exactly
if what you want is not there - install it and remove what is unwanted
done
3 Likes
I would prefer to keep Firefox for Xfce since it was only included on minimal ISOs recently (24.0.3 released 2 July) but any browser on a Live ISO is better than no browser at all
Users can change browsers after installing so having choice of browsers in calamares is not really worthwhile. If there was a web-browser package group to show all browsers available from official repositories it would be easier to see what is available
This has always been my system under my control
2 Likes
My opinion is based on the depressing realism of these times.
Only four browsers are practically targeted by web designers all around the world: Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Firefox. If Manjaro wants to stay a serious and reliable distribution, it has to offer at least one of them as the default option. If you exclude the closed-source options, there are only Chromium and Firefox.
So I would argue to keep Firefox and advocate to Arch Linux that they disable this new telemetry option by default. I am against the inclusion of Vivaldi even as a secondary browser, as it would not be beneficial with regards to the privacy issues. Even Chromium with sane configurations would make more sense as a secondary option.
But I would wholeheartedly support the permanent inclusion of Ladybird as an experimental browser in the distribution. Manjaro could and should be on the forefront of the development of this hopeful browser. My dream for the future is a modern standard-compliant browser without telemetric trash deeply intertwined in its engine and with support of uBlock Origin. Ladybird could become such a browser in a few years.
3 Likes
Thatās a good point,i even encountered some issues using FF on a Government website at some point.
if a goal of Manjaro is to increase user-base,inexperienced users should have a functioning OS with little friction possible.
My only issue with FF PPA is that it is opt out.
However an option to select browser at install time, or even in the welcome box post install. Either of those offer a route to help avoid the need to toggle an option.
1 Like
It is important that a default browser be selected and included during installation, hopefully the most universally usable browser in terms of compatibility with the widest range of currently in-use technologies, respecting privacy, and proven track record of being secure.
As @linub points out, eliminating friction to the degree possible is important. I very much like having the option to select additional browsers during OS installation, but think that it should be in addition to the default browser.
I strongly prefer Vivaldi. That said, I agree that ensuring only open-source applications are installed by default is essential. Having the option to install one or more additional browsers during the install process, therefore, makes sense. We all know that it is easy to install others later, but it speaks to the vision of the devs of any OS to make sensible options available from the get-go
2 Likes
To be fair, there is nothing worth adding for now, first release is planned for 2026 there is only some kind of Alpha testing for now, and last time I checked it wasnāt even working from the AUR package.
1 Like
However, giving users a choice of which Office Suite to install via Calamares, was apparently considered worthwhile.
Oh, wait, there was a commercial aspect to that decision, wasnāt thereā¦ Softmakerās FreeOffice was not open-source, yet was still offered as an Office Suite option during install (via Calamares).
Later, Manjaro (actual) was seen to partner with Softmaker, offering a special coupon code to purchase the full retail Softmaker offering.
This is fundamentally no different from offering a choice of browsers; one of which might be Vivaldi; a browser which ā though not fully open-source ā at least has no option to buy.
And it still would beā¦ only, with greater choice for new users.
I should add that Vivaldi is only one of my preferred browsers; Firefox is the other; though for special purpose use cases, these preferences might extend to Chromium, Safari, and even Edge. I have no vested interest in which browser becomes the default in Manjaro; only in allowing more user choice from the onset.
2 Likes
Well, thatās the thing, isnāt it? The benefit isnāt to the users, itās to Manjaro.
Thatās not necessarily a bad thing, mind. Manjaro needs to raise funds somehow, because most of their users donāt pay for Manjaro, and itās not exactly cheap to both do the development and host the servers. The same is true of Firefox, which is part of the reason why they are trying to do experiments like this - trying both to enhance privacy on the Internet and raise some cash.
Everyone needs to remember: open source needs to paid for somehow, and we donāt necessarily have a good way of doing that. A great example of open source not being paid for is Heartbleed. OpenSSL was used by almost everyone and before Heartbleed didnāt have a single full-time developer, because no-one was willing to pay for it.
Perhaps neither Firefoxās decentralised ad metrics nor Manjaroās partnership with Softmaker are the best way of doing things. Or perhaps Manjaro will only offer a browser choice screen once Vivaldi/Brave/Google/MS/whomever else chooses to pay for it.
5 Likes
Firefox could then be present in the Live ISO, but could also be selected/deselected during installation.
1 Like
It is already possibly on the installed system to easily change common packages including browsers.
The Applciations button in Manjaro Hello is created for it.
The same Manjaro Hello that is immediately closed by most users.
Hello is a great opportunity for many things ā even selection of an Office Suite ā if it would only be used by people, generally, and it isnāt; possibly the reason that the more prominent Calamares option was chosen in the first place.
I do appreciate the resistance to the idea of adding a template to Calamares, just for browser selection, but the precedent already exists; it is absolutely possible.
As @dgdg suggests, maybe itās just that Manjaro canāt see a financial return in doing so; I understand that too ā I mean, everybody has to eat ā thatās the purpose of business, after all, to turn a profit. This applies equally to Manjaro, Firefox, Vivaldi, or any other business built around open-source as a core.
The Linux purist ideology seems the product of a bygone era.
Perhaps the idea would be better rephrased as (or marketed to Manjaro as) a default apps selection screen ā then the Browser, Office Suite, and several other default apps could be chosen by the user during installation ā using what is currently the template for the Office Suite selection screenā¦ perhaps with less emphasis on graphics. This may even become a welcomed feature.
1 Like
Absolutely true
User can change browser for any repository or AUR package after first boot as part of first update
Do you expect Calamares to offer more?
If a browser is installed from a Live ISO it could be a few months out of date so it should be updated before use
Better solutions for more choices would be a netinstall or manual installation
Xfce minimal ISOs did not include Firefox until earlier this month. 20 days later, this topic suggested changing default browser. 75% of votes so far are to keep Firefox
Anyone who wants a choice of browsers in Calamares could always post a feature request
But poll suggests only 18 voters so far are interested in āsomething elseā. Not a popular bandwagon
Manjaro is funded by user donations and sponsors and does not seem to be lacking funds
I think this is long overdue anyway. The best example is EndeavourOS. This is how installation works!
While that may be true - the application is still in there - as I recall - at some point there was a desktop launcher - I donāt know if that is the case today.
In any case the command will open it
manjaro-application-utility
manjaro-application-utility was made an optional dependency of manjaro-hello 11 months ago
[pkg-upd] 0.7.0-7 (4507ace9) Ā· Commits Ā· Packages / extra / manjaro-hello Ā· GitLab
application utility is optional and currently broken
Package installs without issues, but the GUI does not show all browsers available from extra repository
It should never have been a requirement of Manjaro Hello - it has always been inteded as a standalone application. the option of pluging into Manjaro Hello was created by one of our forum members.
That is intentionally - it operates on itās own predefined list - there was some ideas spinning of creating lists based on what could be recommended for a given desktop - that was never fully implemented.
See ā ls /usr/share/application-utility
Seeing this reminds me that midori was dropped to AUR - it should be removed from the package list.
Interesting!
The same applies to any application provided on the ISO, Live or otherwise, including the Office Suite selected by the user at the respective Calamares screen; whether or not a user is given a choice.
All provided software could be out of date possibly for much longer than the few months you suggest, including Manjaro itself. Iāve seen cases where perhaps year-old ISOās have been used by the great clueless to install Manjaro.
Some distributions will (optionally) perform an update immediately after installation (but before the initial reboot) to counteract that scenario; Mageia comes to mind, as one example, or M$ Windows, as another.
Manjaro does not, but perhaps it should, or could, for the sake of updating any browser (user-selected or not) to ensure it is actually updated before use.
Even so, most mainstream browsers will update on firstrun, regardless;
so, thereās that consideration also.