Firefox 1.5 Backport

[angrykeyboarder]

Hey, I'm one of the "Propeller-heads" who has asked for the easy-peasy 1.5 package.....

BTW, I did the manual install of FF 1.5 last week, and apart from a few manual things like copying over all of my plug-ins to the new location where I put the files, it went extremely smoothly (and my 1.07 version still works).

About the hardest thing was creating a Launcher for the new version......

It still seems strange to me that someone couldn't package the binary and the few commands to do these miscellaneous things in a nice simple "Firefox1.5-interim" package to be installed via Synaptic from one of the Ubuntu repositories.

Anyway, here's exactly what I did:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...&postcount=315

I've been running 1.5 since a day or two after it came out. I'd first unpacked the tarball in my home directory. Later I moved it to "/opt" when I found out what else I needed to do to make it work from there.

1.0.7 is still around, but I've killed the symlink to it (replacing it with a symlink to 1.5).

It's fairly easy to accomplish. In fact, I've changed permissions on /opt/firefox so that I'm the owner. This allows for Firefox's new automatic update system to work.

Honsstly after this, I think this will be my continued M.O. for any Mozilla products I use with the update feature. It's much preferable to having to rely on somone at my current Linux distro of choice to update for me.

I'm running Thunderbird 1.6a1 the same way right now. It's cool cuz I get a software update dailiy. It says "hey an update is ready, click here to restart and complate installation".

Yep, from now on I don't care what my Linux distro is doing with regard to Mozilla products. Cuz I'm doing my own thang and it's not what they are doing.

[angrykeyboarder]

If it isn't good enough for you, you are welcome to return to a windows life. No one is forcing you to use Ubuntu or anything else for that matter. So quit your whining or be patient

Of find a Linux distro that better meets your needs?

[poofyhairguy]

But these two paragraphs together are the problem. From what I've seen in
Linux forums, there appear to be basically three types of Linux users:

1. Basic needs, basic skills.
2. High needs, high skills.
3. High needs, medium skills.

If you're type #3, you're screwed. You've either got to dumb down your needs or pump up your skills. I happen to be type #1, so I'm perfectly fine, as my needs are simple, so everything's point-and-click, and I just use Synaptic Package Manager for all my software needs.

Nice way to put it.

[poofyhairguy]

I think a lot of you guys are getting caught up in the fact that YOU think its easy to add extra repositories or use scripts like Automatix. It's not that hard, I agree. In fact I'm using FF1.5 right now courtesy of Automatix.

But the point is, that NEW users from other platforms will have a much harder time with this than any of us. They will certainly not understand why they must jump through hoops to install this application (which is an official release, not a beta) or that they have to wait 4-5 months AND upgrade their OS before they can use an new version of an application like this. Do Windows 2000 users have to upgrade to XP to run Firefox1.5? Do XP users have to wait for Vista? Do OSX 10.3 users have to upgrade to 10.4? The answer is NO, as it should be. Even poor little Windows 98 users can install FF1.5.

All the arguments about how it's partially Mozilla's fault and how backports are a burden on developers, or how ubuntu has a fast release schedule are meaningless. All this should be transparent to the end user.

Technical and philosophical reasons aside this IS a big problem if in the eye of the user Windows 98 is more capable than ubuntu. This has to be fixed if ubuntu is going to be anything other that an easy Linux desktop for lazy geeks.

Maybe it's time ubuntu developers bite the bullet and work on a server side APT system like klik or AppDir like Mac??? Drag and drop, no worry installs would be hard to resist. Ultimately it would save a lot of bandwidth too because users could download an application once and copy it to all their other computers as well as share it with others.

Your entire premise is flawed. Automatix is VERY easy to use (and once we get gdebi it can be installed all through a GUI), even for a new user. How hard is it to click a checkbox? Really?

Being dishonest about whats going on (aka Windows 98 can do something Ubuntu can't when thats not correct) won't make you any friends around here.

[poofyhairguy]

Ubuntu needs costumers, not more praise within a community of young males.

Last thing I will say in this thread:

Ubuntu has no customers. Ubuntu has users. No one pays Mark in order to use Ubuntu.

If you want to be a customer and demand things like a customer than use an OS that treats you like one. Ubuntu is not such an OS. Till you grok that, you can never be happy in Linuxland.

[jbus]

Your entire premise is flawed. Automatix is VERY easy to use (and once we get gdebi it can be installed all through a GUI), even for a new user. How hard is it to click a checkbox? Really?

Being dishonest about whats going on (aka Windows 98 can do something Ubuntu can't when thats not correct) won't make you any friends around here.

I agree Automatix is very easy to use. I never said that it wasn't.

But right now is it installed by default??? Is there documentation and a link on the desktop for new users??? No, so new users need to search for it in the forums to find out about it. I wonder what percentage of people trying ubuntu ever get to the forums before they give up? It would be interesting to find out wouldn't it? Outside of Linux, do you think many people are used to looking in discussion forums for help on installing basic applications???

I can count up to 10 ways to install applications on ubuntu (there are probably more). Claiming an app is easy to install because it is installable from one of TEN ways is ridiculous. Users should have ONE way to install BASIC applications (And I concider the latest version of Firefox to be about as BASIC as they get). Power users can install apps 100 different ways for all I care. But regular users should not have to jump back and forth between command console apt-get, to synaptic, to Automatix, to some script that got posted on the forum or wiki, to compiling an app, to installing with autopackage, to installing a binary, to fooling around with other package systems like klik and so forth... That is all I'm saying. We need consistency.

About Windows 98 I'm not being dishonest, I'm just reading the Firefox system requirements and if you will read my post you will see I was talking about users PERCEPTIONS based on these system requirements, NOT actually comparing ubuntu to Win 98. I think a user coming from Windows 98 WOULD be curios as to why he can install the latest version of Firefox on Win 98 with a simple click, but needs a "special" procedure to install it on Ubuntu Breezy which was released at the end of 2005.

Poofyhairguy, I'm not here to make friends... I'm here to keep my system running and to discuss an issues that many do not care to give attention to because it's not a problem for them, or because they take any kind of criticism of "their distro" personally... Even if the criticism is constructive. I am not trying to put ubuntu down either. I like ubuntu and I want to see it improve to the point that is truely a "linux for human beings".

[angrykeyboarder]

The GRE was (supposed?) to be the Gecko rendering engine.

Gecko is still alive and well. It is the HTML rendering engine for all Mozilla products. I'd just never seen Gecko abbreviated as "GRE" before.

Basically the part that renders HTML, factored out so only one copy of it needed to be in memory at any given time. Note that this may not have necessarily fixed the problem that we're having now, but it could have helped.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I assumed because so many apps in GNOME relied on Firefox, they were actually relying on it's "GRE".

Gnome chose to depend on the Mozilla renderer as I imagine they thought it was the most secure/stable/feature complete. OS X decided to depend on KDE's renderer for their own reasons. But I agree (and that's my point above), that the renderer should be a separate package. It's Mozilla's problem there.

Are you sure GNOME chose this and not Ubuntu? I know that GNOME relies on GTKhtml2. And it's part of Ubuntu as well. I'd thought yelp uses the gtkhtml2 engine, but I guess not. I know Straw does. Liferea allows you to choose.

Off the top of my head, the only part of GNOME that relies on Gecko is
Epiphany, which Ubuntu chooses not to include in it's default installation to begin with. I wish they would, then they could tie all thoes upteen apps to it instead of Firefox. Firefox is much more popular.

Better yet, why not just include the Gecko libraries and then tie all those apps that rely on Firefox to it instead?

BTW, these are basically rehetorical questions.

Quite possibly. They were partially burned by the delays in Xorg's schedule. I switched right to Dapper, so I can't really comment.

Heh. I switched to Dapper a few weeks ago and they can't even produce Firefox 1.5. For some odd reason they are hovering at tiny point releases just prior to it.

I wouldn't say they ignored it. They looked at the release schedule, determined it would not be out in time to meet their release schedule, and rejected it. They did opt to include OO2 based on it's (slipped) release schedule (as can be seen by the inclusion of the pre-release in Breezy), and I'm a little baffled that the final version isn't in breezy-updates yet.

I didn't literally mean they ignoired it. In fact, I meant what you've said here, but they should have waited. The only people who cared about their self-imposed schedule, was them (Ubuntu).

Exactly. No mp3 player does exactly what I want, but I chose the one that was closest. At least Linux distros are more configurable and updateable after the fact, though. You pretty much have to choose the one that has the easiest delta between what you want and what's installed by default, but there will always be a delta. ubuntuguide.org made it really easy for me to cross that delta in the Hoary/Breezy era.

I was a fan of Ubuntu and had been using it several months before I learned of the now- (unfortunatly) defunct ubuntuguide.org.

I've done a lot of bitching and moaning around here and on the mailing lists. I'm sure some can't help but wonder why I've not abandoned Ubuntu.

Why haven't I? Because it sucks less than any Linux distro I'm aware of.

[poofyhairguy]

I agree Automatix is very easy to use. I never said that it wasn't.

But right now is it installed by default??? Is there documentation and a link on the desktop for new users??? No, so new users need to search for it in the forums to find out about it. I wonder what percentage of people trying ubuntu ever get to the forums before they give up? It would be interesting to find out wouldn't it? Outside of Linux, do you think many people are used to looking in discussion forums for help on installing basic applications???

Not really a fair question. I mean....how many users actually install new OSes? A VERY small percent. Less than the amount that uses message boards I believe.

Within the current target market of Ubuntu, Automatix works well. Should it be in the default install? I think so and maybe the developers will think so one day too.

I can count up to 10 ways to install applications on ubuntu (there are probably more). Claiming an app is easy to install because it is installable from one of TEN ways is ridiculous.

I was thinking "cool," but sure - let it be "ridiculous" if it suits you.

Users should have ONE way to install BASIC applications

They have one. Heck they have more than one. But one main one- that "add/remove programs" tool.

Does it let you install the newest Firefox? No, but officially there is no way to install new applications in Ubuntu. Backports is a community project.

Ubuntu is a distro that is meant to be upgraded all at once every six months. Its intended for the kind of users that aren't constantly checking Slashdot to see if the newest Firefox is out- aka most of the computer using population. It was never intended to be a "rolling" distro that gets new applications as they are released. Many other distros do that...Ubuntu has a different role.

Ubuntu only fails you if you use it in a way not intended.

(And I concider the latest version of Firefox to be about as BASIC as they get). Power users can install apps 100 different ways for all I care. But regular users should not have to jump back and forth between command console apt-get, to synaptic, to Automatix, to some script that got posted on the forum or wiki, to compiling an app, to installing with autopackage, to installing a binary, to fooling around with other package systems like klik and so forth... That is all I'm saying. We need consistency.

Fine. Be consistent. The official way is apt-get (and its many GUIs). Apt-get does not have what you want? Then its not released for your operating system yet. Thats the official answer.

But that answer sucks for some nerdier types. So things like backports and Automatix were made. But they are not official. Apt-get is.

From the beginning Ubuntu was intended to be like this. You can argue that the original plan sucks, but you can't argue that there was not consistancy in the original plan.

About Windows 98 I'm not being dishonest, I'm just reading the Firefox system requirements and if you will read my post you will see I was talking about users PERCEPTIONS based on these system requirements, NOT actually comparing ubuntu to Win 98. I think a user coming from Windows 98 WOULD be curios as to why he can install the latest version of Firefox on Win 98 with a simple click, but needs a "special" procedure to install it on Ubuntu Breezy which was released at the end of 2005.

A user coming from Windows 98 might also wonder why clicking on exe's does not work ("hey it worked in Windows 98!"). Not all attributes transfer from one OS to another. Getting new applications officially without the six month upgrade is not an attribute of Ubuntu.

Does Windows automatically update my Firefox and OpenOffice and whatever else when I go from 98 to XP? No?! Why the heck not?! My Ubuntu install could! Oh yeah, thats because attributes of one OS might not transfer to another.

And for the record, it takes two clicks to install Firefox 1.5 in Automatix. WAY less than in Windows 98 ("next, next, next").

Poofyhairguy, I'm not here to make friends... I'm here to keep my system running and to discuss an issues that many do not care to give attention to because it's not a problem for them, or because they take any kind of criticism of "their distro" personally... Even if the criticism is constructive. I am not trying to put ubuntu down either. I like ubuntu and I want to see it improve to the point that is truely a "linux for human beings".

I'm not taking offense because its my pet distro. I am arguing that you are wanting Ubuntu to be something it was never designed to be. Its not a "rolling" Desktop Linux. Its a "freeze and upgrade every six months" Desktop Linux. Other distros had Firefox the day it was released. Users that care about such should use those distros. Ubuntu is for people that want a distro sent to them for free with free upgrades every six months. You might argue not many want a distro like that, but the fact that Mark has mailed more than a million Ubuntu CDs tells a different story.

And for the record, I thought I WAS a human being. Am I not? If Ubuntu is not yet a "Linux for human beings" than how can I use it?

Better yet, why not just include the Gecko libraries and then tie all those apps that rely on Firefox to it instead?

There is the core of the issue for today. The answer to this question is because:

"Mozilla has not yet seperated Gecko from Firefox/Mozilla Browser."

Its not Ubuntu's fault that Mozilla has not done this yet....and Ubuntu can't gut Firefox like that and still call it Firefox. Its up to Mozilla to do...and they will....but not yet. And then that problem will be solved.

If they had done this already then Firefox 1.5 would exist in the backports repo. Yet even if that happened this debate would still exist in a different form.

The essential problem you have is that the Ubuntu developers made a decision you don't like at the start- that Ubuntu will not officially get updated versions of software when they are released. You have to wait the six months.

Mark and the Ubuntu Team made this decision from the beginning for good reasons:

1. Ubuntu is about driving Linux development forward. That moves faster without the baggage of the past.

2. Ubuntu is a Debian based distro and this is how Debian does it. Why? Because new applications might break a stable platform and require a lot of work to backport, thats why (and Firefox 1.5 is a GREAT example of this). Ubuntu developers want most of their time spent on the next release, not upgrading the last one.

3. Ubuntu is aimed at regular users, not geeks. I have honestly never met a non-geek that cares to have the newest software every time. Every Windows user I have installed Firefox for is still using the EXACT same version I put on their machines (I check when I see them next), despite how easy it is to install new versions in XP. Why? Only nerds know new versions exist and care...

For these reasons and more, Ubuntu does not provide newest software except every six months.

Yet you are not alone in not liking that. Yet unlike others, you expect Ubuntu to change its ways to accommodate you.

Others (Jdong) fixed the problem themselves by starting Ubuntu Backports. Others (Arnieboy) fixed the problem by providing easy other non official ways to get the software. Others (many) have written guides and how tos to tell how to get new software.

These people understand: Ubuntu is what it is. Take it and fix it yourself or leave it alone. Don't expect Ubuntu to change for you- you are not the target market.

If this is really a problem for you, then find a way to fix it. Don't demand that others fix it. Don't complain that Ubuntu's entire philosophy from the start is flawed. It works well for some people. Heck...some of my friends are still using WARTY! Freaking Warty from a year ago. Why you ask? Because they are not geeks and they don't care about the newest software. The Firefox in Warty works well enough for them, so they don't mess with it. Like huge chunks of the world's population (and the Ubuntu team) they believe "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

You think the system is broken. I can't tell you that you are wrong. Its your opinion. I will say that complaining on the forums about it won't solve anything. And not just because the developers don't read the forum (and they mostly don't), but because that is not the way for your solution to appear.

Linuxland is not a commercial landscape. Its not a system of customers and sellers. Its a meritocracy. If you believe your idea has merit, then prove it. Make a better apt-get or Ubuntu or whatever. But if all you plan to contribute is that "hey guys, the system is broken" please don't get too offended when we act like we don't care.

Ubuntu might not be the best fit for you. There are like 300 Linuxs. One for each kind of person. Find the one for you, or help the community change Ubuntu to serve your kind of user. Those are your only real options.

Of course, if you want to keep beating this horse on the forums then thats fine with me. Ask anyone who is on here a lot- I LOVE discussing what I think Ubuntu is and can be. I can do this all day. But lets not pretend its helping anything but ourselves, ok?

[aysiu]

Ubuntu is a distro that is meant to be upgraded all at once every six months. Its intended for the kind of users that aren't constantly checking Slashdot to see if the newest Firefox is out- aka most of the computer using population. It was never intended to be a "rolling" distro that gets new applications as they are released. Many other distros do that...Ubuntu has a different role.

Ubuntu only fails you if you use it in a way not intended.

Unfortunately, Ubuntu's target audience is not its main body of users. I think Ubuntu is designed to be installed by a Linux expert (or novice who's willing to learn to be an expert) and used by a computer novice.

[poofyhairguy]

Unfortunately, Ubuntu's target audience is not its main body of users.

Yet.

I hope for a better future.