[01:58] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: So there was some discussion surrounding performance of Firefox on Linux
[01:58] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: some folks at Mozilla discussed the possibility of blacklisting the Unity Add-On's that are currently shipped with Firefox in Ubuntu
[01:58] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: did you have thoughts on this?
[02:01] <Unit193> Blacklisting wouldn't be the way to go, they should talk to downstream about fixing, removing, making it optional, or something else.  But what do I know? :P
[02:19] <bkerensa> Unit193: The folks working on performance said one reason they do not look at performance data from Ubuntu is because of the baked in stuff that make Firefox non-vanilla (not what upstream ships)
[02:19] <bkerensa> they said Fedora/Red Hat and others do a much better job of shipping vanilla Firefox but Ubuntu not so much
[03:06] <micahg> I thought the unity addon was upstream now
[03:18] <mdeslaur> bkerensa: what unity addons?
[03:21] <mdeslaur> bkerensa: can't they just continue using performance data from fedora/red hat%
[03:21] <mdeslaur> ?
[06:34] <chrisccoulson> bkerensa, why the unity addons, what performance issues would they solve?
[06:34] <chrisccoulson> and i don't particularly care much anymore tbh, as i don't work on it anymore. i guess you'd have to talk to the desktop team about that ;)
[06:35] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: I'm unsure tbh but generally there was some objection to shipping add-ons by default in FF
[06:35] <bkerensa> I'm not sure it will actually develop to a black list but it was mentioned
[06:36] <bkerensa> there was some suggestions that Firefox users should not be prompted by default with the Unity WebApps bit too that it could be considered invasive and since its integrated with Firefox.... users might believe it was a feature that was supported by Mozilla
[06:37] <bkerensa> mdeslaur: they can and thats the only distro they do even look at right now but even with RH/Fedora the weight it holds overall is minimal
[06:37] <bkerensa> There was interest in having Firefox be more vanilla in Ubuntu like it is in Fedora
[06:38] <bkerensa> but not any decision making fwiw
[06:38] <chrisccoulson> it's hardly vanilla in fedora. it's built using a separate xulrunner for starters, and uses system libraries rather than the mozilla's libraries
[06:38] <bkerensa> the only thing upstream can do to force this in Ubuntu would be to blacklist the add-ons
[06:38] <chrisccoulson> if anything, we're more vanilla than them ;)
[06:38] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: well I think in regards to the WebApps add-ons and such
[06:38] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: is that something shipped even in the FF package or is it installed by another package?
[06:39] <chrisccoulson> but anyway, it's not really my problem anymore. if there are issues with the webapps addons, that should be taken up with the desktop team now
[06:39] <chrisccoulson> it's a separate package
[06:39] <bkerensa> hmm
[06:39] <bkerensa> ok
[06:39] <chrisccoulson> i've got it uninstalled ;)
[06:39] <bkerensa> as do I
[06:50] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: also looking at the add-on guidelines and blocklist policy it seems the unity-firefox-extension would meet the criteria for blocklisting
[06:50] <bkerensa> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Add-on_guidelines?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=Addons%2FAdd-on_guidelines
[06:53] <chrisccoulson> why?
[07:06] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: "Add-ons must either be installed using the add-on web install system, or be approved by the user using the install opt-in dialog. "
[07:07] <bkerensa> also "Add-ons should clearly communicate their intended purpose and active features, including features introduced through updates. "
[07:07] <bkerensa> the Unity and WebApps Add-On both have no descriptions
[07:13] <Unit193> They sure don't have much of one, but Ubufox only has one in the package description, and is also installed by default
[07:14] <chrisccoulson> bkerensa, well, install opt-in is disabled for addons in system directories. that's nothing to do with the addon
[07:14] <chrisccoulson> we got permission from mozilla to do that
[07:15] <bkerensa> for the Ubuntu Improvements Add-On right?
[07:21] <bkerensa> chrisccoulson: RoboChris is cute btw
[07:21] <bkerensa> ;)
[11:34] <mdeslaur> bkerensa: mozilla are partners. If they have an issue with the plugin, they can communicate with us through the regular channels.
=== m_conley_away is now known as m_conley
[16:32] <bkerensa> mdeslaur: The Blocklist Process is an official channel thanks though :)
=== m_conley is now known as m_conley_away