Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

The Firemonger Project 117

Posted by Hemos from the getting-it-off-the-ground dept.
IZ Reloaded writes "The Firemonger Project is an attempt to create a multilingual easy-to-use compilation CD with Firefox, Thunderbird and an excellent selection of plugins (Macromedia Flash, Macromedia Shockwave and Sun Java), extensions (Adblock, Googlebar, Hotmail tabs, SessionSaver, ScrapBook and more), Firefox and Thunderbird themes, related programs (Firetune and Backupfox) and a comprehensive beginner's guide. Everything you need to start up with and get the most out of Firefox and Thunderbird. There's also a lite version for download."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Firemonger Project More

The Firemonger Project

Comments Filter:

  • licenses??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:54AM (#13755526)
    no linux distribution on earth includes those plugins, how are they getting away with it?
    why don't the linux distro makers adopt their strategy?

    • Re:licenses??? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Stian Engen ( 758718 )
      Many distros doesn't include these plugins because of politics. (only GPL software)
      • I don't know of any free software operating system that includes only software licensed under the GNU GPL. Which free software operating system does this? Not even the GNU Project advocates for distributing only GPL-covered software. Part of GNU is made up of software licensed under the MIT X11, new BSD, and other free software licenses.

    • Re:licenses??? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 )
      no linux distribution on earth includes those plugins

      The obvious stares you in the face, Anonymous Coward, and yet you refuse to accept it. Do you know of a reason why only earthbound beings can make linux distributions?

      how are they getting away with it?

      Well, before this /. frontpage story they were small and obscure and the risk of getting their asses hauled into court were negligible. Now...

      why don't the linux distro makers adopt their strategy?

      I'm not sure that "License? What license? We're too small a
    • It's easy enough to put in an "I agree to everything" on the installation script.

      But why would anyone want flash pre-installed, unless it were to come with Adblock also installed and defaulted flash blocked. I'd be interested if people's experiences are similar my own, but my "primary" browser does not have flash installed on it, and I've been VERY happy with that. I have an "alternate" browser on my windows boxes, so that if I have to see something Flashy, I can hit the KVM, and get there in IE.

      I jus

    • Re:licenses??? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:21AM (#13755657) Homepage
      no linux distribution on earth includes those plugins, how are they getting away with it?

      Sun's Java license forbids distribution together with competing technology, like the GNU Compiler Collection. For obvious reasons, most GNU/Linux distributions choose GCC over Java.
      • If I remember correctly, I think SUSE 9.3 Pro chose java, and they also included flash and acrobat reader(Yes, the one from adobe). GCC and the likes available through YaST.
        • The problem with that is I don't, when compiling some obscure GPL'd project, want to search through YaST (or apt-get... I'm looking at you, ubuntu) trying to guess which packages I'll need. GCC is the obvious one, but what about autoconf, automake, nasm, etc...? Either make sure you have a meta-package that installs *all* of the things I might need to compile something, or have it there by default.
          • You don't need autoconf/automake installed to compile things--that's the reason they are used so much. :)

            Are you sure you want a metapackage that depends on everything necessary to compile something? ;)

            $ aptitude search 'lib.*-dev' | wc -l
            2130

            According to grep-dctrl, that's 1.2 gigabytes of development libraries alone! You might be more interested in using a tool called 'auto-apt'. It detects when the compilation process tries to open a file that does not exist, and prompts you to install th

          • Re:licenses??? (Score:3, Informative)

            by zootm ( 850416 )

            Either make sure you have a meta-package that installs *all* of the things I might need to compile something, or have it there by default.

            If you're talking about libraries, that seems pretty extreme — "all of the things I might need to compile something" is a crazy target. I've found that for many or most things, the "build-essentials" package on Ubuntu is fine, possibly with some of the libraries you need also (which is a matter of searching Synaptic for them, and that's fine with me — they'

            • I don't mean all the libraries, I mean all the tools. build-essentials has been missing a few things in the past when I've tried it, and it's a real pain in the ass trying to track down the package name of whatever keeps causing the compile error because it isn't there.

              • I'd ask what the problem is but we're probably veering wildly off-topic here. Generally the packages tell you what they're missing (and what they require) and searching in synaptic/apt should get you these. I have to say I can understand why many modern distributions leave them out, though — they're just not useful for most people.

                • I don't see how they aren't useful... that's like saying most programs are in apt-get. The truth is, although many people will never feel comfortable doing a make on a source package, that a distro gains a lot of its legitimacy through the sort of user who would. The GNU/Linux landscape is one that, at this point, requires a compiler and dev tools; as far as I know, even OS X includes them by default. It has been a historical part of a UNIX-based system, and I see no reason why that should change; there

                  • Unless they can be made easy to use, they have no real place (as default) in a user-oriented system, in my opinion. In a source-based system (like BSD or Gentoo's portage) that makes sense, but if it's a user-oriented system there's little point for them being there. The target user has no use for them, but they're easily available (as easily available as they are usable, in fact) if one needs them.

                    That said, there's always the argument that there's no good reason to omit them, I suppose. Hooray for going

                    • Well, exactly what constitutes "easily available" is the question at the heart of the debate. It is not enough that they exist somewhere in a package management system; I should be able to apt-get/yum/etc. a single package to set up a basic build environment with the standard tools required to build a basic source package. I also object to the fact that I have to find the -dev version of every package I've already installed, and install it as well; surely there should be an option to install -dev packages

                    • The -dev idea is interesting. I think it might actually be a semantic limitation of apt (I don't "do" RPM) rather than anything else. It might be possible to write a script to do it though.

        • Re:licenses??? (Score:5, Informative)

          by cloudmaster ( 10662 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @09:16AM (#13755961) Homepage Journal
          No, the "home" version they had for a while - when they did separate personal and professional versions - just didn't install gcc by default, because home users didn't need gcc typically. Neither one installed the Sun JDK, but I'm pretty sure there was a JRE on there (which would be within the license). Then again, at that time there was no useful gcj, either, so gcc would not have been a competing tech at the time. It's just barely a competing tech now, for that matter... :)

      • Re:licenses??? (Score:5, Funny)

        by mshiltonj ( 220311 ) <mshiltonj@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday October 10, 2005 @09:43AM (#13756125) Homepage Journal
        Sun's Java license forbids distribution together with competing technology, like the GNU Compiler Collection. For obvious reasons, most GNU/Linux distributions choose GCC over Java.

        How 'bout the Google Toolbar? Can I distribute Java with that??
      • Sun's Java license forbids distribution together with competing technology

        Let me rephrase that.

        Distribution of Java with competing technology is verboten by Sun.

    • I'm not sure about Sun and Java, but Macromedia gives out licenses to redistribute their player plugins [macromedia.com]. There's an application process, so they probably don't hand them out to anyone that asks, but it can't be too difficult to get one if you can do it on the Web.

    • Re:licenses??? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bgramkow ( 664943 )
      If this trend continues with other open source software Linux could gain a serious foothold. Another /. post commented that what linux really needs is applications to rival windows compatible apps. (sorry, couldn't find the link) I agree, and if this is true then open source software like firefox/thunderbird (that can easily be dl'ed for linux) gaining popularity over MS versions will someday lead to "average" user realizing: 'hey, I all the apps I'm using are available for any FREE linux OS I choose.' The

  • What? (Score:5, Informative)

    by RedNovember ( 887384 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:58AM (#13755548)

    You mean to tell me that this has never been covered before on Slashdot? Are you kidding?

    Or am I just being naive? I guess the slogan is true - Slashdot. The News 24 Hours After Everyone Else Or Your Money Back!

    As an aside - why not mention Portable Firefox [johnhaller.com] or FFDeploy [comcast.net]? They fit the same category of spreading firefox.

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MaestroSartori ( 146297 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:08AM (#13755591) Homepage
      Interestingly, a quick straw poll of ~30 or so programmers here in the office reveals no-one that had heard of it. So I'd say it's a fair bet that it's not *that* widely known...

      More to the point, it's a decent idea. Firefox isn't hard to install, but why not make packaged versions with all the handy things in it? Thanks for the links to those other two, I'll have a longer look at all three of these options later :)
      • I've been mirroring said project since basically day 1, but now that mozdev is mirroring it, well, they don't list the other mirrors, but I still maintain mine :D

        Quite the handy project, I don't use it myself (my flash drive contains most of my stuff, more obscure than the ones included)

        But it is useful for those who do lots of installs for new users.

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Steinfiend ( 700505 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:54AM (#13755846)
      I can't tell you how much I have to recommend PortableFirefox, not only for use on a USB key, but also for use on machines without admin privilages. Take for instance a work machine locked down so tightly and with IE only installed. As long as you have the abillity to run an exectuable you can run PortableFirefox.

      If you are used to running IE6/Firefox on your latest uber Quad Processor 12GHz Pentium 7 machine, you don't really get the full difference between the two. However, run IE6 and Firefox on a slightly older machine (P3 128mb etc) and you'll soon realize what you thought was a slow network connection is in fact a slow rendering engine.

      If you couldn't guess, this is exactly what happened to me!

  • This is a great strategy! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by michaelzhao ( 801080 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:06AM (#13755588)
    Although Firefox is meant to be liteweight, there are some people on this planet that don't use it because it is too lightweight. Enter my grandparents. Old Chinese folk with no knowledge of computers. They don't know how to download extentions, definitely don't know how to download and install Thunderbird. Suites like this make their life easier. My life will be eased as well because I won't have to tell them how to download everything over the phone.

    This is a great piece of software.
  • What I see is that a number of project releases based on Firefox in some way, have "Fire" in their name. Are these going way of KDE which have "K" emphasized in their name?
    • What I see is that a number of project releases based on Firefox in some way, have "Fire" in their name. Are these going way of KDE which have "K" emphasized in their name?

      They spend too much time in the company of people who think this is cool. They're kind of like a group of small town guys disco guys who tell each other how hip they all are, but never talk to enough girls to find out the truth.

    • No, the reason is that if you get the Firemonger CD and you don't install FF or TB, it'll catch fire.
       
      In your computer.
    • Once long ago there was Phoenix, this turned into FireBird and later to FireFox. People had become used to these name changes and felt disappointet about the longevity of the latest change. Thus some bright soul created FireSomething, that gave you a new Fire* every day.

      The FireMonger name is propably a part of this meme.
    • Yup. Next up is tthe "Fireman Project", which is just like this onse, only optimized for pr0n-viewing (i.e. without the adblock).

  • Why not Improve it first? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:10AM (#13755603) Journal
    There is still a lot of features lacking in Thunderbird, partly because I do not see many people incorporating other GPL software into it (are there still licensing issues, or is it fully GPL/LGPL now?).

    Things that Thunderbird lacks is:
    *Any type of attachment based filters (if it has an attachment, size, etc.). For fuck sakes, even outlook *express* has attachment based filters.
    *Auto compacting of folders. When you delete something it really isn't deleted and your folders can grow to huge sizes unless it is 'compacted'.
    *Auto expirary of mail. Kmail has it (http://kmail.kde.org/features.html [kde.org]) why not Thunderbird?
    *A lot more, just look at some features that have been requested over the past few *years*.

    A little less self congradulations, especially with regards to Thunderbird, is in order I think.
    • There is still a lot of features lacking in Thunderbird, partly because I do not see many people incorporating other GPL software into it (are there still licensing issues, or is it fully GPL/LGPL now?). Thunderbird and Firefox like most of the Mozilla Foundation's projects are licenced under a GPL/LGPL/MPL tri-licence. You can pick whatever licence that fits your needs.

    • Wrong ! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:30AM (#13755716)
      Thunderbird supports auto-compacting of folders and has for several releases now. It's an option, unticked by default, in the Options panel.
    • *Any type of attachment based filters .... I have achieved this by creating a Filter based on CONTENT-TYPE=multipart/mixed. Yeh its not the *easiest* thing to do, but I guess someone should be able to create extension for this very easily
    • Any type of attachment based filters

      You mean like "View->Messages->Has Attachments"?

      Auto compacting of folders.

      You mean like "Compact folders when it will save over xxx kb"?

    • I concur. Thunderbird has also needed, for a very long time, an option "do not delete from remote server until message is emptied from trash" and an easier way to put in multiple SMTP servers and link them to their proper email address.
    • It's too fucking hard to build that behemoth??

      Look, I love TBird, been using it for over 2 years, but I tried to fix an issue once, and it was such a PAIN IN THE ASS to even build, let alone actually understand the code...

  • AdBlock? (Score:5, Informative)

    by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:27AM (#13755695)
    AdBlock represents a possible problem as it hasn't been updated in quite a while and in its current iteration doesn't work with Firefox 1.5.

    There is a spin-off project called AdBlockPlus which would make a more logical choice.

    • Re:AdBlock? (Score:2, Informative)

      by DeepThoughts ( 714975 )
      Umm... Does Firefox 1.5 beta1 qualify as "Firefox 1.5"? Becaus if so AdBlock works just fine. I upgraded to Firefox 1.5 beta1 from 1.0.7 and AdBlock never stopped working.
    • and in its current iteration doesn't work with Firefox 1.5.

      Well, I use the 1.5 Beta 2 and AdBlock at least works half. If you activate it (I installed the extension "Nightly Tester Tools") it will not show the "AdBlock"-Image unter e.g. Flash-objects and it will not show anything useable when clicking on the word "AdBlock" in the lower right corner.

      BUT if you go to "Tools -> AdBlock -> Preferences" you can still add new blockable elements which WILL be blocked. It has just gotten a bit more diff
  • you will find that the Mozilla installer immediately exist so no Firefox or Thunderbird for you!

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16236 1 [mozilla.org]

  • In zee interest ooff oooor Svedeesh freeends: (Score:4, Funny)

    by halleluja ( 715870 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:29AM (#13755712)
    IZ Relueded vreetes "Zee Furemunger Pruject is un ettempt tu creete-a a mooltileengooel iesy-tu-use-a cumpeeleshun CD veet Fureffux, Thoonderburd und un ixcellent selecshun ooff ploogeens (Mecrumedeea Flesh, Mecrumedeea Shuckvefe-a und Soon Jefa), ixtenseeuns (Edbluck, Guugleber, Hutmeeel tebs, SesseeunSefer, ScrepBouk und mure-a Bork Bork), Fureffux und Thoonderburd zeemes, releted prugrems (Furetoone-a und Beckoopffux) und a cumprehenseefe-a begeenner's gooeede-a. Iferytheeng yuoo need tu stert up veet und get zee must oooot ooff Fureffux und Thoonderburd. Zeere's elsu a leete-a ferseeun fur doonlued."

    Use-a zee Prefeeoo Boottun! Check thuse-a URLs! Bork Bork Bork!

  • There should also be a lite CD. Or at least make sure the installer for the CD lets people know the extra stuff is optional. The physical media helps with people who aren't comfortable with downloading software. If you put all this stuff on it and make people think they NEED it, then it gets overwhelming. "Geeze... I need to install all of this extra stuff just to use Firefox? I don't have to install *anything* to use IE."

  • Translation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:58AM (#13755874)

    All the automated translation efforts "yo mamma, sup, homey, you mammo dogface to the bananapathch?" [wikipedia.org] need to be based on local lingo.

    I speak fairly good French, but translating this to something that could be understood by a second-language French learner is quite the challenge.

    But that's OK, because the language is always devolving and marketing is our friend.
  • Now, if it could only be released in a "Portable" [johnhaller.com] version. While I certainly love the current concept, to me, having an option of installing these apps as "portable" versions simply rocks. Yes, many users want Firefox and Thunderbird to be installed so that they become the "default" apps, but having it available in a completely transportable format has been invaluable to me.

    Specific to Firefox, one thing I would love to see developed is some sort of "web-syncable profile". I simply love the current implemen
  • Must be Windows then. I don't know of any Linux Shockwave plugin.
    • yeah congratulations on that observation, galileo. your average linux user would have no use whatsoever for this CD. The idea here is to steal marketshare from IE and OE by making Firefox and Thunderbird a turnkey solution, and not just a 10 minute web-romping joyride of sequential installs for geeks.
  • I wodner why they didn't include any games. I got my mother to start using FireFox by showing her Blockfall (Tetris clone). If they had included a few game extenstions, it would take up very little space and would show off the power and flexibility of FireFox.
  • Firemonger is an amazing community project and it's good to see them getting more widespread coverage. Firemonger is and will continue to be a key driver of Firefox adoption. Congratulations to the whole team!

    - A

  • Firemonger stats (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dlichterman ( 868464 )
    Hey this is Daniel, one of the origional helpers in the Firemonger project. If you would like to see some stats on hits.....heres a link!
    http://my.statcounter.com/project/standard/stats.p hp?project_id=444253&guest=1 [statcounter.com]

  • Drop TBE! (Score:2, Informative)

    by DrIdiot ( 816113 )
    Drop Tabbrowser Extensions from the package.

    Honestly, if they're going to put together a compilation of Firefox extensions, they might want to choose good ones that don't add bloat.

    Tabbrowser Extensions is NOT recommended by the MozDev team. I've used it, and I've actually noticed that it slowed down my browser. This isn't a thing where I got a timer and timed it. This is a thing where I sat there thinking "wow, am I really on cable?"

    Next thing you know, people are going to install this package and

  • Customized installations (Score:2, Interesting)

    by snib ( 911978 )
    I personally prefer FFDeploy (http://home.comcast.net/~ifrit/FFDeploy.html [comcast.net]), even though it hasn't been updated in months, I believe it still works. It allows you to pick your own extensions and settings, and it's easy enough to burn them to a CD.
  • This is exactly not the way to help their cause. Selling a browser as "See fewer ads" sends a nasty message to content providers. They already aren't enthused enough about the ease of blocking ad content, but making this part of a default distro would put an even worse taste in their mouth.
  • Come on, you gotta include that.....
  • OK, so they went to all that work to take apart the browser from the mailer and from the extensions, and now they're going to put it all back together? Why not just go back to work on the mozilla project?
  • I don't want to install Google Toolbar on my browser. Is it easy to remove if you've installed this package? Extensions are typically harder to remove than themes or other simple stuff.

    The current features for entering search terms in the address bar work just fine for me, and I'm concerned about the privacy implications of any deeper connection to Google or Yahoo or other search engines.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close