Yes. (that's the main point of "stable").

There is no problem anymore.
It was fixed after changing the name.

Neither Mozilla or other distros support as many architectures.
Are you really suggesting that plain x86 code will just work on any hardware platform?

Even worse, are you *really* claiming that adding all needed security patches isn't necessary?

Changing the name allows debian to continue using Firefox as before.

EDIT: Since Mike H. is now working for Mozilla as well, it's even possible that the next "stable" iceweasel wil be renamed in firefox again. While all big patch issues are solved, Mozilla still needs to make it official to become legal (and permanent).

- Linux kernel in Debian Stable is not identical to the same upstream version downloaded from git / kernel.org

- Apache2 in Debian stable is not the same as the Apache2 of the same version from upstream.

- Evolution mail client in Debian stable is not the same as the Evolution of the same version from gnome.org

- udev in Debian stable is not the same as the udev of the same version you would pull from the git repo.

The reason for this? Backported fixes. The code will not be the same. But that's ok so long as they don't rename it and change the logo right...?


3.1

Debian support whatever version they distribute with security patches as has now been explained to you several times over by several people...

Read the release notes.

We'd be ecstatic but that's not what it is... It's not a "more stable version", it's a version with security fixes from later Firefox releases backported into it. This has also been explained to you several times - clearly to no avail.

No you're neither - you're most likely a troll.

(You also made it to my ignore list).

And again and again and again I suppose.
Stupd question, really. This has been explained NUMEROUS times. Debian backports fixes so of course after a fix has been applied it is not identical in every way. It will for all intents behave the same way except it wont have security breaches which is a good thing. What part of this do you have trouble understanding.
3.1 what don't you understand, look at the About Iceweasel info dialog for the answer.
Debians Firefox called Iceweasel? No. Firefox from Mozilla? don't know don't care.
How about you look it up for yourself.
I'm overjoyed about it, but you are being pedantic. Iceweasel is Firefox
We haven't assumed anything, you have shown you don't read what you have been shown. It is obvious you wont be happy until someone gives in and gives you the exact answer you want then you'll go aha told you so.

I would neither assume that you are anti-Debian, anti-stable or anti-Iceweasel. My assumption is that you are anti-information given to you.
To make it clear:
In Debian's way of bringing up stable releases of there distro there is one golden rule: In Debian Stable there are no version upgrades. This is the intended way for a simple reason: New versions bring new features which change the working environment. In a production environment this is the way to go. Debian does it, Red Hat does it, ... .
However, the versions delivered in the Stable branch will get security updates, not feature updates. So you are partly right: Iceweasel 3.5 (or whatever version that is not anymore supported by Mozilla) is Firefox 3.5 without the known security holes. Again, there is no change in behavior, only security updates. If you are pedantic (and it seems so) this can be enough to say that it is not Firefox anymore. But since there is no change in behavior/features most people (and I count myself to those) will say Iceweasel is Firefox!
That may lead to another question: The version of Firefox in Ubuntu's stable release (10.04 LTS) is up to 3.6.24. What happens if Mozilla decide to not support this version anymore (I don't know if that already happened)? Will they have to re-brand it according to Mozilla's license or will it simply don't get security fixes? If that happens, what is better, an unfixed Firefox or a fixed Iceweasel in the same version? Think about that, then may be you will get the point.

Where are you using FF3.1? Is this in a supported OS or one that is no longer supported?

You are not going to believe anything anyone says so why not get the source code and compare it your self.

Since you're ignoring me I can call you an idiot.
The kernel used in Debian Stable is different to the official Linux kernel.
The Firefox (called Iceweasel) in Debian Stable is different to the official Firefox.
Yet you insist that Iceweasel is the same as Firefox. It is different (as everyone states yet still tells me I'm wrong) and has a different name -- so it makes sense to me to treat it as something different.
TobiSGD: A security may change behaviour and some probably will by design.

widget: Last time I checked Iceweasel 3.1 was the version included in the current Debian Stable. I'm not using it -- I'm on the nightly Firefox because I thoguht it would be interesting and when I started using Debian (not long ago) it wasn't obvious that there was a current Iceweasel version. As things stand I'll stick with what I'm using but it's good to know there's an Iceweasel that's current.

Above post reported for unnecessary name calling, you've been quite in this thread for 8 days and you come back doing that.

If you've going to call poeple idiots, you really should check what you are saying. Current debian 'stable' uses firefox/iceweasel 3.5.16-

http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/iceweasel

Sure, 3.5.16-11 will not be exactly the same as 3.5.16 with no security fixes. It hasnt got the (discovered) secrity holes. Aside from that, iceweasel will not act any differently to firefox 3.5.16.

Bit of a red herring, bringing up how the kernel used in debian is different to the 'vanilla' linux kernel. But if you want to start down that path, how many distros use a vanilla linux kernel? Using your logic, most distros cant say they use linux X.X.XX, they have sometimes major, sometimes minor, code changes compared to the vanilla kernel.

Lots of programs have modified software, and people have pointed that out to you in this thread as well. Too use k3lt01s example, in some (most? all really AFAIK) ways banshee or rhythmbox in *buntu will be more difference to vanilla banshee or rhythmbox than iceweasel will compared to firefox.

If you can find somewhere, ANYWHERE that firefox X.XX is 'functionally different' to iceweasel X.XX please point it out.

You fellers are spending a lot of time and effort on a troll.

I decided that, for the very first time, I would see what the "ignore" list actually does.

Wonderful thing. Don't really advocate its use but for someone like this it really does make good sense.

1 members found this post helpful.

Having studied Anthropology and Psychology at University I find Human behaviour fascinating and, to be quite frank, think that 99.99% of trolls in LQ are just .... well ..... trolling. In other words the majority don't do any actual harm instead they just take up bandwidth. Oneday I might do a PhD thesis on "Comparing trolls from the imagination and those online". I get this image in my mind of a cave troll, like in Harry Potter, sitting at a desk with a laptop and typing with fingers that are bigger than my hand.

A comparison of the perception of readers versus the perception of the troll as to the image of the person would be interesting. I suspect they think they come across as sharp, as in edgy as opposed to sharp as in cheese.

I usually find them amusing, if silly. This one is just repetitive in statement and embarrassing to read. To bad.

I'm not convinced that 273 is a troll. caravel probably going to have a giggle at that, I said the same thing to him in private messages about tigerlinux. To caravel, sorry if I should keep quiet about what has been said in private messages. I dont think you would be worried about it, but if you are, message me or ask in a post on this thread and I'll be happy to remove the references to the few private messages we've exchanged.

273 seems to be stuck on the whole iceweasel/firefox things, due to what is really very minor changes in the code. Practically, the rest of us are right, there is no real-world differences between iceweasel X.XX and firefox X.XX (well, aside from the security). Technically, he is right, its not _exactly_ the same. But that becomes the 'thin edge of the wedge', and there are programs with the same name and version numbers with far more differences between them than between firefox and iceweasel.

IMO the reason why the 'troll' label is being applied is because 273 is hung up on the naming, and backporting, and doesnt seem to be paying much attention to what everybody else is saying. The best way out of this would have been for 273 to have said 'O.K., they have the same features, and functionality, the only difference is that iceweasel X.XX is more secure than a vanilla mozilla X.XX, but IMO the backporting of code makes them different' and left it at that. We can have differeing opinions, if everybody thought the same the world would be a boring place.

Just accept that there is no qualitative difference between iceweasel and firefox, 273. Dwelling on the security backporting and naming convention is a nice way to create an argument. But just because it creates an arguement doesnt mean that 273 is sitting there, wanting, trying to create and feeding of discord....which is my definion of a troll. Having a point of view that differs from others, making circular arguments and ignoring or dismissing evidence that has been presented doesnt really make anybody a troll. The nicest way to describe it is 'stubborn', maybe 'willfull', and there is at least a dask of 'I want to be technically correct, even if I'm pratically incorrect'. There are various other names that you could apply for that, which I wont.

273 and anyone else who only partially understands that Iceweasel both is and is not Firefox, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla...Debian_project for the history behind Iceweasel and the rationale behind it.

That link has already been posted in the third post in this thread.

It's also outdated.

http://glandium.org/blog/?p=933
http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1650