Root of the problem is Mozilla.org is Windows centric [LWN.net]

Root of the problem is Mozilla.org is Windows centric

Posted Jun 8, 2006 13:27 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
In reply to: Root of the problem is Mozilla.org is Windows centric by ronaldcole
Parent article: The problem of Firefox in Ubuntu Breezy

You don't seem to understand the purpose of enterprise distributions.

The whole *point* of these is that users (i.e., the companies using them, not the individual employees and end users) can be confident that things do not randomly change when they install updates for the distro.

Anyone who wants newer software versions can upgrade to a newer RHEL (or whatever); but those who'd rather stay with the versions they are already using and which they know work should not be forced to upgrade. New features and changes always have a chance to contain nasty surprises, and that's exactly what you don't want in these situations.

(Log in to post comments)

Root of the problem is Mozilla.org is Windows centric

Posted Jun 8, 2006 18:57 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

However an ancient SpamAssassin is much less effective at killling spam. Upstream keeps changing the format of the database, so you can't use a recent rules set with an old SpamAssassin. Many spammers have already adapted to that old version.

I also wonder what about security holes in the version of Mozilla included in RHEL 2.1 (or is it actually Netscape 4? )

Root of the problem is Mozilla.org is Windows centric

Posted Jun 9, 2006 17:34 UTC (Fri) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link]

Nothing in the world is preventing you from upgrading to the DAG repository's spamassassin-3.1.2-1.el3.rf.i386.rpm, which, although distributed by a third party, is specifically designed to be compatible with RHEL3.

You can sync to the DAG repository using your choice of apt, yum, up2date, or just use plain command line rpm.

A stable distribution using a backport policy gives you the option of remaining with the previous version. This does not in any way prevent you from upgrading to a new version yourself -- you have the option of doing either. By contrast, a distribution which tracks the upstream releases does not give you that option. Many people much prefer having the ability to choose. This is the main reason why backport policies are popular.

If you don't like having the option of going either way, you are always free to choose (!) a distribution like gentoo or fedora that tracks upstream releases closely.