Firefox is our only viable web browser at the moment. 

Here's an interesting idea for Workstation.  There's a GNOME welcome screen that appears right after you first install Fedora and you login for the first time.  What if you presented a setup screen that asked what you would like your default browser to be from either Firefox, Google Chrome and lastly GNOME's own in-house browser product? 

----
What is your preferred default web-browser?
- Google Chrome
- Firefox
- GNOME Web (default)
----

After selection a quick warning should appear about Google Chrome and Firefox regarding any relevant/present proprietary software, privacy or other items the user should be informed about.

When the user runs a Live Image for testing, without installing, you simply bundle it with GNOME's browser by default so they can read HTML documentation or look around or lookup information relevant to the installation they're about to perform.

There are a few problems with the browsers above though. With Google Chrome you would have to either package Chromium in Fedora or download the RPM directly from Google's own official Linux repo. Mozilla does not package an official RPM or have any Linux repo so Fedora needs to be able to provide both Firefox and Firefox Nightly for users in it's own repos. Providing Firefox Nightly would allow Linux users the same ease of installation as other Firefox users on Windows/Mac.  Then GNOME Web might be in beta stage still and not ready for real world use.

GNOME Web is the ideal default choice because it conforms to the most up-to-date GNOME 3 HIG but is it ready?

Any thoughts?  


On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:27 PM, kendell clark <coffeekingms@gmail.com> wrote:


On 1/7/2016 12:06 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Nikos Roussos
<comzeradd@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

Is it just me, or does it seem odd to take Mozilla to task for
doing something with their (relatively much larger) ecosystem we
also endeavor to do with Fedora's?

Could you explain what you mean?
Mozilla provides an API to sign extensions outside from their infrastructure. It's our infrastructural decision (correctly in my opinion) that prohibits this type of implementation.
Why is it OK for Fedora infrastructure to sign the bootloader, the
kernel, and kernel modules, but not application extensions?


 "Just my two cents. Firefox cannot, and I repeat, cannot be dropped. I am not trying to tell anyone what to do, but if firefox is dropped, fedora will no longer be fully accessible to the visually impaired out of the box. Firefox is our only viable web browser at the moment. There are others, but they each have their own accessibility issues that keep them from being completely usable. Epiphany, aka web, has serious webkit gtk issues joanmeri diggs has filed, but as far as I know have not been fixed upstream. I could be wrong about this. This keeps some webpages from loading at all in epiphany, while others have controls, edit fields, check boxes, etc that orca cannot see. Chromium is utterly inaccessible. This is largely because google in it's wisdom does not interface with atk and at-spi, instead preferring you to download a 3rd party extension, known as chromevox, to use the browser, with their possibly non open source speech voices. There are command line switches you can use to make it use speech-dispatcher, but the support is limited and not really maintained, plus google complains when this is done. To be fair, google does not even make chromium/chrome usable on windows, so at least they're consistent. There's midori, which is what xfce uses I believe, but it has the same issues as epiphany. Once the webkitgtk issues are fixed, these browsers, as well as yelp,  will be a lot more accessible with orca.

Sorry for my tone, I kind of came into this a bit late.

Just my two scents
Kendell clark"