pref("app.update.enabled", false); pref("app.update.autoInstallEnabled", false); I understand these two, and don't see a problem. pref("browser.display.use_system_colors", true); Why? pref("browser.link.open_external", 3); While I personally use this, this is not the default AFAIK. Can't we let users decide themselves? pref("general.smoothScroll", true); pref("general.autoScroll", false); _Evil_ _and_ not the default. pref("browser.tabs.tabMinWidth", 15); Contrary to defaults. pref("browser.backspace_action", 0); Default? - redundant. pref("browser.urlbar.hideGoButton", true); It's a useless button, but people should decide whether or not they want this default widget themselves. pref("accessibility.typeaheadfind", true); Evil and non-default. pref("browser.startup.homepage", "http://www.gentoo.org/"); Supremely evil. Die, die, die.
Here's an idea - delete the file if you dislike it, or set it up as you want in your profile. I could post another couple of rants here about retarded *upstream* defaults (couple of which we override to sane values by gentoo-default-prefs.js) but don't feel like wasting my time.
I couldn't agree more. At the very least setting the startup homepage to Gentoo should be controlled by the branding use flag (or not modified at all). What has been especially nice about Gentoo in the past, is that upstreams applications defaults are respected as much as possible and I know for sure, that a lot of users do like this approach. I don't see a reason to deviate from this line.
I do agree on a lot of this to be evil. Deleting the file is certainly not a solution. Ideally I would like to trim these imposed defaults down to just: pref("app.update.enabled", false); pref("app.update.autoInstallEnabled", false); Jakub, could you let us know which of these are really needed? And which are simply personal preferences?
I agree that only the first lines are needed. Christian, will you take care of this?
seems some of the logic is flawed here ... - there is nothing redundant - of course none of these are the upstream defaults if either of these statements were true, why would we be changing them ? in terms of "imposing" ... oh please, nothing is preventing you from changing these values from the standard method ... go to the about:config page and change them declaring things "evil" is not an argument ... in fact, most things you deem "evil" i would have to say the opposite behavior is "evil" i dont know exactly about use_system_colors, but going by the description, seems logical to me ... have the default colors match the system colors thus giving a more integrated look/feel i cant even guess why you'd disagree with enabling the smoothScroll option autoScroll is obviously a contentious option, but it was disabled because it prevents the classical Unix interface: middle mouse pasting urls into a page tabs.tabMinWidth is obvious ... the default we use here reverts firefox-2 behavior to previous versions the default backspace_action for Unix is 1, not 0 i think if we did a vote, typeaheadfind would win out ... but of course neither of us have real data to back this up ... i'd also point out the default is that when you start typing, nothing at all happens, so if you dont use the typeaheadfind option, it shouldnt affect you because you shouldnt be typing random text since default behavior is a NOP ;) startup.homepage is logical to me ... the default mozilla homepage is worthless ... oh look, a rebranded google search, you guys are so clever regardless, the installation of the .js should be disabled when USE=bindist is enabled
I'm going to try to work out a compromise here. Feel free to disagree on any of these. Magical prefs legend: + : in ? : unsure - : not in We all agree these should be in. +pref("app.update.enabled", false); +pref("app.update.autoInstallEnabled", false); We're unsure about use_system_colors: ?pref("browser.display.use_system_colors", true); Nobody is complaining about this one and most of us seem to like it, however it could fall into the following category. ?pref("browser.link.open_external", 3); These are disputed and personal preferences. Nobody can really say that their preference is better, I don't think we want to hold monthly votes over what the defaults should be so we need to come to a decision: either leave the defaults as is or override them with what we (developers) think are better defaults. ?pref("general.smoothScroll", true); ?pref("general.autoScroll", false); ?pref("browser.tabs.tabMinWidth", 15); ?pref("browser.backspace_action", 0); ?pref("browser.urlbar.hideGoButton", true); I don't see a problem with this one, though to argue with myself: if someone uses typeahead I'm sure they can turn it on themselves. ?pref("accessibility.typeaheadfind", true); We're not meant to brand by default are we? This one doesn't seem to work anyway. -pref("browser.startup.homepage", "http://www.gentoo.org/"); So, to decide on what I believe to be the underlying issue here: Do we bow in reverence to all upstream defaults (however terrible they may be) that don't break anything or alternately, adhere to whatever developer's personal preferences are? I personally think that leaving the defaults alone and allowing everyone to customize their own systems is much less hassle. I was personally thrown off by two of these defaults (backspace and auto scroll).
none of the changed defaults break anything ... that's why they're called defaults, these settings dont force users to any specific behavior ... users are of course free to change them just like any other option browser.startup.homepage works, but only if you dont already have a homepage set in your profile i dont see any logical argument against using smoothScroll by default as for the others, you could just throw up a cheesy vote on the forums i'd note that hideGoButton is completely worthless
*** Bug 178604 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Bug 178604 has been marked a dup of this one, but just to fill in those who're following this thread: setting the home page does break things. It appears that FF (for some inexplicable reason) attempts to open a connection to the specified Gentoo page, even though it never displays it due to a profile-set home page. In a firewalled environment where the packets are dropped (e.g. at our university where all connections must go through a proxy), this prevents FF from opening at all, (making it impossible to set the proxy). And I don't know of a way to permanently prevent this (deleting the file is only good until the next firefox update) - perhaps a USE flag would be a good idea? -branding? +vanilla? Just my 2c.
umm, i doubt that ... the default .js does: pref("browser.startup.homepage", "http://www.gentoo.org/"); which user preferences override ... just open your firefox and go to about:config and you can see whatever the preferences dictate
Hmm, seems I can't reproduce it. Either that behaviour has been fixed or else I was actually seeing it with a fresh install (no profile) at the time. Never mind then.
I would preger let "go" botton be shown, it is useful when, for example, user copies a web direction and pastes it in location window 1. Copy a URL, for example www.gentoo.org 2. Paste it in location bar (with middle click or with copy&paste buttons) Now you have to click on return, I think that is much easier (in this case) simply click on "go" button because you are already using mouse for copy/pasting Thanks
In the interest of bug fixes, I'd think it would be in the maintainers' best interest to override as few defaults as possible. Upstream defaults should only be overridden in the case that they would "break" something out of the box like in the case of "app.update.enabled" and "app.update.autoInstallEnabled". Those are pretty apparent. Everything else is pretty much just assumption that "our users will want it this way" sort of thing ... some of which may be scratching their heads when Mozilla's page say one thing yet their installation does another. Also, if that homepage pref is in there that *really* doesn't need to be in there. It's on par with installing IE under Windows and having your homepage set to www.microsoft.com for you (as opposed to a IE specific page)
I would argue that the Mozilla foundation does better research into what defaults its users like than Gentoo developers do. In the case of these settings changes, with the obvious exception of the auto-update enabling, the decision to override Mozilla's wishes seems like hubris. We don't need two organizations competing on what user interface is better. I personally am disappointed that developers even considered changing these defaults, let alone actually implementing them. Consider if Gentoo decided to Greasemonkey-modify Google's homepage to some different color with Firefox's default install. Of course, this doesn't break anything technically, but Google's appearance is very carefully engineered.
(In reply to comment #14) > I would argue that the Mozilla foundation does better research into what > defaults its users like than Gentoo developers do. In the case of these > settings changes, with the obvious exception of the auto-update enabling, the > decision to override Mozilla's wishes seems like hubris. We don't need two > organizations competing on what user interface is better. > > I personally am disappointed that developers even considered changing these > defaults, let alone actually implementing them. > > Consider if Gentoo decided to Greasemonkey-modify Google's homepage to some > different color with Firefox's default install. Of course, this doesn't break > anything technically, but Google's appearance is very carefully engineered. > All options can be overriden. I initially made the changes way back in the day. We spoke about them on gentoo dev channel and agreed on what some saner defaults where, we also noted that users could always opt to revert changes locally.
