On 09/24/2017 08:48 AM, Miroslav Rovis wrote:
> On 170924-08:36-0400, zap wrote:
> ...
> Zap, look at the work that I'd need to do if I went the Waterfox way:
Hmm... yes I really don't know. Not that it matters anyways, waterfox
doesn't need to be added to the repo to be used in devuan. I have seen
proof of this myself. So yeah...
>>> But only if more people from Devuan or Debian created a traction would I be
>>> more willing to give it a real try (would be lots of compiling, as in my
Not needed, librezilla is better idea. I hope it will be based off of
firefox esr.
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> | | | | | | | |
>>> paragraph that survived so far, further down, just as for Palemoon, so lots of
>>> work)...
>> Your call, if you want to trust waterfox and my testimony. Up to you. :)
> It's not about trust, but expert testimony or content advanced user numbers (of
> which there are some in both Gentoo and Devuan/Debian) or more, of which there
> is substantial amount for Pale Moon... Really good support on the forums e.g.
>
> And more expert testimony would mean much more than just words. Harder stuff,
> such as how they behave shown with packet traces, e.g.
Yeah, it is kind of ignorant for me to say that I guess. my bad.
> ...
>>> Rick Moen in the later email, gave good explanation on the page you gave in
>>> regard:
>>> https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
>>> Something like simply overstated protection of their logo, and, let me hope
>>> that, having corresponded (a little) on the list with the main guy behind Pale
>>> Moon, Mark Straver (so far, I have had no reason to disbelieve of his
>>> developer honesty), my impression is that (manual citation follows from that
>>> page):
>>>>>> The binaries and/or archives are completely UNALTERED.
>>> is likely just a good protection against plain abuse.
>> I suppose
> ...
>> That's fine, I look forward to librezilla. and yes waterfox isn't
>> perfect either, but I find it more trustworthy than palemoon. We all
>> make our own choices feel free to ignore my post if you wish.
> C'mon! You would need to do something wrong, and bad, for me to ignore your
> post(s), and you haven't done so. Different points of view, political or
> techical, do not make for a reason to ignore.
>
> Regards!
Yeah you make a good point, although I meant ignoring me on my thoughts
on waterfox. But yeah that isn't constructive either. :/
::
Re: [DNG] Devuan, Firefox and Apuls…
