Talk:Swiftfox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
| 1 2 |
| This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Archive Notice
I started a page 2 for the Swiftfox talk archive and copied a huge chunk over there. Kilz 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Name Section
Coincidence is not fact and it is implying that something is in fact or connection , when it isnt.Kilz 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a referenced quote, and I've already alerted you to that. I again advise you not to repeat. Please stop removing it - and check the reference. Widefox 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The claim on the reference says where the name came from. It has nothing to do or say about any "coincidence". The word coincidence implies something is fact that isnt. That there is a speed improvement claim. Either remove the "coincidence" line or leave the tag in place.Kilz 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Licensing
The first paragraph states that this browser is open-source, while the summary box states that the binaries are proprietary. We should fix this, shouldn't we? DanielBrodzik 07:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is part of the unique nature of Swiftfox. It used the open source Mozilla source. But through the MPL license was able to change the license on its binary builds to a proprietary license. The information is correct. Kilz 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It came to me the other day, that in fact Swiftfox is not even opensource. According to the Open Source Definition "1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)" Since Swiftfox cant be redistributed, can it be said to be open source? Kilz 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found another reference as to what open source is. From Opensource.org. open source defined The trick of naming something open source to gain acceptance is wrong. It should fit the definition. Part of being open source is not restricting redistribution, which Swiftfox clearly does.Kilz 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It came to me the other day, that in fact Swiftfox is not even opensource. According to the Open Source Definition "1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)" Since Swiftfox cant be redistributed, can it be said to be open source? Kilz 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Speed Section
After Archiving the talk page I noticed that I had removed the section discussing problems with the Speed section. What needs to be updated , and why.
- We are relying on a Softpedia Review from 2005 on the 1.5 version for a speed critique.
- 1. But there are no numbers to back up the statement.
- 2. The 1.5 version is past its end of life.
- 1. But there are no numbers to back up the statement.
- We are relying on Browser speed comparisons for numbers. The problems with this site are.
- 1. It is a private site with no editorial oversight. WP:SPS as such it is not a reliable source. It needs to be removed or replaced soon.
- 2. The site uses benchmark data from Beta versions of Firefox 1.5, not even a release version.
- 1. It is a private site with no editorial oversight. WP:SPS as such it is not a reliable source. It needs to be removed or replaced soon.
- APC Magazine is from September of 2006.
- 1. The article uses Firefox/Swiftfox 1.5.0.6. This version is past the end of life. Mozilla no longer makes versions of the 1.5 series.
- 2. The article is an apples to oranges comparison. It compares 32bit Swiftfox against 64bit Konqueror and Epiphany.
- 3. The article uses questionable testing techniques. The "scragz" test and a "stopwatch" to get results of less that a second. Kilz 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- 1. The article uses Firefox/Swiftfox 1.5.0.6. This version is past the end of life. Mozilla no longer makes versions of the 1.5 series.
- It has been 6 months since I brought up the problems of relying on these sites and numbers. I had hoped they would have been replaced as the 1.5 branch is now obsolete for at least 5 months. The Browser speed comparisons site is troubling in that its a private site that uses not just the 1.5 branch, but beta versions of that branch. If we can not find up to date verifiable sources soon I plan on removing this very out of date and questionable information. Kilz 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation, please
It'd be great to have a part explaining..umm...how exactly this is different from Firefox. I mean, in plain english. all i got from this is that it's marginally faster to start up.....--Quadraxis 06:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Its also proprietary and under its own license that restricts redistribution. But yes, you have it summed up pretty good. Except that the tests that prove any speed are on obsolete versions on different hardware. So we cant even be sure that is still the case. Kilz (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 & Firefox 3
I plan to rewrite most of the article, to cleanup and get ready for Firefox 3, which is already the default browser on Ubuntu and the main Swiftfox browser. This does not mean we throw away all Swiftfox 1.5, 2.0 info, just a refocus. Widefox (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
