of exactly this? Aren’t they living off the work of the Mozilla folks and not crediting them for their upstream work? I see this hypocrisy. Am I the only one?
This practice is common in Debian and elsewhere. It is legal, but what kind of a statement does it make? It says that you like the product and are willing to use it, but you want to give it your own stamp. What Debian wants to do is to use the product by not use the Mozilla trademarks. In other words they want to sign their name to someone else’s work. It is akin to plagiarism in academics. Mozilla of course is having none of it. It began with a problem over Debian’s use of Thunderbird (now Icedove), but has spread to Firefox (now Iceweasel), Seamonkey (now Iceape) and Sunbird (now Iceowl).
The GPL gives users the right to use and change the work. That is not my problem. It is the disrespect. I wonder how the developers feel about their work being used in this way. Debian users might know what it feels like as many have expressed anger and rage when they see what Ubuntu has done. However, Ubuntu is more different from Debian than Iceweasel is from Firefox. I would like to know what upstream contributions that the Iceweasel folks are making to Firefox.
For users this is most confusing. I did a search in the Debian forums and found that people new to Debian wanted to install Firefox only to be told that Iceweasel IS Firefox or the Iceweasel = Firefox. This is tantamount to admitting that Debian is taking someone else’s work and not giving them credit for it.
Some users still want Firefox, but they cannot install it from the Debian folks, even if they wanted to. Their private squabble with Mozilla has deprived Debian users from using the official products of a major open source developer. To me this is a travesty and the users lose out in the end. Debian is showing disrespect to Firefox. It is an easy problem to resolve. Give users the choice. Instead they leave users in the uncomfortable position of being caught in the crossfire.
Finally, many, but not all, Debian users like to come across as holier than thou with respect to other distros, including Ubuntu. They think that they are the bastions of GNU Linux and respect the GPL and the ethics of open source while others are willing to bend the rules and compromise. They like to criticize others for doing what they are doing. They think that they can bend the rules and believe they don’t. This is called hypocrisy.
The next time you see a Debian user criticize another distro, remind them that they are guilty of the same kind of thing. They are taking without giving back and they are being hypocrites by maintaining a aura of sanctimonious innocence.
Debian users should get it if anyone does. It helps you to understand only when you are on the receiving end and they have communicated that loudly and clearly, to the degree that Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical has responded directly to these charges on more than one occasion. Debian users like to paint themselves as victim, but they are also doing the same thing and do not acknowledge it. They are not the innocents that they pretend to be.
I hope that the rift between the distros are healed. I hope that people will look at the complete picture and not criticize without being willing to be criticized. I hope to see Firefox one day in the Debian repositories.
Ubuntu users know that Ubuntu is based on Debian. They like the direction that Ubuntu has taken and they don’t trivialize the heritage that we have. Ubuntu may have changed the name, but they have done more than this. They have chosen their own direction and added to what Debian has done. Ubuntu is more than a Debian clone with a different trademark and name. I hope that Debian users respect what Ubuntu has done, without having to agree with the direction or methodology.
It is all about respect. Debian deserves respect for its longevity and consistency. Ubuntu deserves respect for its willingness to take risks and chart a new course that pushes the limits, even beyond what Sidux does. Mozilla deserves respect. It deserves to have its trademarks treated with respect. It deserves to have its name being used. Finally, users need to be respected. They deserve to be given choice. They should be allowed to choose between the official product and a clone which neither credits nor respects the developer. As they say, to get respect you have to give it.
You have it wrong, Mozilla did not want Debian to call it firefox and thunderbird, IF Debian applied patched to it without getting mozilla to approve the patches.
Debian then had to change the names and remove the branding to keep mozilla happy.
This mess lays at the feet of Mozilla, NOT Debian
habtool
December 1, 2008
Habtool,
If I got it wrong then why does every other distribution have Firefox in its repositories and not Debian? Clearly, Mozilla has no problem with the other distros using Firefox.
My question remains, why does Debian not allow Debian users to run Firefox as it is, just like the 300 other distros do?
If Debian is modifying Firefox and the others, then Mozilla was right to ask them to stop. I have no problem with Debian being able to change Mozilla programs and distributing them under another name. My problem is: a) they don’t provide unaltered Firefox for those who want it in their repositories (it is an attitude problem on their part) and b) that the Debian developers cry foul when others (Ubuntu?) do the same thing to them and do not contribute downstream.
It seems that Debian wants it both ways. They want to take from others and not give back and to accuse others of the same thing they are doing.
BTW, what is wrong with Firefox that Debian users can’t have it in the same way everyone else does? Nobody has yet explained this.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
Maybe I am wrong, faint though that possibility may be
, but it seems that this issue is rooted in an attitude of superiority. They do not think that Mozilla’s logo which is copyrighted meets their strict standards therefore they will change it which caused Mozilla to request the name change. However, no other distro has this attitude, hence their self-righteous superiority.
This does not alter the fact that they do not give credit to Mozilla and in fact have shown disrespect, use the product without contributing downstream, and deprive their users of using authentic Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey or Sunbird if they want to. This again comes back to their superior attitude that users cannot choose for themselves. They will decide what their users can do, like it or leave it.
I don’t like respect people who are full of themselves and I don’t respect it in a Linux distribution. At the very least they ought to shut about Ubuntu using their work and not contributing back.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
Self-Righteous Linux geeks??
Naaaaaaw
I agree with the theme of your post. Some people are just too full of themselves, and the FOSS community is full of such people.
Anon E Moose
December 1, 2008
You are wrong, but you insist on not listening or reading.
Debian patches the software installed on debian system, they “won’t” allow you to run firefox because they patch it for you and make it more stabilized on linux. Thus the Mozilla guys told them they can’t call it firefox if it is patched. SO be it, they change the name.
Ubuntu probably uses a less patched version, so it is called Firefox. It doesn’t matter the fact, in both you essentially use FF.
oz
December 1, 2008
I understand the angst, but why not just build a repository with all your favorite apps useing reprepro and be done with it?
JohnMc
December 1, 2008
It all comes down to Debian’s insistence on absolute purity of GPL and Mozilla copyright of logos. On my Sidux box I just created a bin folder under home and installed Firefox directly from Mozilla in there, I then linked the plugins to the plugins in /usr/lib and ignored Iceweasel. One advantage of this is you can use the check for updates function in Firefox. I would prefer not to have to do this, but it is an interesting learning exercise to bypass the issue.
I also stopped using Sidux kernels because they would not work with Nvidia and ATI xorg binarires, so now my Sidux is effectively Debian Sid, I commented out the sidux repos. Why Sidux does this I have not investigated. I find installing Sidux and Xfce4 makes a great learning tool, I now have network shares setup, stuff Ubuntu/Gnome does automatically, but Xfce makes you add manually.
GregE
December 1, 2008
You are an informed troll.
Tom
December 1, 2008
Anon E. Moose,
You hit the nail on the head. I like Debian. It is the attitude that sucks. I think that you can be so principled that you lose credibility and at some point people don’t want any part of you. That is why Ubuntu is soaring and Debian is not even an also ran. They get it and the Debian folks don’t. It is about computers and users and the experience, not standing on principles that hurt those you claim to represent. Someday the Debian developers will look back and say that they were right and all of the users who passed them by were wrong. I can see them in their rocking chairs even now, socks and sandals and all!
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
No one “deserves” respect. Respect is EARNED.
Vonskippy
December 1, 2008
Oz,
Exactly where am I wrong? It happens so seldom that I want to record it for posterity.
I believe that you are wrong. They were asked to change the name by Mozilla because the disagreed with having a copyrighted logo which goes against the Debian policy. This has nothing to do with GPL, but rather a Debian internal policy. It is so Pharisaical of them. They can rest assured that the earth will continue to turn on its axis due to their high principles. This makes all of the rest of the distros wrong and anyone who dares to disagree. Get it? This is religious zeal to the extreme.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
JohnMc,
Angst? Me?
Somebody has to call them like they see them, otherwise we would be dominated by zealots. Oh, wait a minute. Some people like to be self-righteous snobs and extremists. I’ll leave that to the folks at Debian. I’ll just use a distro that makes sense. I have over 300 to choose from.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
GregE,
I could if I did not have good alternatives. I like Sidux, but was turned off by people in the forums who represent this extremist view. If you want help installing Firefox, you can wait till H— freezes over. I like your style, though. You represent the best that Linux has to offer. You are a problem solver and don’t take no for an answer.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
Tom,
What is wrong with being informed? I am not trolling, but hope that this opens a few eyes. Debian users deserve better and Ubuntu users don’t need to apologize any longer to Debian for its heritage and use of downstream development. If Debian can do it, so can others which is what spawned this piece. I will tell Debian apologists to stick where the sun doesn’t shine and hope that others will do the same.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
“They were asked to change the name by Mozilla because the disagreed with having a copyrighted logo which goes against the Debian policy.”
Really, and where is your source for this? Because the explanation on Wikipedia makes a lot more sense and is the one the people above have been trying to inform you about.
I have a relaxed attitude towards all of this, but I do get annoyed when people get it wrong or don’t understand the problems that the open source community is facing. This is just the tip of the iceberg, these trademark and copyright issues will plague us for many years to come, because open source is NOT developed by altruistic individuals in general. Even open source companies have to protect their investment from someone making a bad product and stamping their name on it.
Arne
December 1, 2008
You blog is roughly 2 years late…
don’t waste time mummbling here… go do some googling and understand the WHOLE story before committing like an idiot.
btw, i am using Fedora.
ca
December 1, 2008
Vonskippy,
Respect is earned, but a certain amount of respect is due to people without it being earned. We respect people’s human rights without them being earned. We give others respect so that we will get it in return. In other words, there is a baseline of respect based on the worth of all individuals. From this we can earn more.
So in all of this, what have the folks at Debian done to earn respect? They stood on a principle and did nothing to earn it. Anybody can make a policy and make claims against it without ever doing anything useful. Wouldn’t it be preferable to actually accomplish something by action?
Mozilla deserves respect by virtue of its accomplishments and contributions to open source. Debian deserves respect for their long term commitment to open source. Ubuntu deserves respect for their innovation and aggressive development. If we try we can find things to respect almost anyone for, even if we disagree with them.
My problem with Debian is with an attitude that exists in the community. It isn’t nice and if the Debian folks can stop blaming others for their problems long enough they will see that attitude may be part of the reason why Debian has fallen on hard times.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
Arne,
Relaxed is good. However, the folks at Debian have been casting blame on others for their falling on hard times. Clearly they aren’t relaxed or else they would not be making charges against the Ubuntu community.
People work hard to create a product and in the case of Mozilla against all odds. Few people would have given them a chance at the outset of succeeding where Netscape failed. They have created a niche and it is worth protecting because if they don’t there are people who would like to see them go down. Their situation is unique because unlike Debian they are going head-to-head against Microsoft and are winning.
I, for one, want to see them have a chance. If having a logo is a necessary part of competing then it is a small thing to ask. Taking a principled stand against it that furthers the interests of no one and advances the cause of monopolistic companies then we have to ask whose interests are being served? I think that we know the answer. If this is the case then Debian is being an unwitting tool in a larger battle and they are working against their own best interest. Because if Mozilla fails then they have no Iceweasel and we are back at square one. I get it. I don’t think that they do and their principles amount to empty promises of what could be, but won’t. Think of what would happen if everybody took the position that Debian is taking.
linuxcanuck
December 1, 2008
Good that you raised this issue. I could not get 64 bit builds of Firefox from mozilla. So I could not use Firefox as GregE said. It is a practical problem. I love Debian’s simplicity and stability. As a end user, I want to benefit from both Debian and Mozilla, and to the average Joe (like me) a new name is a bit much.
Sid
December 2, 2008
Firefox and Iceweasel are under the MPL, not the GPL. The logo s and names are trademarked by Mozilla, which won’t allow Debian to use them if Debian makes any changes, which Debian and most other distros do to software to make it better ‘fit’ the system. Complain to Mozilla about their staunch position of denying use of their product, not to Debian which has clear guidelines for its Free Software distribution.
On the other hand, Debian could maybe try to squeeze the official versions into the ‘non-free’ repository but that isn’t quite right either. So, being Free Software, they did what is their right and made a clone of the projects.
lefty.crupps
December 2, 2008
I don’t get it. Why not add Firefox to non-free? Iceweasel could be kept for those who want a nontrademarked Mozilla browser. and those who don’t care can have Firefox.
Rob
December 2, 2008
You are still not providing a source on which to base your claims.
I am not saying the Debian guys are relaxed, some of them are and some of them are not. I am saying I am relaxed and using the closed nvidia driver for one thing.
But you are bashing Debian on completely unjustified grounds without providing factual basis.
Arne
December 2, 2008
Debian is Debian because of their social contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract
It doesn’t matter if you or I agree with them: it’s their way of doing things. So you’re right in saying it’s _your_ problem with Debian, because it’s not a problem for Debian: it’s their solution to a problem…
THD
December 2, 2008
Lefty.crupps,
Thanks for clearing the licensing up. That makes sense. So does the solution of putting Firefox, et al in another respository section. That would be a win – win. Debian users could use Firefox and Mozilla’s work would be recognized with their own branding.
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
Arne,
I don’t want to bash Debian, although to a Debian user, that may seem to be the case. I had not used Debian itself for some time, at least since this thing happened in 2006. I was aware of the issue, i.e. the existence of Iceweasel, but like many non-Debian users did not know that official Firefox was not available.
In using it I was surprised to find that no Mozilla project products are available. I install and use many distros and none has this problem with Mozilla. So to the uninitiated, this appears to be more than you and others make it out to be. Mozilla is cross-platform. It is bigger than Debian and even Linux in terms of its target user base. They cannot be swayed by the narrow concerns of one small Linux community and abandon its concerns re: protecting its identity in the global community.
So my question, while tough is a fair one. Why is Debian so rigid when other distros are not. Why are they so intransigent? Why do they condemn others for using their work when they do the same thing to Mozilla?
They feel that Ubuntu has built its success on their work, but I think that Ubuntu’s success is due to giving people what they want rather than standing on rigid principles. This is a point which nobody has addressed. You can see this as an attack, but I am trying to make sense of Debian and can see why users might look elsewhere. It has nothing to do with Ubuntu, but has everything to do with Debian and the way they approach users. To me they come way down the issue as this proves. For them principle trumps user concerns.
If anyone is offended by asking these questions then they need to think about what Linux is. I thought that Linux was user centered. If not, then I apologize for misinterpreting this and for portraying Debian developers as a bunch of Pharisaic zealots. If I am right, it explains why users might be passing over Debian in favour of other distros. In either event, they come across as a bunch of prickly pears and their forums give a similar feel which in itself turns people off.
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
Debian dug in their heels with Mozilla. Debian devs believe Mozilla was be more of a corporate attitude, an attitude (at the time) I agreed with. I don’t agree with the very liberal politics that some do, that everything is free and if everybody gave something free it be a betterworld. I do agree with the politics of creating a grand base that everybody can benifit from while still being able keep the software their own. How knows if Debian didn’t make a stand on the Mozilla license their may be EULA’s for firefox in all the distro’s now.
dirkgently
December 2, 2008
Dirk Gently,
Many of us would have dug in our heels on the EULA issue. Ubuntu did just that this past summer with Mozilla. I think that Mozilla realizes after this that they would be shooting themselves in the foot and backed down.
What is unclear to me after all of this discussion is: what changes are Debian wanting to Mozilla products that others are not making and therefore not drawing the ire of Mozilla and are these changes necessary? If it is only the issue of the copyrighted logo is there a way around this that would allow both sides to be happy?
I say again. I like Debian. I don’t like the attitude. If the attitude goes away then everybody can win.
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
i would totally agree with you… but that is not just Debian. Zenwalk uses Slackware 12, Zenwalk uses the “Ice” Projects as well. It seems that a lot of *Buntu based projects are snobby as well. i get more help from other distros like Slack and Gentoo.
Jason Hicks
December 2, 2008
linuxcanuck: “what is wrong with Firefox that Debian users can’t have it in the same way everyone else does?”
Firefox, along with probably all other software ever written is prone to have bugs. Bugs sometimes are security related and their fix should not be delayed (Windows, anyone?).
What Debian wants to do is to patch the browser and release the patched version to their users.
Mozilla, on the other hand, wants the patches to be released along with their next release, but that could take days, weeks, months… who knows?
I am a happy Iceweasel user and have no complaints about it whatsoever. Well, at least about nothing that is not wrong in vanilla Firefox, anyway.
Please stop trolling with arguments you don’t know about. This only spreads ignorance.
Cassiano Bertol Leal
December 2, 2008
“Linux rants, raves and meandering thoughts.”
Indeed. This post shows you are an ignoramus.
Omari
December 2, 2008
If you don’t know the historical reasons for the renaming the Firefox to Iceweasel etc then you should not try to talk about it. You ara now just attacking Debian whitout knowing what you are talking about. But maybe you dont’t even care if you sopread false claims?
Debian wanted to use name Firefox and Debian did use it earlier. Same applies for the Thunderbird and Seamonkey. This has nothing to do it that “Debian does not like the name” like you claim.
Debian wants to support even older Firefox versions than what Mozilla officially supports. Eg. Mozilla’s official support for the Firefox 2.x has ended.
Current stable Debian (Debian Etch) has Firefox/Iceweasel 2.x. Debian wants to make security updates to that browser even now when Mozilla does not support it anymore.
Support for the Debian Etch will end aproximately one year after Debian Lenny is released. this means that Debian wants to make security updates to Firefox 2.x atleast until 2010, which is more than two years after official Mozilla support ended.
Mozilla did not like it that Debian does those changes to browser all by itself.
Mozilla started to claim that every change Debian makes to browser must be sent to Mozilla so that they can evaluate the change which was made. Mozilla said to Debian that if Debian makes any changes to browser they must stop using name Firefox, and same applies to Thunderbird and Seamonkey.
Don’t you understand that it is a bit difficult to send changes made to Firefox 2.x to Mozilla if Mozilla does not support that browser version anymore?
miksuh
December 2, 2008
Another historical reason for the renaming Firefox to Iceweasel is that Firefox logo is not free. The browser code is free, but that logo is not and that violates DFSG (Debian free software guidelines)
Debian tried to ask Mozilla to free that logo, but Mozilla did not want to do that. Mozilla then said to Debian that if Debian wants to call browser Firefox they must include that logo even if it violates DFSG.
This is the second smaller reason why Debian renamed the browser to Iceweasel and created new free logo to it.
miksuh
December 2, 2008
“These same people criticize Ubuntu for doing the same thing to Debian. They claim that Ubuntu does not give back to the Debian downstream work and does not credit Debian for the work it does.Am I missing something here?”
Yes you are. You are now mixing two different issues. When people say that Ubuntu does not give code back to Debian downstream it means that Ubuntu first makes changes to code which they take from the Debian and then they fail to give those changes back to downstream. They give back some changes but not all which creates big problems in the downstream. Ubuntu simply don’t care aboput downstream. They take code, but give wery little back so that other distros too could benefit from changes they make.
Debian does give back code changes to downstream, also to Mozilla. Debian is one of the biggest contributors to downstream in general (kernel, software etc). When Firefox was changed to Iceweasel Mozilla said that Debian is not allowed to make any changes to browser whitout Mozillas approval. I already explained that to you in my earlier message. And that’s completely different issue when compared to what is said from Ubuntu.
Here is one example of why it’s wery bad that Ubuntu does not give back code changes to downstream.
Some time ago Ubuntu did add option –always-ask-pass to gksu. They also changed gdebi so that it always passes that option to gksu.
Ubuntu gave gdebi changes back to downstream, but they never gave gksu changes back to downstream. The result is that Debian lenny now has gdebi which passes option –always-ask-pass to gksu, but gksu in Debian Lenny does not have that option because Ubuntu never shared the changes they made. The result is that gdebi in Debian lenny is now broken. If Ubuntu had shared all changes they made then there would not be problem like this.
miksuh
December 2, 2008
Hm I’m not sure if I used word downstream in place of upstream etc, can’t check that because comments are waiting moderation. Well anyway, I’m sure you understand what i meant.
miksuh
December 2, 2008
The amount of misinformation in this article is amazing.
But more amazing is that some people in the comments, even after the correct explanation has been mentioned *in the first comment* (and in the wikipedia link) still continue to misinform.
The rebranding had *nothing* to do with smugness, superiority or whatever. It is a quite simple issue of licensing and trademarks. Basically: the firefox name/logo are not free and Debian tries to use only free software. Simple.
Prasinos
December 2, 2008
Jason Hicks,
I guess I just don’t get it (snobbiness). It may come from the geeky beginnings with arcane knowledge and the like, but one would hope that we have grown up. Your endorsement of Gentoo and Slack appear to contradict my previous point, because they are as arcane as anything out there. But perhaps being less visible means that they try to encourage others into their small circle rather than depend on their name, etc.
Thanks for the heads up on the other distros. I use Sabayon and quite like the way it is presented and supported. Things don’t have to be this way. That is why I pointed the finger. I don’t expect them to change, but I hope that users of Debian will wise up and see that their distro of choice could be in a stronger position if it was just a tad more with the times and stop blaming others.
Thanks to all for their input. I think that I understand the issue better and feel that I am in a better position to ask the right questions and challenge the bad attitude of some, but not all.
My favourite Debian distro outside of Ubuntu is MEPIS and it is diametrically opposite to Debian. The users are fun and helpful and the distro is rock solid. I won’t recommend Debian itself, though, I am sad to say, until the attitude disappears.
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
Interestinmg that my messages are still waiting for the moderatuion, but you have accepted some other messages.
You don’t want to admit that you are wrong?
miksuh
December 2, 2008
Because you are unable to respond and publish my mmessages I have to make a conclusion that only reason for your rant is that you wante to harm Debian. You want to show YOUR “trutht”, but not the real truth behind the Firefox/thunderbird renaming issue etc.
Maybe I’ll respond to you on some other page, which does not hide comments.
miksuh
December 2, 2008
It was never a question of patches… The problem laid in the icons. They are trademarked work of mozilla. For some reason i can not recall, the icons do not meet the DFSG (debian free software guidelines), thus debian can’t include them. Since debian can’t include them, they’re branding a trademarked program without the complete trademark…
You know what… Why in the hell am i trying to explain this, just google “debian firefox iceweasel” and you’ll get the answer.
If you don’t agree with a completely free os that you can do whatever you want with and not have to worry about the legality of it, then go use one of the debian based distros that don’t follow this, or any other distro that isn’t concerned with it.
Gary Kramlich
December 2, 2008
Omari,
By your response, you must be a Debian user. Obviously you don’t read the comments or the blog just what you quote. I said, I did not have a problem with Debina per se, but with attitude and you just proved my point.
When you go on the Debian forums and ask for help with installing Firefox you encounter rude and impatient people, just like you! It is people like this that make Debian what it is and make Ubuntu what it is, a success. Need I say more?
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
Miksuh,
I have not been ignoring you. I have not checked my blog, but have handled requests through email and for some reason yours was not bing sent. I have more than one blog.
While your response clears up some things re: Firefox 2/3, it does not address all of the issues. I have said that it is not my intention to attack Debian. I am willing to admit to a mistake if I made one.
My concerns remain. Debian is alone for the most part in their problems with Mozilla. They are a voice in the wilderness. Most people do not care about the issues. They only want to use Firefox and the others. Users, particularly new users, are not being given the help that they request. They are encountering rudeness and being told that they are using Firefox when from the new user’s point of view they are not. There is a bad attitude that has shown itself even here.
My second concern is the double standard that Debian has. If they really had a problem with licensing and logos, then they should not use the product. By using it and renaming it (which is perfectly legitimate and within their rights, I am not denying that), they are making themselves out to be hypocrites. If it is good enough to use, then it is good enough to use as it is, under the name and logo of the original. They are playing games in order to make themselves out to be bastions of GNU Linux and holier than thou. It is all about giving respect and credit to the developer. I make the point that their behaviour is akin to what they criticize Canonical for. They want it both ways. Nobody has responded to this yet.
My third concern is that they are not user centered, but principle centered. If they were user centered then they would offer choice and barring that they should not be down on users who want to install Firefox. instead they have a Big Brother top down, we know best attitude.
All three of my concerns point to a problem and they are attitude based.
You make one good point and that is about versions, which again is a problem for me (but it may not be a problem for others). I did say that I had a problem with Debian. I did not say that there was a problem with Debian, just with the way I perceive it. Debian users rub me the wrong way and clearly many people feel the same way because Debian is on a spiral downward.
The problem for me in the point that you make is the same attitude that they know best. The user has no choice. They think that Firefox 2 is better therefore they will not move with the times. Users cannot find out for themselves. Debian is not considering the users.
The final point that I will make again harkens back to their criticism of Canonical. They see Ubuntu’s success and think that Canonical has taken advantage of them. Perhaps there is some truth in this. I don’t know or care much, particularly in light of the fact that Debian is using the work of others as well and not giving them the credit. I look at it from a user’s point of view. Debian is proving itself to be yesterday’s OS. It moves at a glacial pace and if someone takes what they are doing and makes it current and has success then they object. They have had the same options as Canonical from Day One. Canonical took the opportunity because Debian created a void. Canonical cannot be blamed for that.
Your comments re: version control in Firefox are valid, but they show that Debian is more concerned about the past than the present or the future which is only one more reason not to use it.
I said and I repeat that I have a problem with Debian and the respondents are just proving my points. I don’t particularly care about the issue. I don’t care who is right. I think that users should have choice. I know that Ubuntu gives me choice which is why I use it and not Debian. I can run Ubuntu 7.10, 8.04, 8.10 and now 9.04. I can run Firefox 2 or 3. I can use the real thing and not a clone. I know that I am not using the work of someone else without giving them credit.
This was not meant to be an attack on Debian, but it has turned out that way because of the way the comments have gone. I call them as I see them and I reserve the right to be wrong. I want to be fair, but things don’t always turn out that way. When you field comments you cede some control over the direction that things go to others.
I posted the comments that I am ignorant and stupid. I have heard some good explanations of why things are the way they are and even in this there are contradictions, but not a lot of intelligence rebutting my arguments.
As things stand Debian resents Canonical’s success with Ubuntu. They could have done the same thing, but did not. Ubuntu’s success has nothing to do with stealing the work of Debian as they allege. It has everything to do with what I bought up here. It has to do with being user centered.
Someone commented that it was an old argument and it is two years too late. I disagree. It is a current argument. Users will encounter this problem a week from now or a year from now. They will wonder as I did and I hope that they will encounter an improved attitude. This is why I brought it up. But if the responses are any indication they won’t find it. Doors will be closed in their faces and they will be called idiots for asking questions and challenging the status quo. I repeat. I have a problem with bad attitude.
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
Thanks to all for your comments, good and bad.
For me it is not about attacking a distro. It is about dealing with bad attitude. That has come out even in the comments. The fact that there are contradictory explanations indicate that this is more complex than many people think, including me.
What I would like to see is not likely to happen. I would like to be given a choice as a user. I would also like to see users who don’t understand not being given the cold shoulder for wanting what everyone else has, to use Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey and Sunbird. They are being given mixed messages, like we see here. They are told on one hand that Iceape is Seamonkey, but then they are bing told that they can’t use Seamonkey because Debian wants to change it and Mozilla won’t let them. Is it the same thing or isn’t it?
I would like to see Debian to stop resenting Ubuntu’s success. They should revel in it. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be what it is today. Mark Shuttleworth has acknowledged that and everyone knows that Ubuntu is a Debian fork. Canonical has never tried to hide that fact. Get over it. Ubuntu has gone in a different direction, one that Debian could have gone but rejected it. What goes around comes around. It seems that Debian can dish it out better than take it.
Debian’s own lack of popularity is rooted in their own community and their vision which is not Linux for everybody to my way of thinking. It is Linux their way, like it or leave it and don’t dare to question it. That may not be the message that they wish to give, but that is what users are experiencing. That is what I felt and continue to feel.
I don’t care about the issue, and particularly whether I am right or wrong. I care about attitude and what that does to users and to the community at large. I apologize for any offense and for any misrepresentation of the facts, if there are any. This is an opinion piece and opinions can’t be wrong. You may not agree with the opinion, but that does not make it wrong or the person expressing it wrong. I never said that I was an expert or was presenting facts. I was saying that I had a problem with Debian and I do.
If people in the Debian community are sensitive about it after all of this time then they are either tired of answering the questions, hence the irritation, or they may feel that their solution is not satisfactory, but they are prepared to live with it. I say, get used to it. Someone will install Debian for the first time and ask them all over again. New users may not feel part of the decision which is old to you, but new to them. They may not feel comfortable with using a clone of someone else’s work. I know that I don’t. I tried Xandros and Linspire once and resented the way they rebranded someone else’s work and passed it off as their own.
So, after all of this, I still have a problem with Debian. I wish I didn’t. If it is any comfort to you. I have a problem with other things and in other communities. If you’ll excuse me now, I want to start a new blog called, I have a problem with PCLinux OS. I hope that you will read it.
linuxcanuck
December 2, 2008
[...] My Problem with Debian I use Debian based distros. My favourites are Ubuntu, Sidux and MEPIS. In fact, I am solidly in the Debian camp. [...] [...]
100 Top Posts WordPress English 3/12/2008 « Kopanakinews’s Weblog
December 2, 2008
You are unaware of the reason for Iceweasel.
Debian made a lot of changes in Firefox and Mozilla then didn’t allow them to use that name.
Also, the Mozilla Licence is more like BSD than GPL.
R S Chakravarti
December 3, 2008
Debian had to rename Firefox because of the incompatibility between its Free Software Guidelines (all works must be freely modifiable) and Mozilla’s licensing policy (the Firefox artwork may not be modified, and the Firefox name may not be used without the Firefox artwork). It’s as simple as that.
Another distro that doesn’t want to distribute the non-free Firefox artwork is gNewSense.
http://www.gnewsense.org/MainRepo/Firefox
catnap
December 3, 2008
It’s a problem when someone wants to criticize on a topic s/he doesn’t know a sh*t about it.
It is not true Debian don’t want to ‘allow the familiar names to stand’. Debian crew can not use Firefox, Thunderbird and Seamonkey brands without loose control about related packages.
Debianero
December 3, 2008
Menuda sarta de tonterías
damianrivera
December 3, 2008
“If it is good enough to use, then it is good enough to use as it is, under the name and logo of the original.”
I think making this kind of a connection is rather problematic. A logo and trademark have nothing to do with _using_ a product per se. They are basically tools for marketing and brand building, as they make it easier for potential users to recognize the product.
It is true that once a brand has gained a dominant position in the markets, users may learn to depend on that particular brand and this may affect usability, as apparently has happened to some new Debian users in the Firefox vs. Iceweasel case. Nevertheless, it’s basically a marketing issue.
“It is all about giving respect and credit to the developer.”
No, it isn’t. Well, at least not in the way you seem to be arguing for. Free and open source software is about allowing anybody to use, study, modify and redistribute the code. The people who write open source software are doing it because, for ideological or pragmatic reasons, they want their code to be freely available. Otherwise they wouldn’t publish their code with an open source license. It is this idea that must primarily be respected.
It is also important to understand that the code base of Firefox is not really developed by Mozilla. Yes, they coordinate most of the development work and do very good marketing for their product(s), but the actual code is developed by individual coders (aided by other people, such as translators and graphic designers). Some of these developers are employed by Mozilla, but most of them are volunteers or employed by other companies and organizations. The code is specifically made available to anybody, including “competing” products with less marketing power, such as Debian’s Iceweasel or Gnome project’s Epiphany browser.
If you want to bind the code to a particular logo or trademark, you are basically thinking in terms of proprietary software and disregarding what the developers generally strive for.
“The problem for me in the point that you make is the same attitude that they know best. The user has no choice.”
The user can choose to get Debian with Iceweasel or Ubuntu with Firefox. Or some other distribution with some other browser.
If every distribution did things in the same way, there would be no real alternatives, just a bunch of clones with competing brand names. When different projects are allowed to create and distribute their own variants of the code, users ultimately have a greater variety to choose from. Advanced users can choose to build customized combinations, such as Debian with Firefox or Ubuntu with Iceweasel, and even publish their own “Firebian” or “Icentu” distribution if they like (well, provided those names are not trademarked by somebody else).
As far as I can see, it is the _basic_function_ of a distribution to limit the range of choices, so that an average user don’t have to think about every detail. In the early days of Linux, practically all the users were experts, who compiled their systems directly from the source code. They had the ultimate freedom to choose whatever components they wanted. You could still do this, but most people prefer to limit their range of choices by using a distribution, because it’s easier that way.
So the question is, which distribution limits your range of choices in the way that best suits your personal needs. If you absolutely want Firefox and not Iceweasel, Debian may not be the best choice for you. No sweat, you can find plenty of other options with Firefox. There are fewer options for people who absolutely want Iceweasel instead of Firefox. Fortunately Debian offers an alternative for them.
Simo Kaupinmäki
December 3, 2008
You are certainly correct on one point: Debian took a stand on principle, and did not bow to he desires of uninformed customers. Was it the right decision? For Debian, it was.
They have long been the bastion of free software. While many other distros offer ‘free’ versions, Debian has always been based on free software. Yes, you can add non-free software if you wish, but the distro itself is based entirely on free software.
For some, principles are worth taking a stand. Look at RMS. He was essential in starting the Free Software movement. Without him, we wouldn’t have Linux, at least, as we know it. Like him or not, he stands by his principles. Debian, as exemplified in its social contract, agrees with RMS. It, too, stands on its principles. If Debian had given in on its principles, then it may as well be Ubuntu.
Linux was originally a home for idealists. Free Software was the way to go. Many of us still share those ideals. But many of us are also pragmatists. We want software that *works*. If it happens to come with a ‘less-free’ license, we can live with that. But it still gives me pleasure to know that Debian is still there, carrying the banner of software freedom. That banner, that position, those principles are still very important. They form the solid, GPL’ed base that we ‘pragmatists’ can build on.
Padma
December 4, 2008
Wow, I have to say I disagree. I wrote up an article on my blog about this issue last month, so perhaps I’ll just reference it:
http://encephalosponge.com/2008/11/09/of-freedom-and-trademarks/
Debian *defines* themselves by freedom. Asking them to just give it up so you can have a brand name is wrong. As you point out, there are plenty of other distributions who do not share Debian’s ideals and are willing to ship Firefox. Debian is not meant to cater to a user’s every whim. Ubuntu defines itself as “Linux for Human Beings”. Debian defines itself by it’s FREEDOM. These definitions are why there are different distros.
You also act as though Debian is taking credit for Mozilla’s work. They definitely cite Firefox as the basis for iceweasel:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/iceweasel
“This browser is based on the Firefox source-code, with minor modifications.”
The only thing Debian is doing is modifying Mozilla’s product (as they are entitled) to align with the rules of their distro. Is it less user-friendly? Yes. Does that matter for Debian? No, because it keeps their system free.
Jonathan
December 5, 2008
You ARE missing something. Debian is strict about what they consider “free”, and “free” is all they’ll put in their main distribution. They even consider the FSF’s FDL licence non-free, but that is likely to change now.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel
Leslie Viljoen
December 13, 2008
Quote {linuxcanuck}: “BTW, what is wrong with Firefox that Debian users can’t have it in the same way everyone else does? Nobody has yet explained this.”
Because it has artwork (media) which makes Firefox non-free? Firefox also has an EULA making it non-free. Even artwork within the tarball of Firefox (generic globe) cannot be used to replace the restricted artwork without a name change – this is not Debian’s fault.
Vanilla Firefox often has bugs or issues that are unresolved till the next release. Debian wants to fix these problems but cannot keep the name even if it kept the artwork due to Mozilla Foundation’s rules on trademarks regarding patching and source modifications. Again, not Debian’s fault.
Also, Ubuntu contributes upstream to Debian now more than ever. For a short period patches were disorganised within Ubuntu and people within the Debian community criticised this – Ubuntu fixed that.
There is no “rift” between Debian and Ubuntu. Both projects have developers that contribute stream.
Unconfined
December 23, 2008