It is a script that automatically changes the internal flags of Firefox (accessed manually through “about:config”) but isn’t a recompile. A fork that uses most of the Arkenfox config is Librewolf.
Arkenfox quite literally is not a fork. It is just changing settings. That is like saying I am making a Firefox fork by changing it to dark theme and changing the default search engine to Bing.
Arkenfox isn’t a fork, even with a script it is manual for much of it. A fork requires redistributing the code, which for Firefox requires the Dev to change the name and replace icons of the application (to comply with Firefox’s license), which requires modifying the source code and compiling.
It is not patching Firefox. I already explained this bit I will say it again. No source code is changed, no promo icons, and no recompile is done, therefore it is not a fork. Tor browser does a lot of stuff behind the scenes. Arkenfox is not a fork. Tor browser comes prebundled with “No Script” extension, arkenfox cannot bundle extensions because it literally only copies text from one config file to another. Tor browser patches out the phone home to the Mozilla Add-on Store, Arkenfox literally cannot because it doesn’t modify the code and without recompiling it causes a crash. There are many many more differences between forks of Firefox and Arkenfox, I’ll leave that research for you because I think I have said enough. Arkenfox is not a fork of Firefox by definition, it does not modify any code. It would be like saying “I forked Minecraft” because I create a text file with my fav config of keybinds and settings and then share that config. Arkenfox is just a text file config and a script that modifies the default config of an existing Firefox profile. When you create a new Firefox profile, it is generated as default without Arkenfox settings. Librewolf, which uses much of Arkenfox’s user.js config, must follow the forking guidelines outlined by Mozilla, patches out phone homes, bundles extensions, changes ui, and (crucially) if you create a new profile, it is preconfigured with security and privacy settings.
My understanding is that this Arkenfox thing is a script that changes the config of your existing Firefox install. A fork would be a version of Firefox you can download that has those changes applied by default upon download.
Every fork creates fragmentation. Then you get forks of forks. Then you get forks of forks of forks. Eventually, you get a knife, and a spoon, and a spork, maybe even a fpoon. And every fork splits your developer pool in half! And once you’re down to one developer each, the developer splits in half! And then you have no project.
that’s not how things work. open source projects don’t start with a set amount of developers and start splitting. even if they do, they don’t split in equal parts. if you have 500 developers working on a project, and 10 of them create 8 different forks, that doesn’t really change much.
some developers may move around, and more developers can join the pool all the time, on any fork. i don’t understand how any of this is a problem.
Remember, all these forks are possible because Firefox is open source
Arkenfox is not a fork FYI
How is it not a fork?
It is a script that automatically changes the internal flags of Firefox (accessed manually through “about:config”) but isn’t a recompile. A fork that uses most of the Arkenfox config is Librewolf.
That sounds like the definition of a fork
Arkenfox quite literally is not a fork. It is just changing settings. That is like saying I am making a Firefox fork by changing it to dark theme and changing the default search engine to Bing.
Arkenfox isn’t a fork, even with a script it is manual for much of it. A fork requires redistributing the code, which for Firefox requires the Dev to change the name and replace icons of the application (to comply with Firefox’s license), which requires modifying the source code and compiling.
Taking the latest release and then running a script to patch it with some modifications is the definition of a fork.
By your logic, Tor Browser isn’t a fork of Firefox.
Tor makes changes to the FF source though for it to run, no?
Arkenfox merely makes config changes in FF
No, you’re mistaken. A fork is a whole new product. This is not a whole new product. It’s a patch.
Its not modifying the code, it’s changing existing settings that are already available to be changed to optimal settings for privacy…
It is not a fork you are completely wrong.
It is not patching Firefox. I already explained this bit I will say it again. No source code is changed, no promo icons, and no recompile is done, therefore it is not a fork. Tor browser does a lot of stuff behind the scenes. Arkenfox is not a fork. Tor browser comes prebundled with “No Script” extension, arkenfox cannot bundle extensions because it literally only copies text from one config file to another. Tor browser patches out the phone home to the Mozilla Add-on Store, Arkenfox literally cannot because it doesn’t modify the code and without recompiling it causes a crash. There are many many more differences between forks of Firefox and Arkenfox, I’ll leave that research for you because I think I have said enough. Arkenfox is not a fork of Firefox by definition, it does not modify any code. It would be like saying “I forked Minecraft” because I create a text file with my fav config of keybinds and settings and then share that config. Arkenfox is just a text file config and a script that modifies the default config of an existing Firefox profile. When you create a new Firefox profile, it is generated as default without Arkenfox settings. Librewolf, which uses much of Arkenfox’s user.js config, must follow the forking guidelines outlined by Mozilla, patches out phone homes, bundles extensions, changes ui, and (crucially) if you create a new profile, it is preconfigured with security and privacy settings.
My understanding is that this Arkenfox thing is a script that changes the config of your existing Firefox install. A fork would be a version of Firefox you can download that has those changes applied by default upon download.
It’s more akin to a plugin since it doesn’t change the code at all.
It’s a template to help set all the security and privacy hardening features that Firefox already ships with but are disabled by default.
TIL.
Thanks.
Not entirely
Every fork creates fragmentation. Then you get forks of forks. Then you get forks of forks of forks. Eventually, you get a knife, and a spoon, and a spork, maybe even a fpoon. And every fork splits your developer pool in half! And once you’re down to one developer each, the developer splits in half! And then you have no project.
And that’s why we should use Chrome?
No, but cargo-culting Mozilla isn’t ideal.
Forks create options. Only a handful of forks will actually be used.
Tell that to Linux lol
or userspace audio daemons
or package managers
or FHS
or Linux userspace network stacks
or Linux firewalls
or init systems & rc managers
or window managers / desktop environments
or graphics toolkits
That’s the idea. It is good to have options. Single standards are a bad idea even though they are convenient in the short term.
Hard disagree. Though I suppose this is the usual big disagreement between linux and bsd users.
yeah, Linux is a kernel, not an OS, build whatever you want onto it.
that’s not how things work. open source projects don’t start with a set amount of developers and start splitting. even if they do, they don’t split in equal parts. if you have 500 developers working on a project, and 10 of them create 8 different forks, that doesn’t really change much.
some developers may move around, and more developers can join the pool all the time, on any fork. i don’t understand how any of this is a problem.
Nice FUD.
By your own logic, Chrome should have fewer developers than Konqueror, since its engine is essentially a fork of a fork of a fork.