Firefox 3.5

[baucha15]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Side question:
My installation folders being '(home)/(username)/Internet/Firefox' and '(home)/(username)/Internet/Thunderbird', is there a way to add those in KDE's start menu?

-Right Click on Kmenu, click on 'Menu Editor'.
-On the left side of the new dialog box, navigate to the place you want to put your firefox. may be 'Internet'
-Right Click and click on 'New Item', give the name. A new item is created under 'Internet'
-Click on the new item, inside the 'General' tab on the right side, fill up the name, description, comment
-In the "command:" section enter "/home/<username>/Internet/firefox"
-To add icon: Click on the [?] and browse to /home/<username>/Internet/firefox/icons and choose the one u like.
-Then click save before you close KDE Menu Editor.

There you go, u got firefox in you Kmenu.

HTH

Cheers!!!

[Christian]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Thank you very much :-)

Edit: just done after reformatting the drive and reisntalling Kubuntu clean, worked like a dream.
I even added the 1-click start by adding it to the tray.

I am going to try various pages to see if I hit any dependencies issues, or not.
I will post here if I get any problem, and the solution if I manage to find it on my own (I am expert at solving the equivalent problems with DLLs on Windows, I never found an XP application which I could not get to run on W2k).

[marcopl]

Re: Firefox 3.5

So, Firefox 3.5 is not going to be available - soon - in automatic updates? Many days have passed since f 3.5 final edition was introduced...

Any reason why firefox 3.5 is not in the repos as an update? i m using 3.0.11.

[ElMonoGrande]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Any reason why firefox 3.5 is not in the repos as an update? i m using 3.0.11.

Excellent question, marcopl. I'm wondering the same thing. Anyone got a legit answer as to what's taking so long?

[DeathKitten]

Re: Firefox 3.5

I'm using Firefox 3.5.1 right now, installed from the repos. You need to look for the firefox-3.5 package, and the browser will actually be called Shiretoko, which apparently was the name for the project while they were working on it. It picked up what extensions I had that were updated to work with it, though sadly, one of my favorites hasn't been updated yet (Deepest Sender).

[Fintan]

Re: Firefox 3.5

@DK this works:
http://deepestsender.mozdev.org/installation.html

grab the version0.9.1

[DeathKitten]

Re: Firefox 3.5

I did that earlier today. Got tired of waiting for it to go through the "normal" channels, and Googled about after I'd complained earlier. Thanks for suggesting it though, hopefully someone else on the forums can benefit.

[marcopl]

Re: Firefox 3.5

I'm using Firefox 3.5.1 right now, installed from the repos. You need to look for the firefox-3.5 package, and the browser will actually be called Shiretoko, which apparently was the name for the project while they were working on it. It picked up what extensions I had that were updated to work with it, though sadly, one of my favorites hasn't been updated yet (Deepest Sender).

thanx. i did;

sudo aptitude install firefox-3.5 -s

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
apturl{a} firefox-3.5 firefox-3.5-branding{a} gnome-app-install{a} gnome-icon-theme{a} libcanberra0{a} libgtkhtml2-0{a} libtdb1{a} python-gst0.10{a}
python-gtkhtml2{a} python-launchpad-integration{a} python-sexy{a} python-vte{a} ubufox{a} xulrunner-1.9.1{a}
0 packages upgraded, 15 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 15.2MB of archives. After unpacking 56.4MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]

But it didn't offer to remove firefox 3.0.11? will i have 2 firefoxes? menu issues? icon issues?

[DeathKitten]

Re: Firefox 3.5

It leaves the older version installed, side by side. The 3.5 version is called Shiretoko, as I mentioned previously... and it uses a little blue globe-looking icon. While this isn't the ideal solution, at least they're giving us the new version in the repositories where the *buntu policy typically is to not give us updates, outside of bug patches, between the *buntu releases. This side by side install does give the advantage of allowing us to fall back to the older version when we need access to some of the extensions that haven't updated for the new version.

[wkdboi]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Hello. I've been following this thread for a while, and I feel the urge to say how ****ing ridiculous this all is. **** like this is the reason Linux as a whole is not ready for the broad public. I mean, seriously - what option is being left to the users here? Either you have to have the knowledge to install 3.5.x next to 3.0.x, breaking the automated update path provided by the Firefox meta-package, having to manually fix symlinks, getting ready for data-duplication, confusion, etc., etc., or one -apparently- has to sit here and wait until 9.10 to get a current version of the most prominent open source browser.
How do you explain this to say, your mother? "Yes, mom, I know Firefox 3.5 has been out for a month, but Kubuntu disabled Firefox's inbuilt update mechanism and refuses to offer a current update."? Yeah, that's gonna reflect well on Linux. I'm sure next time she talks about it, her words will be "Yes, my son installed this new-fangled 'Lunix' thingy, and it's so awesome, it won't even let me update!".

How ridiculous is that? What justification is there for that? What makes it so utterly complicated to put a current version of 3.5 into the repos and change the dependencies of the firefox package?

I mean, Kubuntu is ****ing advertising with the package management in it. What use are "more installable packages than any of the operating systems in the past" if they're outdated and worthless?
If I were on Windows, I'd have had FF 3.5 since the end of June. No configuration changes, no parallel installations, no manual installation, nothing. Just click "yes" when the update box pops up, and done. So how exactly does Kubuntu's oh-so-awesome software repository do anything in this situation that is advertisement-worthy? "Our amazing software repository ensures that you don't automatically get the best version and are stuck with the slow-ass annoying one instead - get Kubuntu now!"

This entire ordeal is doubly ridiculous because, as discussed widely all over the place (slashdot, etc.) and probably experienced by many of us, 3.0 sucks under Linux. It's bloated, it's slow, and it's generally a pain in the ass. From all I heard, 3.5 is a vast improvement, and, as such, it would be in Canonical's best interest to update the package asap to improve *ubuntu users' experience. Alas, while offering the beta of 3.5 in the repos was possible, offering the full version is apparently too complex.

(Yes, all you "Shiretoko"-touting users out there, package firefox-3.5 is at version 3.5~b4~hg20090330r24021+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 - no matter if you believe the "B4" designation or the 30.03.2009 date or the build number, it's a far cry from the finished version.)

Sorry, I'm venting. This is all very frustrating, and, frankly, I see no logical justification for this holdup. There already is an older version of 3.5 in the repos, several users in this thread have already confirmed 3.5 works on 9.04, so it can neither be an issue of not wanting to push new versions into old repos, nor can it be an issue of compatibility.

That leaves laziness or spite.

Whichever of the two it is, it most certainly doesn't lead to user satisfaction, and it runs actively against furthering Linux on the desktop. Inexplicably user-hostile actions like this only serve to confirm lusers' impression that "Linux is not as advanced as Windows" or "doesn't work as smoothly".

I don't know who manages the repos, and I don't know who made the moronic decision not to update the packages, but whoever it was should think very long and very hard about how exactly it helps Linux, or the open source movement as a whole, that one of the most prominent Linux distributions at the moment doesn't even properly serve the number one open source browser.

Hell, at this point, all I want is a simple answer: Are the repos going to be updated before the 9.10 release, yes or no?
Is Canonical/Kubuntu going to utterly fail its community or not?
Do I have to handle this manually or not?

It's always a bad sign when a company reaches a point when it stops giving a **** about the satisfaction of those using its products. But I guess Canonical can always become the Microsoft of Linux. Who cares about the users as long as you're #1, right?



(And to combat all he fanboys who might come out and go all "then go back to windows" or want to explain to me how I can get FF 3.5 anyway - I know Linux. I've used it for years. I don't even run dual-boot, just Kubuntu. I can install the binary from Mozilla within minutes, no help necessary. It's not a question of not being able to get it, not being able to handle Linux or whatever - it's a question of having to break the update path to do so. The very point of package management is that the software manages the packages - forcing me to install packages outside of the management of the system defeats the purpose. There's no point in having package management [and advertising it, for that matter] if I'm forced to circumvent the package management in order to get current packages. [No, Beta 4 is not current.]

And given that they have proven they can add versions of 3.5 to the repos, the fact that this thread has to exist in the first place is just ridiculous.)

[undoIT]

Re: Firefox 3.5

... If I were on Windows, I'd have had FF 3.5 since the end of June. No configuration changes, no parallel installations, no manual installation, nothing. Just click "yes" when the update box pops up, and done...

If you were on Windows you'd probably also have a trojan horse silently logging your keystrokes and be dealing with driver issues at some point. I used to repair computers professionally and did well because there is a huge market for computer support. Why? Many things don't work well in Windows, stuff breaks when you install the new drivers for a peripheral, the Windows OS become unusable because of malware. For some reason, people think this is normal, but if they have to do something in the terminal in Linux, it is too much to bare.

There are definitely some frustrations when using Linux and the hardware compatibility needs to improve. For me, it is not a big deal. But, I recommend it to all my friends and family and I wish this kind of stuff could be smoothed out because it is a glaring annoyance for people who aren't so computer savvy.

I think what should happen here is that Canonical should work with Mozilla and figure out a way to make the upgrade process seamless. I do like that I can run both 3.0 and 3.5 side-by-side currently. There is a display issue in Firefox 3.5 where a vertical single-pixel border is appearing for some images that are resized using the CSS max-height / max-width property. I was able to open up Firefox 3.0 and verify that this wasn't occurring there. So, anyways, I'm not sure how difficult it is to run both 3.0 and 3.5 side by side in Windows, but I'm glad I was able to install side-by-side and not just upgrade. That would be another thing for Canonical and Mozilla to figure out, how to give people this option when a new major release is made.

A lot of people are volunteering their free time to work on open source software. It is not like everyone is getting paid a Microsoft salary and I think some types of complaining are not all that uplifting to the developers who are volunteering their time. Hopefully, they just take it as constructive criticism, putting themselves in the shoes of the person who is complaining and then try to figure out how to make things better, rather than taking it personally and getting disheartened.

[The Liquidator]

Re: Firefox 3.5

I would just make 1 observation and that is that I don't believe that upgrading to 3.5 in windows is automatic. An active choice has to be made by the user to download and install it, it will then overwrite 3.0.xxx. There are millions of people still using 3.0 - for that reason Mozilla a couple of days ago released 3.0.12.

However, I would agree that for those who want to leap into 3.5 the upgrade path could be smoother. You could try ubuntuzilla which does help.

Ian

[kevinc]

Re: Firefox 3.5

I don't want to stray from the topic, but just to answer the last post. I use at work a box which has ff 3.0 on it because I installed it and I also installed 3.5 and they both run together - the 3.0 is in the menu and 3.5 sits on the desktop.

I think the point of wkdboi should be taken seriously, that if any Linux distro wants to be considered as a serious alternative for people who just want to click 'yes' or 'no', rather than learn the various ways to install packages, then the package managers need to work better and new versions should be available as soon as possible, not many months later.

[Rob_H]

Re: Firefox 3.5

(Yes, all you "Shiretoko"-touting users out there, package firefox-3.5 is at version 3.5~b4~hg20090330r24021+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 - no matter if you believe the "B4" designation or the 30.03.2009 date or the build number, it's a far cry from the finished version.)

Actually, on mine, it's 3.5.1.

[DeathKitten]

Re: Firefox 3.5

(Yes, all you "Shiretoko"-touting users out there, package firefox-3.5 is at version 3.5~b4~hg20090330r24021+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 - no matter if you believe the "B4" designation or the 30.03.2009 date or the build number, it's a far cry from the finished version.)

Actually, on mine, it's 3.5.1.

Mine's 3.5.1 also.

On the topic of the whining about the failure to provide a "normal" 3.5 upgrade yet, I'd like to point out that the *buntu family has a 6 month release cycle. They want to offer a pretty much finished product and then focus on the next cycle's release, only having the fuss with the security updates once the final release is made.

If you want bleeding edge everything, go play in the development version before the final release. Otherwise there are lots of other viable options available. That said, perhaps someone should convince that offering a repository of the latest release is in the best interest of the Mozilla team. They're already packaging up for Windows and OS X, what's it to do two more packages? (.deb for *buntu and other debian packaging system using distros, and .rpm for those other guys) That's what the Pidgin developers did, and they tout it very clearly on the front page of their site when the site detects the correct distro. This is actually the logical way to transition Windows converts... since they're already used to going straight to the vendor's website for their downloads.