Re: Should Epiphany browser be renamed because of conflict w/ game name?

[Reinout van Schouwen <reinouts gnome org>]

Hi Steve,

Op di, 17-10-2006 te 14:32 -0500, schreef Steve Bergman:

> Not to offend anyone... but as a relatively newly converted Epiphany
> user, I'd have to say that Epiphany is absolutely the best browser that
> few know or care about.

I doubt that anyone here will be offended by that remark! =)

> Epiphany is nominally Gnome's official browser.  But if there were a
> package named "Konqueror' or even Konqueror-Game, there would have been
> a brouhaha long ago.

Possibly, but keep in mind that the Epiphany the game existed before
Epiphany the browser.

> And if there were a package called "Firefox-Game", the cease and desist
> order  would  be  issued from Mozilla legal within minutes.

Mozilla.org lawyers should be experts on name disputes by now... :p

> I find it a bit odd that Gnome based distros use all the other standard
> Gnome apps, and then pass over Epiphany in favor of the non-Gnome
> Firefox.

This, indeed, was disappointing to the Epiphany community. As I
understand, the reasoning goes that many "switchers" from Windows to
Free operating systems get their first "taste of open source" via
Mozilla Firefox and if that browser is the default on their new OS, that
would make the switch easier for them.

What I find strange about this argument is why the browser plays such a
pivotal role that, while nobody seems to have second thoughts about
changing the complete desktop environment for Windows converts, the web
browsing experience should be identical. Which it isn't, anyway, because
Firefox on Linux behaves a bit differently in some respects than on
Windows.

> It seems to me that XUL-runner + Epiphany would be a much more distro
> friendly combo than the monolithic and indifferent Firefox/Mozilla.

Yes it would, if only for the fact that Firefox has some dialogs with
the name "Firefox" hardcoded in it, that leak through to the Epiphany
UI, and XULrunner doesn't have this problem. However, it would present
entirely new security issues for distros to go this route, because
XULrunner is not a first-class "product" for Mozilla.org, meaning that
timely security updates are even less guaranteed with XULrunner than
they are with a Firefox back-end. This will only change when Firefox
itself starts to use XULrunner which isn't expected until version 3.0.

> But to get back on topic, I guess we could use more of a cheerleading
> section.  Firefox has spreadfirefox.org.  Perhaps a spreadepiphany.org
> is needed.  More likely, a strong pitch made to Gnome-based distro
> maintainers.

If you'd like to expand the "marketing" section on
http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany, you're more than welcome to do so! :-)
There is a GNOME marketing group that you may want to get in touch with
too. Of course, you can always drop by on #epiphany to discuss ideas.

Thanks for using Epiphany!

regards,

-- 
Reinout van Schouwen