When did iceweasel start to need crutches?

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:36:10 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:

> On 2009-11-07 05:40 +0100, terryc wrote:
>
>> did the irregular aptitude update then aptitude safe-upgrade an my
>> machine suddenly started running like a dog. Some bloatware package
>> called xulrunner was installed during the update.
>
> This is no more of a bloatware package than iceweasel itself used to be
> before the upgrade.

Not on my system. Its demands on the cpu were immediately very noticeable.

>
>> It seems it is now essential for iceweasel.
>
> Yes. The code in xulrunner had been previously contained in iceweasel
> itself. Which is bad as it means code duplication (there are other
> applications in Debian that use xulrunner).

None of which I want.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xulrunner
>
>> WTF, how do you get rid of it permanetly?
>
> aptitude purge --purge-unused iceweasel

So what you are saying is that it is impossible to run iceweasel without
xulrunner?

>
>> Is iceweasel now permanently crippled by requiring all this stuff?
>
> No, it is not crippled.

Well, it is if you have to install it to get iceweasel.

On 07/11/2009 14:05, terryc wrote:

> Well, it is if you have to install it to get iceweasel.

As apparently you do not read what other says, I will say it diffrently:
"before iceweasel" = "current iceweasel" + "current xulrunner". So size
is exactly equivalent and not more blaoted and it works as before.

It matter for others that use packages also requiring xulrunner.

-- eric

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:19:55 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:

> On 07/11/2009 14:05, terryc wrote:
>
>> Well, it is if you have to install it to get iceweasel.
>
> As apparently you do not read what other says, I will say it diffrently:
> "before iceweasel" = "current iceweasel" + "current xulrunner". So size
> is exactly equivalent and not more blaoted and it works as before.

No matter how many times you say it, something that thrashes my machine
is bloatware. The old iceweasel(no xulrunner) did not. The new iceweasel
(+xulrunner) does.

Yet another victory for microsoft.


> It matter for others that use packages also requiring xulrunner.

As I said above, yet another victory for microsoft. Once you sell out
your principles, you have nothing left.

On 2009-11-11 21:49 +0100, terryc wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:19:55 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2009 14:05, terryc wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it is if you have to install it to get iceweasel.
>>
>> As apparently you do not read what other says, I will say it diffrently:
>> "before iceweasel" = "current iceweasel" + "current xulrunner". So size
>> is exactly equivalent and not more blaoted and it works as before.
>
> No matter how many times you say it, something that thrashes my machine
> is bloatware. The old iceweasel(no xulrunner) did not. The new iceweasel
> (+xulrunner) does.

Maybe you have a bad plugin or extension. Try running

MOZ_DISABLE_PLUGINS=1 iceweasel -safe-mode

and see if that helps.

> Yet another victory for microsoft.

Are you saying that you're going to switch to Windows because of
Iceweasel thrashing?

>> It matter for others that use packages also requiring xulrunner.
>
> As I said above, yet another victory for microsoft. Once you sell out
> your principles, you have nothing left.

Well said, but Debian is actually defending its principles, especially
regarding security.

Sven

On 11/11/2009 22:06, Sven Joachim wrote:

>> Yet another victory for microsoft.
>
> Are you saying that you're going to switch to Windows because of
> Iceweasel thrashing?

Let him go: anyway there is no way he will be able to understand the
problem is with its machine as it works for anyone else and that
splitting a package into two pieces do not make it worse.

-- eric

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:06:20 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:

> On 2009-11-11 21:49 +0100, terryc wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:19:55 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/11/2009 14:05, terryc wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, it is if you have to install it to get iceweasel.
>>>
>>> As apparently you do not read what other says, I will say it
>>> diffrently: "before iceweasel" = "current iceweasel" + "current
>>> xulrunner". So size is exactly equivalent and not more blaoted and it
>>> works as before.
>>
>> No matter how many times you say it, something that thrashes my machine
>> is bloatware. The old iceweasel(no xulrunner) did not. The new
>> iceweasel (+xulrunner) does.
>
> Maybe you have a bad plugin or extension. Try running
>
> MOZ_DISABLE_PLUGINS=1 iceweasel -safe-mode

My understanding is that it is not a plug-in but an essential pre/co-
requisite for iceweasel.
>
> and see if that helps.

Will give it a try later. ATM relocating backup system.
>
>> Yet another victory for microsoft.
>
> Are you saying that you're going to switch to Windows because of
> Iceweasel thrashing?

No, what I am pointing out that the "brains" behind linux think that to
compete with microsoft, that you have to be like microsoft. In this
regard they are doing the exact same things that microsoft are doing and
have done. Specifically building in the exact same problems. This,
firstly, is yet again another example of bloatware being added to linux

Also iceweasel is a firefox derivative and that means the bloatware is in
win firefox as well.

>
>>> It matter for others that use packages also requiring xulrunner.
>>
>> As I said above, yet another victory for microsoft. Once you sell out
>> your principles, you have nothing left.
>
> Well said, but Debian is actually defending its principles, especially
> regarding security.

Could you explain that?
Apart from the bloatware thrashing in the background, what it points to
is a core program that will make a number of "core" applications jointly
vulnerable. Remember the pgp debacle that happened recently?

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:38:12 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:

> On 11/11/2009 22:06, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>>> Yet another victory for microsoft.
>>
>> Are you saying that you're going to switch to Windows because of
>> Iceweasel thrashing?
>
> Let him go: anyway there is no way he will be able to understand the
> problem is with its machine as it works for anyone else and that
> splitting a package into two pieces do not make it worse.

"Everyone else" lol

Eric, read and think about the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"

<then again, where would the economy be without people like eric>