Why can't I just visit firefox.com, have it detect my OS, and provide a dpkg to install?
Firefox seems to dedicate less resources to Linux than OS X and Windows. That may be in keeping with their market share, but its certainly not doing their fellow Open Source brethren any favors.
We offer a tarball for Linux that contains a command line installer. The problem is you just requested a dpkg. Others might want a .deb or a .ipackage or a .rpm or any other package flavor. There are fewer package management systems than there are Linux distros, but that doesn't mean there are still a lot.
Additionally, distros tend to want to manage the package building themselves. Some groups want to add in tweaks or configuration templates. Others want to include their own pages or optimizations. We can't logistically consider trying to manage all that centrally, nor would we want to take the control away from those distros.
So, I agree, you do get a slightly less comfortable distribution mechanism for the browser. You get additional control and choice depending on the distro you chose though.
What Mozilla does endeavor to do is make sure that the core code works well on all three platforms. That is where we feel it is most valuable to dedicate our resources.
Because then you've just landed yourself in update hell. You'll need to take care of Firefox updates yourself instead of letting the distribution packaged update system take care of it.
This is a real problem with running Firefox on corporate networks. The users don't have admin rights, so they can't click "Update" when Firefox wants to update itself. And administrators can't push the updates out through WSUS. Therefore, the most vulnerable vector on your computer (the browser) gets to remain in an un-updated state.
I think there is a group that repackages Firefox into msi format, which helps a lot. But as far as I know it's independent from Mozilla.
It's only a problem if your time is valuable and you are interested in running a reasonably secure box.
My time is way too valuable to be used to read bugtraq and hunt down security patches for every piece of custom software I have installed on my box. Or, as is the case, hundreds of boxes.
If you had the permission to install the package in the first place, you have the permission to update it.
In locked down environmentsthat case, the admins can supply the nice properly packaged MSI / dmg / rpm / dpkg version that Firefox provides to the users via their deployment tool.
Wow, the major underlying flaws of Linux really come out when you try to do a simple thing like update Firefox!
Repositories and software managers is the only way to ensure that Linux will not compete with Windows.
25 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] thread- wget http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefo...
- make && sudo make install
- change symlink at /usr/bin/firefox to point to new binary
That way you get a proper package.
Firefox seems to dedicate less resources to Linux than OS X and Windows. That may be in keeping with their market share, but its certainly not doing their fellow Open Source brethren any favors.
Additionally, distros tend to want to manage the package building themselves. Some groups want to add in tweaks or configuration templates. Others want to include their own pages or optimizations. We can't logistically consider trying to manage all that centrally, nor would we want to take the control away from those distros.
So, I agree, you do get a slightly less comfortable distribution mechanism for the browser. You get additional control and choice depending on the distro you chose though.
What Mozilla does endeavor to do is make sure that the core code works well on all three platforms. That is where we feel it is most valuable to dedicate our resources.
Why can't Firefox do what Skype and Miro do (below)?
* If the user string contains Windows, provide an MSI. In these OSes, if you click on a MSI package, it installs.
* If the user string contains OS X, provide a install image. In these OSes, if you click on an install image, it installs.
* If the user string contains Debian or Ubuntu, provide a dpkg. In these OSes, if you click on an dpkg, it installs.
* If the user string contains Fedora, RHEL or SuSE, provide a rpm. In these OSes, if you click on a rpm package, it installs.
* Anything else gets a menu with all the above options.
How about they wait until available through their distribution's package manager?
Most people don't wait 6 months. They use articles like the one mentioned, and are more likely to encounter poor-quality Firefox as a result.
This is a real problem with running Firefox on corporate networks. The users don't have admin rights, so they can't click "Update" when Firefox wants to update itself. And administrators can't push the updates out through WSUS. Therefore, the most vulnerable vector on your computer (the browser) gets to remain in an un-updated state.
I think there is a group that repackages Firefox into msi format, which helps a lot. But as far as I know it's independent from Mozilla.
Not every piece of software comes is Ubuntu or Fedora's default repositories.
My time is way too valuable to be used to read bugtraq and hunt down security patches for every piece of custom software I have installed on my box. Or, as is the case, hundreds of boxes.
This already works for .exe and .dmg versions, there is nothing stopping it from also working for the .dpkg and .rpm versions.
In locked down environmentsthat case, the admins can supply the nice properly packaged MSI / dmg / rpm / dpkg version that Firefox provides to the users via their deployment tool.
Works like a charm for me. Flash too.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090701 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Shiretoko/3.5 GTB5
I don't care and don't mind waiting for the meta-package to point to 3.5, but maybe some do.