Talk:Iceweasel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 origins of the name 2 Merge? 3 About the difference beetween Debian Iceweasel and GNU's Iceweasel 4 Is there an animal named iceweasel? 5 Plugins... 6 Web bugs 7 NPOV, Advertising, Beta software 8 Icons 9 Debian NOT simply rebranding 10 Humper 11 gentoo 12 infobox 13 Current event? 14 Proposed rename: Iceweasel (lowercase 'w') 15 icedove and iceape names

[edit] origins of the name

I fixed the bit about the origins of the name. There was a false etymology there. Please, editors, don't make stuff up when it's easy enough to check -- I inserted a reference to the first known use of the term, which is my coining of it. The name has a somewhat generic usage as well: the process of stripping and replacing all trademarks in a piece of software is often called the "Iceweasel route" in Debian discussions, and the usage seems to be spreading throughout free software. I'm not sure how to integrate that in the article. --Nathanael Nerode.

24.59.103.38 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The name IceWeasel has long been Mozilla's suggested name for what they call "Community Editions" or non-Mozilla Firefox builds. Nathanael did not coin the name Mozilla suggested the name as they do everyone they tell to stop using the name Firefox.

Do you have a cite for Mozilla making this suggestion before February 2004? --Kevin McCarty 66.245.61.34 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

from http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ "The original Iceweasel name was coined by Nathanael Nerode. Ice isn't Fire and a Weasel isn't a Fox, so it is clearly a different package". Oh, I see that he posted above... Anyway it seems to be the official story. -- AdrianTM 23:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you're curious, search the debian-legal archives -- Mozilla was recommending the name _because_ of my post in debian-legal in February 2004, and I mention that in a later debian-legal posting. I came up with the name for a throwaway example of legal unlicensed trademark use -- I'm surprised at how far it's travelled! --Nathanael Nerode 24.59.103.51 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Iceweasels can also be attributed to this quote from Matt Groening [1], in his "Life is Hell" book series: "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."

[edit] Merge?

We shouldn't merge Iceweasel with Firefox, that would violate trademark issues.

IMHO It cannot violate, article can explain what Firefox and what Iceweasel is without any permission, and explanation cannot be forbidden by trademarks as far as I have understood what trademarks are. So, maybe you can elaborate why do you think it would violate tradermarks?

Therefore decision about merge can be done on different basis. --Thv 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not distributing any software and calling it "Mozilla Firefox," so you don't have to worry. --Dan

• Oppose. I think merging would be premature. It is possible this will be the name in Debian^[2] and as such should have a separate article --to avoid confusion. Nephron  T|C 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think just wait and see what happens between Debian and Mozilla first. Once they come to a settlement, Wikipedia can decide what makes the most sense. SavantEdge 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lets see what shakes out with debian before we make this decision. Pharmboy 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with the Pharmboy. This doesn't mean hold off page updates, just a merge.

User:exobyte:exobyte 1 October 2006

Until a software product actually appears that is named "Iceweasel", this topic is not worthy of a page on its own and should be merged. If one ever does (and I doubt that it will from such a dorky suggestion, but that's beside the point) then this section can be reinstated as a page. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What? There already is some software called IceWeasel; it's pointed to in the article, but, for your convenience, it's here: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/. Since the justification for the merge suggestion is factually incorrect, I'll go ahead and remove the merge suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.206.231.102 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. IceWeasel certainly does "exist", and is so complicated that it would seriously clutter the Firefox article. And it will certainly grow more complicated. But we can probably try to keep to just one unified article for all unofficial builds of Firefox? 69.87.193.234 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the difference beetween Debian Iceweasel and GNU's Iceweasel

I quote from Facts about Debian and Mozilla® Firefox®

Update: Debian is going to replace Firefox® with a GNU fork called Iceweasel Half-true. For the etch release, Iceweasel will only be Firefox® with a different branding. We are taking the Iceweasel name because it was already know as a possible alternative name for Firefox® when the trademark concerns have been raised more than 2 years ago (thanks Nathanael Nerode for this nice name, by the way). It appears that the GNU guys decided to start a fork with this name… that’s quite unfortunate, actually. Anyways, the plan is to get in touch with them to see what we can do together, but with the etch release approaching, we can’t and won’t do more than a rename for the moment.

The article doesn't reflect the fact that Debian's Iceweasel won't be the same as GNU's Iceweasel (in short term at least). Shoudn't this be explained? Chali2 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have this, but it does need at least a grammar cleanup:

The "IceWeasel" name was revived in the Debian community as a possible name to give the rebranded version of Firefox. The IceWeasel used in Etch will not be the GNU application of the same name. But will be a rebranded Firefox created by Debian.[10]

Separately[10] in August 2005[11], the Gnuzilla project adopted the Iceweasel name for a Firefox distribution [11]using free artwork, which Debian plans to support[10]. Iceweasel is a full fork of Firefox, rather than a renamed package. This will allow free software distributions a single point upstream for development. Debian intends to remain synchronized to the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox releases.[12]'

—ptk✰fgs 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there an animal named iceweasel?

How about an article about that as well?

There's an early (1985, maybe?) Matt Groening cartoon, I believe from "Love is Hell," that has the punchline, "At night, the ice weasels come."

Good question! There is a "real" (cute) animal in a "real" picture at http://iceweasel.com/, but there is no reason to think that it is really called an iceweasel -- can't find any google evidence of such. 69.87.193.234 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plugins...

Iceweasel's great in concept; however, there's little detail anywhere on what exactly in Firefox didn't meet GNU standards of Free-dom, and what same will be replaced with. The best I can find is a tenuous link to Plugger, which depends on mplayer, which basically depends on legally grey use of win32 binaries where available; AFAIK, Moz Foundation Firefox ships with no major multimedia plugins at all. This should be clarified, as it will be the big "visible" difference between official Mozilla Foundation releases and the patchset/"psuedo-fork" GNU will maintain for the convenience of third-parties deriving. --155.212.34.122 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the trademark restrictions on the name 'Firefox' and the Firefox logos. The point was that Mozilla uses its trademark to prevent anyone from modifying Firefox and still calling it Firefox, and therefore the 'no restriction on modifications' requirement of free software is not met. Cynical 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. However, [3] states "While the source code from the Mozilla project is free software, the binaries that they release include additional non-free software. Also, they distribute non-free software as plug-ins." without providing concrete examples. It'd be one thing if GNU Iceweasel were simply a branding for 'customized' distributions -- but does this just mean the logo image files and trademark text are "software," or, as the gripe about binaries and plugins suggests, is any major functionality changing due to license issues? (They're adding a few features, obviously; what I'm asking is *what* actually ships in the binaries to inform the above statement, and this out of sheer curiosity.)--155.212.34.122 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The non-free software in official mozilla.org builds is the Talkback crash reporting tool, though its "removal" from IceWeasel doesn't mean much - you can't build it unofficially even if you want to. - rdmsoft 06:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! --69.0.51.153 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (the O.P., from home)

The only two problems that the FSF has with Firefox is the use of the non-free Talkback crash reporting tool and the use of a "plugin finder service" that recommends non-free plugins. Please also note that Talkback is being replaced by Airbag as soon as the project is ready (very soon, hopefully). The FSF has no issues with Mozilla protecting its trademark. Please do not confuse Debian with the FSF. Debian has the trademark problems, while the FSF thinks Mozilla is using its trademark just fine. ReedLoden 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, Debian is also just fine with Mozilla using its trademarks this way -- but Debian's technical requirements don't allow for the prior approval process required by Mozilla (you can probably find the references to this in the bug reports and in debian-legal archives). So this means that Debian can't use the trademarks, so it has to use a rebranded version. 24.59.103.51

Is there any further discussion to resolve this between Debian and Mozilla? - it seems to me like things are hinging on a very small technical issue - is there any reference for Mozilla's side of this, for NPOV? Widefox 01:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

the best reference for the whole issue is the debian bug report thread submitted by mozilla where a mozilla representitive is in a tight argument with various people from debian. 130.88.162.90 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web bugs

I'm running Firefox, so was concerned about the claim here of privacy holes in my browser....

• " 1. Some sites refer to zero-size images on other hosts to keep track of cookies. When IceWeasel detects this mechanism it blocks cookies from the site hosting the zero-length image file. (It is possible to re-enable such a site by removing it from the blocked hosts list.)"[4]
  • 1. Web bugs - the claim that Firefox has a 3rd party cookie web bug hole appear (in my superficial analysis to be only partially correct) FF has a setting network.cookie.cookieBehavior that controls 3rd party cookies. In my browser it was set to 1 which means [5] that all 3rd party cookies are blocked, no additional 0 size image blocking is needed. That's as long as it functions according to the documentation. I ran the online test, but I am non the wiser. Note that the default setting is 0 = allow all including 3rd party, so somewhere along the line, my setting has changed.
  • CONCLUSION = check and adjust Firefox setting
• " 2. Other sites rewrite the host name in links redirecting the user to another site, mainly to "spy" on clicks. When this behavior is detected, IceWeasel shows a message alerting the user."[6]
  • OK. Seems like an improvement. I personally would prefer a location prompt to come up, with a suggested rewrite of the destination, that I could correct if I knew it was wrong. Any IceWeasel developers here?
  • CONCLUSION = minor improvement (only provides warning, as far as I know)

CONCLUSION = yes improvement, but not in itself as important as setting your options correctly. Widefox 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, Advertising, Beta software

erm, I'm adding back my citation request to be more specific (the citation is not independent). If this article is to get more credible (I personally know it's interesting and valid), it needs some real refs, else it looks like advertising for a new project. What is the official status - beta? - there's a banner you can use to highlight this

{{beta software}}

Come on let's get this up to the standard it deserves. Widefox 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a call for action to fix up the article. It's better to get it fixed now, than get attacked later by those that don't support it. I've spent an hour or two contributing, so please take this the right way. I think it's in better shape now. My criticisms are to be seen a todo list - just remove then when each item is done. The quicker the better, so it needs the needed standard and nobody can attack it then. Widefox 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think of it as "beta" Software. I am currently running the 1.5.0.7 version of iceweasel. No place in it does it refer to itself as a beta. The Gnuzilla and IceWeasel site do not refer to it as beta software either. Perhaps the 1.5.0.4 that was orignaly released was the beta. But there are now at least 2 released versions to my knowlage. Kilz 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

sure, OK, but we only add what can be verified - what is the official status? not everything needs a ref (!) BTW, is it in debian testing or what? it has new features, so there must be a status, rather than just an up to date security bugfix 1.5.0.7 . Also, what happened between 1.5.0.4 and 7? did users have to run without the security bugfixes. That's quite a risk. See what I mean about NPOV - check it out from both directions. Widefox 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this artical is advertisment though. Its main purpose is to describe why iceweasel exists. But thank you for the link to the advertising rule. Im sure it will come in real handy in the near future. Kilz 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

justifying is OK as long as both sides are dealt with, advertising not. It's purpose is not existence justification, but to provide an encyclopaedic reference, and nothing less (from the authors or fan base - like you and me). We need both sides if there's controversy. Could you checkout WP:NPOV, and what wikipedia isn't to see what I mean. If you want me to point you towards other things like advertising rule, just say, or browse WP:WP. Widefox 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads more like a history of why it happened, not a discussion about why it does. It already existed before the mozilla problem from what I have been able to find out. Its just its getting more help and exposure now that Debian is going to replace firefox. Kilz 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The info box has a Licensing section that I filled in without knowing the exact licence. Please can someone fill that in properly. Widefox 00:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the license its under and a reference, edited the beginnings of the mozilla proprietary artwork controversy and added a link to the discussion on the mail list archive for reference. Probably needs cleaned up, but at least its factual and backed up with a link.Kilz 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the needed ref's with a lot of reading through email archives. But it doesnt read quite right. Kilz 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked and added the official status of IceWeasel in Debian apt, so it's coming imminently to unstable, and IceDove has been in unstable since 14th October 2006. Widefox 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly did you get the information that its "coming imminently to unstable"? Plugwash 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

From the place where I heard IceDove had just gone in. Since then, FF 2.0 is released and things look different wrt GNU. Widefox 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And that place was where? packages.qa.debian.org doesn't seem to have heared of it and its not on incoming.debian.org either. Plugwash 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[7] . Clearly it didn't - as of today it's still not in. I see IceDove still hasn't made in out of testing into unstable yet either. [8] Widefox 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

GNU Iceweasel is described as a "test release". Debian's Iceweasel is merely a rebranding of the stable Firefox release. So there are two statuses here; one is a test release of mostly trivial modifications to stable software, and the other would be by definition a stable release once it is uploaded. —ptk✰fgs 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

is debians iceweasel actually availible anywhere or is it all just talk at the momement? Plugwash 09:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

of course, why don't you click on the the IceWeasel#Downloads_available -- AdrianTM 14:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything any download links in the debian section of that, just a reference to "apt" that uses the future tense. Plugwash 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's in that download link in Gnuzilla category: http://gnuzilla.gnu.org/download/ it's not yet in available in Debian repos, although IceDove is already there (unstable repos). But yes what you'd call "Debian IceWeasel" is not yet there, maybe in experimental repo. -- AdrianTM 18:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

All the sources i've seen say that at least for etch "debian iceweasel" will be based on debians patched version of firefox and not on "gnuzilla iceweasel" Plugwash 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Iceweasel is now in the unstable apt-get listings [9], but not on packages.debian.org yet [10]. Iceweasel is marked as a replacement for Firefox (updates automatically when you apt-get dist-upgrade). This version is based on Firefox 2.0 --h2g2bob 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

and it STILL hasn't hit testing, am i the only one who finds this more than slightly worrying? Plugwash 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

it hit testing 2007-01-18, see [11] Gsf 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icons

I've changed the image to Image:Deer Park Globe.png (blank globe). This is the image currently supplied in the debian packages. The icon was changed from one of the suggested icons - Image:Iceweasel-icon-large.png (blue globe with weasel) - to another icon Image:Iceweasel icon.png (green globe with weasel - I've added that to the gallery). I can't find anywhere that a decision has been made about which icon has been chosen (please, correct me if I'm wrong), so I think using the old icon would be best for now. --h2g2bob 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debian NOT simply rebranding

I changed the start of the article, to avoid giving readers the mis-impression that the Debian versions of Firefox are merely rebranded versions of it. Someone changed it back. I'm not going to fight this edit war -- if someone insists on the article being wrong, you all will have to deal with it. The point is, Debian has always insisted on their right to make code changes, without getting permission from Mozilla. This is one of the core reasons for conflict, for the very existence of "IceWeasel"! And Debian is more committed to long-term maintenance of their older versions than Moz is. 69.87.200.131 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've substantially reworded that section. Hopefully it will please both of you --h2g2bob 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- looks good! Now if someone could track down the details of what patches Debian has actually applied in the various versions, and create a section parallel to "Gnuzilla IceWeasel features"... 69.87.193.151 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find extensive rants on the differences here: http://web.glandium.org/blog/ It's a good start, and I mostly trust his lists to be complete, but you can always run through the packages themselves if you don't believe him. JoshuaRodman 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? I'm a debian user and this whole iceweasel/icedove thing is a MASSIVE waste of time. I'd think developers would be more interested in filling gaps like how bout a half decent non-linear video editor or I don't know, a good way to standardize X configurations to be used from the gui rather than like we all do it, by hand in the configs. What I'm saying is I can think of at least 1 hundred ways where debian, linux or people in general would benefit better by spending time elsewhere. You don't just fork the code whenever you feel like it because the original developers still want to stay in the loop of their own work. Sure you can and you should be able to, but this is a case of being overly excessive and dramatic about nothing. Positively 100% sure, Iceweasel goes away. This will happen when Firefox continues and the Iceweasel maintainers get bored and see what it is they are really wasting their time on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.247.49 (talk • contribs). —ptk✰fgs 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not for general ranting about Iceweasel. —ptk✰fgs 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of free/opensource software is the freedom to modify it without having to ask first. Mozilla has told debian they can't do that unless they rebrand so debian has rebranded. Other linux distros who aren't so hot on defending freedom have given into mozillas demands. Debian is not prepared to compromise thier basic principles for the sake of the name of a web browser and i don't see mozilla backing down either.

And debian iceweasel at least isn't really a fork, my understanding it that unstable will continue to get upstream updates from mozilla (or possiblly via gnuzilla depending on if they manage to come to an agreement to work together) and have the debian patches applied just as it always has. Stable releases will have security fixes backported just as they always have.

P.S. legal threats (which is what this essentially is) are always a big sink of time that could be used for more productive purposes but they have to be taken seriously or you'll end up in even bigger shit. Plugwash 12:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humper

Yes, yes. We all love the humper icon. But there are two official sources of information about browsers called Icweasel: gnu.org and debian.org. The site using the humper icon, geticeweasel.org is not registered to either: see whois info. Yes, the plain globe is boring. It's good to know that the Ubuntu folks are drawing icons, but until they start actually shipping something besides icons, let's stick with the image that's actually being used by the major distributor of this browser.

Besides, ChrisBaird is right. It doesn't even look like a weasel! —ptk✰fgs 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like debian has picked up two of the logos now, one as an icon and another (which is the wrong size/shape for use as an icon) for tha about box. Plugwash 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction it seems the ones debian are using were a pair designed to go together. Plugwash 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gentoo

the following section was added recently by an anon and i have removed it again

Other projects that have followed Debian's lead

Gentoo Linux also heavily patches the source code for its distribution, although due to the nature of Gentoo, this is done by the end-user rather than the distribution. However, part of the Gentoo contract is that a user must, if he/she wants, be able to choose to build a system from scratch using entirely free software. Therefore, Gentoo decided to follow Debian's lead and made its default version of Firefox browser unbranded and without the non-free artwork. The Gentoo maintainer decided to name the application "Bon Echo" reflecting the non-trademarked version name of Firefox 2.0. However, the end user can set a use flag, if she/he wants to go ahead and use the non-free artwork anyway.

can some gentoo user comment on if gentoo has really followed debians lead or if they have always used the unbranded build options and the version name by default?

P.S. sorry this post took so long after i deleted the text from the main page, the database was locked just after i made that edit and i got distracted by other things. Plugwash 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Gentoo user, and I can explain what has happened with recent releases of the www-client/mozilla-firefox package in Gentoo's package system. I am not an expert in this area, but have a reasonable understanding of the forces at play here.

As Gentoo is a source-based distribution, there have been no legal threats (that I know of) as of yet against Gentoo's use of official Firefox branding. However, not that long ago the default installation options for the mozilla-firefox package branded the browser with the name “bon Echo” in an attempt to prevent issues from coming up. Before this change, the default “Firefox” name and logo were used as the compile-time default. End-users can set a flag used by the package management system to tell the compile process to enable official branding. Should a user choose to do this, their copy of Firefox will have the official name and the official logo.

It is not yet clear if Mozilla disapproves of this use or not, but it is my understanding the default rebranding to “bon Echo” is more an attempt to avoid problems rather than in response to current threats against Gentoo.

Regarding Gentoo's following the Debian change, I don't know if this specifically was the case, but this change in Gentoo wouldn't have happened unless there was a possibility of legal problems down the road. Mozilla has been recently known to be quite aggressive in protecting the trademarks they own, including the Firefox name and logo.

24.118.122.48 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

i noticed a comment in an edit summary "infobox really needs to be less idiosyncratic", short of having two completely seperate infoboxes (which would be rather overkill imo) do you have any better ideas for handling the situation until such time (if ever) as debian and gnuzilla resolve thier differences. Plugwash 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Three options: two separate infoboxes, removal of info until the infobox represents the lowest common denominator (the usual approach taken) or split the article. I favour option 2. Infoboxes are meant to be at-a-glance guides. Chris Cunningham 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current event?

Strong remove. According to Template_talk:Current: The {{current}} template was designed "... for short-term use as a warning for editors and readers if an event was occurring right that very second (or very, very recently). It was not intended for general use over the span of weeks or months for a long-term, ongoing event that would experience little editing during the event ..." The Debian release of Etch "looming" doesn't imply a current event in my opinion. Debian releases tend to "loom" for quite a while. Not much information will change in this article when Etch does release. Either it will be included in the release it won't. pbryan 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm i see 6 possible outcomes

1. iceweasel makes it into etch in a fairly normal manner (i say fairly normal because it will already have to be a freeze exception)
2. iceweasel is forced in at the last minuite despite any rc bugs
3. the rename is redone based on 1.5 rather than the ambitious 2.0
4. firefox is completely removed from etch without replacement
5. firefox 1.5 remains in etch and mozillas legal threat turns out to be hollow
6. firefox 1.5 remains in etch and mozilla goes through with thier legal threat

which of theese happens could radically affect the future of firefox/iceweasel on debian but i agree its not a particularlly fast moving event though (debian is and always has been rather slow about theese kind of things) so i've removed the tag for that reason. Plugwash 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rename: Iceweasel (lowercase 'w')

Rename. Debian's Iceweasel has a lowercase 'w', like Firefox has a lowercase 'f' for fox. I propose that this article be renamed to use the name Iceweasel, for Debian's usage. Though I acknowledge GNU's IceWeasel does have the capital W, the phrase was coined in 2004 as Iceweasel by Dorland on debian-devel and debian-legal, and it is a more apropos analog to the Firefox name. pbryan 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's already done, but I think you are right, and this is the capitalization we should prefer. —ptk✰fgs 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] icedove and iceape names

the earliest reference i know of for the iceape name is the "facts about" blog post, i thought icedove was mentioned there too but either it wasnt or someone removed it (it is mentioned in the comments there though which suggests the removal hypothosis). Plugwash 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)