On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:53:43 -0400, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:45 +0100, Steve Hill wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > > > Here's the problem... Steve hasn't actually seen how the EULA > > > situation for FF3 is handled in Fedora 9. > > > > Correct, which is why my original question was basically: does this issue > > affect Fedora, and if not, how has Fedora got around it? I wasn't > > suggesting that what Fedora is currently doing is right or wrong, I was > > really just interested in what Fedora was actually doing. > > If you're interested in the full story of how we've gotten to where we > are now, I've written it up here: > > http://spot.livejournal.com/299409.html It would be nice if you are going to force a new (temporary) start page after a firefox update, that you get sent to view a local file which has a link to where updated versions are anticipated to be rather than to an extrenal page. This has the advantage of giving the same appearance whether or not you are connected to the internet when you first run it after an update. And it does not give the appearance of suripsticiously tracking installs by connecting to home base at first start. On a related note, it would also be nice to have the anti-phishing stuff off by default. (And then you could delay the web services notification until someone enabled that feature as another alternative.) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
