Dr. Doezel zei:
Dat is bij Debian toch ook zo?
ipv firefox hebt ge dan iceweasel. Op de naam na zag ik niet direct verschillen met firefox.
idd, er is in weze pratisch niets verschillend aaN
enkel de naam is veranderd omdat de Firefox naam trademarkes is en niet volledig "free" is.
en de code is minimaal debianised.
maar de updtream code is praktisch niet veranderd.
de volledige uitleg van een debian developer die het veel beter kan verwoorden dan mezelf:
Debian's core purpose, its reason for being, is to produce a free computer operating system. The word "free" is essential to Debian, in a fundamental way which differs from Ubuntu, Red Hat or SUSE.
It is no part of Debian's purpose, plan, wish, desire or mission to provide or support non-free software. Now, this does not necessarily make all non-free software bad, exactly; it merely makes it not part of Debian. As well to complain to the police department that the school bus comes late, as well to complain to the electrician that the cabinets are badly installed, as to complain to Debian that Firefox is not called by the name the public expects. To do so simply is not in Debian's brief, nor ever has been, nor ever will be. If Red Hat or whoever calls it Firefox, that's fine; but calling free software by non-free names just isn't Debian's job.
Regarding the analogy between the Debian and Firefox trademarks, consider: Debian asks that people who wish to use the Debian trademark not use it to mark things which are not Debian. This is the normal, ordinary use of a trademark, and if someone is unhappy with it, then they merely are asked not to use the mark (they can use all Debian software however they please; without fee, only they may not use the mark).
Mozilla asks that people who wish to use the Firefox trademark agree to follow certain rules which are not usual in the free-software world; if someone is unhappy with this, then again they are asked not to use the mark. So, Debian is not using the mark, exactly per the mark holder's request. There is no scandal here. The Debian Project is simply acceding to the stipulation of an important upstream developer of software Debian distributes.
I think that some open-source users who like Debian will nevertheless always be dissatisfied with Debian because Debian fundamentally is not what they want it to be. Some are dissatisfied with Debian's slow release cycle. Others are dissatisfied with Debian's refusal to distribute non-free firmware. Yet others are dissatisfied because, when they want a new feature, they may be asked to implement it themselves and then submit their implementation as a patch to Debian's bug-tracking system. You may be dissatisfied with Debian's naming of software which commercially is called by another name!
It seems to me that all of these dissatisfactions somehow descend from a fundamental misconception of Debian's nature, purpose and mission. Debian cannot be something which it fundamentally is not. Debian would be foolish to try.
volgens mij zal da nie supersuccesvol zijn als ge ziet waar tegenwoordig het accent op gelegd wordt in diverse OS
