PDA

View Full Version : Why the mess "Shiretoko vs. Firefox 3.5"?



Ric_NYC
August 14th, 2009, 02:18 PM
Can't we be like "normal people" and just call it Firefox 3.5?

.Maleficus.
August 14th, 2009, 02:38 PM
No. Official branding is only used for the default browser. Shiretoko is not the default browser so it will not be called Firefox 3.5. When it is the default browser in Karmic it will be, but not sooner.

http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/161-FAQ-Why-is-my-firefox-3.5-still-called-Shiretoko.html

Regenweald
August 14th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Not really a mess. have a read and you'll understand. a lot of work happens before the transition.

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-firefox-3.5

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Specs/Karmic/Firefox35Transition

lovinglinux
August 14th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Can't we be like "normal people" and just call it Firefox 3.5?

Can't we be like "normal people" and just use the search button (http://www.google.com/search?q=shiretoko+site:ubuntuforums.org&hl=en&sourceid=mozilla-search&num=20&start=0&start=0) before posting?

mamamia88
August 14th, 2009, 11:40 PM
i don't really care either i prefer it this way. that way if a flash game doesn't work in newer firefox you still have old version

DougieFresh4U
August 14th, 2009, 11:43 PM
Mine auto changed name to Firefox from Shiretoko a couple of days ago. So I would think most who use will be seeing the same from updating.
Yes it was funny all the 'squawking' over the name :)

lovinglinux
August 15th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Mine auto changed name to Firefox from Shiretoko a couple of days ago. So I would think most who use will be seeing the same from updating.
Yes it was funny all the 'squawking' over the name :)

Only if you have ubuntu-mozilla-daily or ubuntu-mozilla-security repositories in your sources list. If you just download it from the universe repositories then it should be kept alone.

DougieFresh4U
August 15th, 2009, 12:34 AM
Only if you have ubuntu-mozilla-daily or ubuntu-mozilla-security repositories in your sources list. If you just download it from the universe repositories then it should be kept alone.

Strange you mention that, as this is a 'fresh' 64 bit install and I do not have the repo's for Mozilla, but my other partitions with the Mozilla repo's didn't change the name yet :confused:

MikeTheC
August 15th, 2009, 12:43 AM
I've actually started getting used to surfing the web from the comfort of the Shire. Now, whether it's a Shire of hobbits, or the Shire of Esperance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperance,_Western_Australia) -- wherein my wonderful government dropped bits of Skylab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperance,_Western_Australia#History) because we were too d*mn cheap to put a proper propulsion system on it for orbital reboost and to which we still owe a fine for littering -- I haven't quite decided. But it does seem fairly natural and comfortable, so it may well be the former.

lovinglinux
August 15th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Strange you mention that, as this is a 'fresh' 64 bit install and I do not have the repo's for Mozilla, but my other partitions with the Mozilla repo's didn't change the name yet :confused:

The issue is not in the repository itself, but the version installed with the repository updates. If you installed the same version directly, then I guess you will get the same logo replacement. You are using 3.6pre right?

spupy
August 15th, 2009, 03:19 AM
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/31

lovinglinux
August 15th, 2009, 09:21 AM
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/31

That's great. It would stop the Shiretoko complain madness, but unfortunately, that extension is for Firefox 2 and haven't been updated since May 15, 2007.

Giant Speck
August 15th, 2009, 12:22 PM
I don't understand the fuss over a stupid name.

jheaton5
August 15th, 2009, 04:27 PM
I like shiretoko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiretoko_National_Park). It's kinda cool.

Eisenwinter
August 15th, 2009, 04:33 PM
I don't understand the fuss over a stupid name.
+1.

Thread is now officially done with.

stmiller
August 15th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Fwiw in 9.10 it's just called regular 'Firefox' now.

Every upcoming version of Firefox goes by its code name mainly to ensure end users don't use it thinking it is the stable 'Firefox'. This is a Mozilla thing, and not specific to Ubuntu or any distro or OS for that matter.

Merk42
August 15th, 2009, 08:22 PM
I don't understand the fuss over a stupid name.

Browser sniffing websites care a lot (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.5/+bug/397211)

Yes I know 9.10 will Have 3.5 as "firefox", but if Mozilla sticks to their schedule, we'll have the same problem with 3.6 a mere month after 9.10's release.

mcduck
August 15th, 2009, 08:59 PM
That's great. It would stop the Shiretoko complain madness, but unfortunately, that extension is for Firefox 2 and haven't been updated since May 15, 2007.

It still works, though, at least it worked wit FF 3. You just need to download the extension, extract it, change the version requirement, compress it again as .zip and rename to .xpi. ;)

edit: I attached a fixed package for you. Should work until FF4.0, and probably after that as well if you just change the version limit again. :)

Giant Speck
August 15th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Browser sniffing websites care a lot (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.5/+bug/397211)

Yes I know 9.10 will Have 3.5 as "firefox", but if Mozilla sticks to their schedule, we'll have the same problem with 3.6 a mere month after 9.10's release.

It's not difficult to change the user agent, though.

Merk42
August 15th, 2009, 10:27 PM
It's not difficult to change the user agent, though.

Shouldn't have to manually change it though. This has all been talked about before. My only point for this thread was the name goes beyond what the shortcut is called in the menu.

benerivo
August 15th, 2009, 11:01 PM
So why do mozillla give the next version of firefox a different name? Many people obviously don't like it. I use firefox 3.6 and it appears with the attached name which is clear and informative.

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 11:23 PM
So why do mozillla give the next version of firefox a different name?

*sigh*

Had you bothered to read this thread, you would know that they don't. Ubuntu devs do, and it's only temporary.

http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/161-FAQ-Why-is-my-firefox-3.5-still-called-Shiretoko.html

benerivo
August 15th, 2009, 11:28 PM
So the ubuntu devs are also employed by mozilla?...
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.1a1/releasenotes/

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 11:31 PM
So the ubuntu devs are also employed by mozilla...
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.1a1/releasenotes/

The Mozilla devs do too, but the Ubuntu builds differ from the Mozila ones. Anyway, this has always been the case for Firefox beta versions, in case you hadn't noticed.

Giant Speck
August 15th, 2009, 11:39 PM
So the ubuntu devs are also employed by mozilla?...
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.1a1/releasenotes/

Mozilla is the original source for the codename "Shiretoko." Each release of Firefox has a different codename:

Firefox 2.0 = Bon Echo
Firefox 3.0 = Gran Paradiso
Firefox 3.5 = Shiretoko
Firefox 3.6 = Namoroka

The reason why Firefox 3.5 still has the name Shiretoko in Ubuntu is because the name "Firefox" is only given to the default browser in Ubuntu, which at this time is Firefox 3.0.

Keeping the name Shiretoko allows the two different versions to exist simultaneously. When Ubuntu 9.10 is released, Firefox 3.5 will become the default browser and will thus be named Firefox.

benerivo
August 15th, 2009, 11:44 PM
...Keeping the name Shiretoko allows the two different versions to exist simultaneously...Thanks, this answers my question. I suppose this is actually very useful, compared to the usual versioning method which would replace the existing installation.

Jerriy
August 29th, 2009, 09:46 AM
Keeping the name Shiretoko allows the two different versions to exist simultaneously.Obviously that is the only true reason why Unbntu deviated from the previous norm and renamed Firefox Shiretoko (and btw it definitely is a renaming by Ubuntu, despite the fact that the name was inspired by the beta-release name of the browser by mozilla).

The next question is: why on earth does Ubuntu Jaunty needs two versions? I was introduced into the ubuntu world during Intrepid and Intrepid never required/forced me to stuff my PC with two versions of browsers. I certainly did update my firefox during the Intrepid days at least once if not twice (from 3.0.x to 3.0.y don't recall the exact version)

Jerriy
August 29th, 2009, 09:48 AM
Let' see:

- Inrepid replaced the old version with the new one
- Jaunty is deemed to be still needing the old version even after installing the new one.

Conclusion:

let's just say I disagree with our dear leader Mark Shuttleworth who had this to say about Jaunty's release:


... It is an extraordinary release, and we expect it to be very popular (...) We think it is our best release ever...

Well maybe Jaunty has more cowbells (cuz it's the newer version naturally) but based on this and other issues regarding both versions, it is without hesitation that I, as a humble user dare say: Intrepid beats Jaunty hands down

Giant Speck
August 29th, 2009, 10:31 AM
Obviously that is the only true reason why Unbntu deviated from the previous norm and renamed Firefox Shiretoko (and btw it definitely is a renaming by Ubuntu, despite the fact that the name was inspired by the beta-release name of the browser by mozilla).

Ubuntu did not deviate from any previous norm. Every release of Ubuntu includes the most current version of Firefox at the time of the development feature freeze.

Ubuntu 9.04's feature freeze took place on February 19, 2009. At the time of that feature freeze, the most current version of Firefox was 3.0.4. Therefore, the default version of Firefox for release was also 3.0.4.

Ubuntu 8.10's feature freeze took place on August 28, 2008. At the time of that feature freeze, the most current version of Firefox was 3.0.1. Therefore, the default version of Firefox for release was also 3.0.1.

Ubuntu 8.04 is a bit different as it was released with a beta version of Firefox by default. The feature freeze for Ubuntu 8.04 took place on February 14, 2008, when Firefox 3.0 was still in its third beta stage. Therefore, the default version of Firefox for Ubuntu 8.04 was Firefox 3.0b3.

The reason why the situation is so complicated in Ubuntu 9.04 is because Mozilla didn't start releasing betas for Firefox 3.5 until after Ubuntu 9.04 was released. When Firefox 3.5 was finally released on June 30, it was far too late to replace Firefox 3.0.11 with it because its release was more than four months after Ubuntu 9.04's feature freeze.

Therefore, the 3.0.x branch had to remain the default version because it existed before the feature freeze. They can't just swap Firefox 3.0.x out with 3.5.x because they are two completely different packages and Ubuntu does not add packages after the feature freeze. In order to compensate for this, Firefox 3.5 was added to the universe repository under the package name "firefox-3.5" or Shiretoko.

Ubuntu 9.10's feature freeze took place two days ago, on August 27. The most current version of Firefox on that date is Firefox 3.5.2. Therefore, Firefox 3.5.2 will be the default browser in Ubuntu 9.10.

Jerriy
August 29th, 2009, 10:58 AM
I see... the cement-like, inflexible 6-month-cycle of new Ubuntu releases is becoming a hazard then?

Maybe something needs to be done about that then. I mean, why do other software developers (like mozilla for example) not dish out new browser versions every same day/same month of the year, do you think?

Mr. Frog
September 2nd, 2009, 04:42 PM
Alright about the name, name it whatever you want (but I think that firefox-3.5 is less confusing and is not the same as "firefox" version 3.0.13!) (and the packages are already named firefox-3.5, not Shiretoko)

But what's about the UserAgent? Why does it need to be called Shiretoko where all websites in the world don't know that name? A UserAgent isn't a name, so I don't understand why it's still Shiretoko and will be that for months.
I don't think it should be "normal" to make us install the UserAgent switcher extension to be able to browse normally (I need to switch UA for facebook, my bank's website, my company Intranet, ...)