[Leaplist] Ubuntu users now have to agree to Firefox EULA

[Hank Lambert]

Hi Bill,

I personally have not noticed that, but I do not use a mouse as I am
using laptops with the touch pad. I was having a problem with a nasty
memory leak with version 9.5 on my Windows machines, but downgraded and
the problem disappeared. I hear that problem has been fixed.

When running Debian Etch on my laptop, the touch pad was overly
sensitive, so I was always swapping desktops and minimizing/maximizing
applications. I adjusted the sensitivity and it helped, but did not fix
the problem. Now that I am running Linux Mint, I have the ability to
disable the scroll feature of the touch pad, and the problem has
disappeared. I wonder if that is what is happening on your system with
the mouse?

--Hank


Bill Smith wrote:
> Hi Hank,
>
> I have recently loaded Opera on SuSE 10.3.  If I rotate the mouse wheel
> up and down rapidly, the program abruptly attempts to open an unknown
> URL, possibly from an Opera buffer somewhere.  Also, some URLs simply
> freeze (as verified by opening them from another nearby computer with a
> different browser). I have tried a couple versions, the latest is the
> current beta.  Have noticed similar performance in both.  Have you
> noticed similar operation?
>
> BIll
>
>
> On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 22:39 -0400, Hank Lambert wrote:
>   
>> Thanks for clearing that up. I read an article that referred to Firefox
>> as "it" when describing the EULA. I thought that the "it" was the OS. I
>> haven't read the EULA for Firefox as I run Opera, and I guess I assumed
>> it had some strings attached as Debian (and Gentoo) wouldn't touch it. I
>> do know that Debian is very strict on what it includes however. I guess
>> my reaction stems from coming over from a Microsoft environment.
>>
>> --Hank
>>
>>
>> Fred Moore wrote:
>>     
>>> I really just don't view this as an issue. I have no problem at all
>>> agreeing with any reasonable EULA. If you go to the web site and
>>> download the newest (disto are never current) you sign a EULA, so whats
>>> the difference.. And to correct Hank, its not the OS it Firefox the
>>> first time Firefox is started.. Fred
>>>
>>> Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On Mon, 9/15/08, Hank Lambert <hank at hanklambert.com> wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> It appears that Ubuntu is now requiring users to agree to a
>>>>> Firefox EULA before being allowed to use the OS in the next
>>>>> release. From what I've read, after installation, the user
>>>>> is presented with a EULA from Mozilla that they must agree
>>>>> to when booting the machine for the first time. Debian chose
>>>>> not to go that route by rebranding Firefox as Iceweasel.
>>>>> I wonder if this is going to become normal in Linux?
>>>>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/14/195203
>>>>>     
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> There are several issues, many legal, some even technical.David Evans <devans002 at insight.rr.com>
>>>>
>>>> If a distro provides significant code to The Mozilla
>>>> Foundation and/or has a signed, legal agreement (typically
>>>> one has the other as well, by the virtue of the level of
>>>> the code contributions requiring additional, legal
>>>> agreements), with The Mozilla Foundation, then they
>>>> typically don't run into this.  I.e., they are allowed to
>>>> redistribute Firefox as part of their OS without the
>>>> additional click.
>>>>
>>>> People forget that Canonical, including Ubuntu (as pertinent),
>>>> is still much smaller than, say, a Novell or Red Hat --
>>>> both revenue and, more significantly here, code contribution
>>>> wise, which avoids a lot of these "redistribution" issues.
>>>> They also don't have the overall community resources of
>>>> Debian, at least on these "less cool" projects than a lot
>>>> of the desktop interoperability that Canonical/Ubuntu usually
>>>> focuses on.
>>>>
>>>> So Canonical/Ubuntu has to either choose to adopt Debian's
>>>> IceWeasel approach (possibly leveraging their work), or opt
>>>> for the other option The Mozilla Foundation is giving them.
>>>> People shouldn't expect them to be able to fund the
>>>> development and/or contribute-sign the agreements that
>>>> Red Hat or Novell do.  It's just a necessary evil, and no one
>>>> should criticize Canonical/Ubuntu, or even The Mozilla
>>>> Foundation for that matter (they have some sound, legal, and
>>>> at least a few good technical ones I've heard) for doing
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, this is my "outside viewpoint."  I could be off-the-mark.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>   

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.