Firefox 3.5

[grizzler]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Actually, on mine, it's 3.5.1.

Same here. Unfortunately, it's the US version, so I uninstalled it and used the method described at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1193567 to install the 'real' 3.5.1 in the proper language. And now I'm about to kick the piece junk off my system again, because it just won't use the right fonts, even though they have been set correctly (I noticed the same thing happened with the US version I had earlier, so it's not the unusual method of installing that causes it...).

After the effort it took to get the fonts just right (well, almost...) this is enough to make me forget about Linux altogether. I'm so fed up with this... >

[Marlin]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Well I guess I'll get in line for my share of abuse because I understand what wkdboi is saying and I am not too blinded by all things Linux to agree with him.

[Nate]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Yes, 3.5.1 on mine as well.

But wkdboi has a point. I think the decision not to update Firefox is just bad policy...not laziness or spite. This policy made sense sometime in the past, but certainly not in this case. I'm not sure who has the final say on these issues, but the Firefox decision needs to be revisited.

[wkdboi]

Re: Firefox 3.5

[...] 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, [...]

You mean like when I lost 3D support of my graphics card because the current ATI drivers don't support the model anymore (despite supporting it just fine the version before)? Or how my webcam doesn't work because only a very narrow band of webcam chips works with Linux? Or how a kernel update when you're running Compiz used to render the box basically unusable before dynamic kernel modules were introduced, because you need 3D support to run the desktop, but the 3D-supporting kernel module was in the old kernel? Try explaining a non-technical user how to boot an old kernel, or drop to recovery mode and reset the XOrg settings.

Spare me the Linux driver myth. Yes, it supports vastly more than Windows out of the box. But you run into driver issues just the same. Just different kinds of driver issues.

As for the "but if they have to do something in the terminal in Linux, it is too much to bare." remark, I am very much not afraid of the terminal -hell, I have yakuake running because I need it so often- but even I think some things deserve a shiny GUI. Take xorg.conf, for example - do you honestly consider it natural and fine that, in 2009, hundreds of thousands of users still have to wade through dozens of config options and manually have to tweak a fragile (very ****ing fragile) little file to do simple things like adding a new monitor or enabling hardware-accelerated video playback?

To return to the topic at hand, yes, there seems to (now) be a package firefox-3.5 that's up to date - I still get a second one that's listed in beta. I'm not gonna try which version I'd get if I told apt to pick one. They're both listed as being in universe/web with different filenames. I dunno. Whatever - ultimately, it only strengthens my point - if 3.5.1 is available in the repos, then there cannot be a compatibility issue, and there cannot be a question of focus (what's that even supposed to mean, Death Kitten?). If 3.5.1 is up and ready in the repos, then there cannot be a problem with the package - so what's the hold-up?

At this point, since 3.5.1 is indeed up there, the only thing missing to provide an easy, simple, automatic upgrade path is changing the firefox package's dependencies from firefox-3.0 to firefox-3.5.

What's so hard about that? How can 3.5.1 on one hand be stable, mature and compatible enough to be available to anyone with a current (k)ubuntu, with no restrictions, ready to be installed but, on the other hand, magically be unworthy to be the primary Firefox offered?

What is the problem? What exactly is wrong with Firefox 3.5 that prevents it from being the firefox dependency?
What is Canonical's motive in making it difficult for users to obtain a working, current release of their browser?
How exactly is it making Kubuntu safer, more comfortable, or easier to use if everyone is running an outdated browser?

And what exactly is hindering Canonical from dropping us a simple, five line comment about their reasoning behind this decision? It's been what - four weeks? I mean, they have to know Firefox 3.5 is a high-demand package. This thread alone has gone on long enough. Is it too much to ask to post a tiny notice saying "We're sorry, we have decided not to make 3.5 the primary Firefox yet because..."?

[GreyGeek]

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.

"Linux as a whole"? And VISTA is? That's your implication. Who are you trying to fool? Just 11 posts to this forum and you're posting like a Windows fanboi or a TE astroturfer: "I use Linux but ...." and the twisted bashing begins.

My 8 year old grandson has been using Linux since he was 5. He has no problems. My wife is technophobic but she's been using Linux on her laptop for two years and she's been using Kubuntu 9.04 since February and just lets the update notifier do its thing. She doesn't have any problems. I've help 8 people replace their Windows installations with Linux (at their request because XP kept crashing, getting infected, ran too slow, etc.... 6 with Kubuntu 9.04) and now they don't have any problems. One is 78 years old and he called me up this Monday just to tell me how much he likes Kubuntu. He couldn't keep XP running. He's been running Linux for 3 years and Kubuntu gives him no problems. Another, a school PE teacher, was running XP and got a keyboard logger Trojan that also infected his MBR. He had to change his email, bank and CC password numbers. He had just changed them a month before because the CC company suspected his account had been compromised. It had. He's been running PCLinuxOS since last Fall, without a single problem, except when his oldest boy, 6 years old, broke the DVD drive, but that isn't the fault of Linux. His wife and kids haven't had any problems either. He's started using his computer for a side business. Still no problems. I set up a handicapped women with Mandriva 7.2 a couple years ago. Her former XP installation was infected, spybotted, bot farmed and sllooooowww. She called last month saying she had problems. It turned out to be her mouse. She probably uses her Linux computer 12-16 hours a day, 7 days a week, because she has mobility problems and Linux keeps her connected to the outside world, without having to worry about viruses, Trojans or other hacks. When I fixed her mouse I checked out her system. Clean ... after more than two years of heavy, online use. I left her with Mandriva. It's working fine and she loves it.

So, contrary to your assertion, Linux has proven itself to be better for "broad public use" than VISTA or even XP. Besides being faster, more secure and more stable, a Linux user doesn't have to spend more money to add anti-virus products to make Windows safer (But not safe. As long as Microsoft keeps security holes secret from consumers Windows users personal data will never be safe.), nor does he have to purchase word processing or office ware to be productive, nor does he have to buy a decent CD burner. He isn't constantly interrupted by stupid questions asking if he wants to do a task he just initiated, or be told he can't do something because he doesn't have the "rights" to do it. And, he can make as many copies of his distro as he wants, modify it, give it away, share it with others, all at no charge to anyone. So yes, Linux is definitely better for broad public use. But, somehow, I feel you already know this, even if you could be an TE Astroturfing this site.

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!".

I doubt "your mother", who knows nothing about computers, would ask you to install version of FF that was released only 23 days ago. You are just setting up a straw man just to bash FF/Kubuntu/Linux.
A wise son, if he thought there was a problem with the next version, would let her continue to run FireFox 3.0.11. It works fine and she wouldn't know the difference.

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?

Ridiculous? Justification? It's neither "ridiculous" and the Kubuntu developers don't have to "justify" anything to you or anyone else. Complicated? If you have to ask it is obvious you don't understand, and haven't work on a project as big as Kubuntu, ESPECIALLY as it coordinates with both Ubuntu and KDE. IF you have, and your asking, then you are FUDing. While some developers work for Canonical, most are volunteers. Learn more about Kubuntu and rather than just whine and complain in this forum pitch in and help. Put your expertise, if you have any, to work: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu If you can't develop you can document. If you can't document you can contribute $$$. If your poor you can ask the developers what other kind of help they need. In addition, YOU and everyone else who uses Kubuntu can help by posting any bugs they find or wishes they have to the Kubuntu bugzilla.

Here's where to find out how you can help: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/GettingInvolved
You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution and help create a better Kubuntu for everyone.

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?

Another generalization which is the hallmark of a clueless Windows fanboi or an MS TE. How do I know? I seriously doubt that you have tried all 28,000 apps in the repository, yet you imply or dismiss them all as "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!"

Ah yes, the implication I knew was coming. "Windows is better!" I am not going to tell you to go back to Windows if you believe that. I will ask you this: why you are here if you do believe it? A rational person would not mess with what he believed was an inferior OS if he had experience with what he believed was a superior OS. So, you being here, saying what you are saying, is irrational, or you are a TE spreading FUD.

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.

Ah, Windows again. FF is OK under Windows. It's FF on Linux that "sucks", so Linux sucks too? And that "news" is all over the web. Ya, right.

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.

Oh, now this tirade is a doozy. FF is "slow and bloated". Compared to what? IE8? And only on Linux? It sleek and fast on Windows? Ya. Right. So, you are not a programmer, you don't volunteer to help Kubuntu, you post anti-Linux rants on this forum, and you KNOW what's in the best interests of Canonical. Huh, huh. Right.

(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.)

Your point? "Shiretoko"-touting users don't know anything? So, they can't read that FF3.5 was released on 6/30/09 and know that something released on 03/30/09 and marked "b4" is a beta and not a final release?

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.

You can't see a "logical" reason because you haven't programmed or otherwise helped on a project this big. Not surprising. Most people haven't. But then, most people don't go off half cocked making wild accusation and spouting half-baked "logic", declaring what the "problem" can or cannot be.

That leaves laziness or spite.

Yours, obviously. Most are working full time jobs to support themselves and their families AND STILL they DONATE their nights, weekends, vacations and talents (also obviously more than you possess) to Kubuntu for the FREE benefit of everyone who uses it, AND YOU CALL THEM LAZY? > Or spiteful? > You should be so lazy or treat people with such spite. If you did, I wouldn't be writing this response to your extremely outrageous rant, if it is just a rant and you aren't a TE.

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".

Ah, now the Canonical and the Kubuntu developers are "working actively against" Linux being successful on the desktop, but your illuminating rant will increase its success on the desktop. I hope that "lusers" is a typo.

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.

Obviously. From the content of your rant there are a LOT of thing you don't know.

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?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

You don't want a "simple answer". You've just walked into the forum with an explosive vest and detonated it with the religious fervor of a Window fanboi or a TE paid to do such vile rantings.

Do I have to handle this manually or not?

I don't know. Are you up to it? If you are, the rant was just useless bashing. If you aren't then who knows? After your most insulting, FUD infected, inflammatory post I can say for sure that I won't be helping you with any of your future problems.

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?

You really DIDN'T come here to get help, did you? Just to accuse, condemn, vilify, ridicule... what else did Plamondon's TE manual instruct you to say?

(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.)

So those Linux creds justify your rant? The tactic is common these days. Someone shows up at a Linux forum and posts a message claiming they are Linux "fans" or "users" or what ever. Then comes the anti-Linux/Windows-is-better rant. You've followed the script down to the letter, but with a nice touch. You posted 10 messages before you detonated the explosive vest.

Oh, so folks who defend Linux and Kubuntu from your wild rantings are "fanbois"? Well, I'll admit that I am as much a fanboi of Linux as you are of Windows, but I am not being paid to disparage Windows. I retired a year ago after nearly 50 years of programming, teaching and criminal forensics. I, too, run only Kubuntu on my notebook, and I've been running Linux for 11 years.

With friends like you Linux needs no enemies. BTW, how many Linux noobies did you hope to kill, and drive back to Windows?

[Fintan]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Whoa...this becoming fun, at least for a while.

I could make a proposition that might put some perspective on this useless blanter (sorry Grey Geek, you are definitely not useless )

A few releases back (i can't remember which) FF 3.0 came out and was immediately offered in the repos as an update /grade to FF2.x.

This was not received well here (myself included) and the discussion went along the same lines as it is going here.
Except we were asking:
"Why did you force an update upon us that cannot use the add-ons as they are not ready for FF3 yet?!!"

At that point you basically had to create a new default profile, or uninstall all those add-ons that were not workable with FF3.

Now we have the reverse situation.
you can install FF3.5.x alongside FF3.x and just don't update your add-ons so that FF3.x will still be usable with all its add-ons. FF3.5 will run fine with those that work.

BUT you have a choice of the two.

Yes making FF3.5.x your default browser can be a pain. But at least you don't have a broken browser.

BTHW I upgraded my FF3.x to FF3.5.X on my windows xp vm guest and guess what?

It didn't like my add-ons there either.

BUT there was NO choice, other than not upgrading.

So, those who love to be right about everything and believe we all need to be interested in a lopsided opinion, get a LIFE.

[aged hippy]

Re: Firefox 3.5

^^ -

On this installation, Firefox was upgraded to 3.0.12 this morning.... it still works as well as ever. 8)

I can't understand what all the fuss is about....

[grizzler]

Re: Firefox 3.5

If 3.5.1 is up and ready in the repos,

In my opinion it isn't...

then there cannot be a problem with the package - so what's the hold-up?

Translation? When I tried the 3.5.1 offered in the repos, I got the US version instead of the one in my own language.

[Fintan]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Try the ubuntuzilla method mentioned somewhere above.

There you can choose the langauge you want.

Edit:
here is the link:
http://ubuntumanual.org/posts/197/in...ng-ubuntuzilla

if you are using kde4.3 RC then you have to replace:

ubuntuzilla.py

with

ubuntuzilla.py -g

Hope that helps

[wkdboi]

Re: Firefox 3.5

@GreyGeek: Cute, really, but ultimately nothing but a long-ass string of false assumptions and allegations. Half your post are personal attacks and nothing more. Hell, you even got the number of posts I made in this forum wrong. But it's alright. I'm sure I'm just an astro-turfing Windows-fanboi, Linux is the flawless OS of the Gods, and the multiple, simple problems I recounted are all just in my head. btw, I met Santa yesterday, and he and the Easter Bunny agree you've been a very good boy this year. Look forward to Christmas.

As for your blablabla about me just bitching and not helping - feel free to hand over the necessary login credentials for me to change the firefox package requirements, and I'll happily go in and change them.
Because, as we had already established, with 3.5.1 full up, that's the only thing missing - a simple package requirement change.

But hey, why acknowledge and discuss an undeniable fact if you can just pretend there is no issue and the dissenter is Microsoft in disguise, right? After all, there is no diversity, and all Linux users in the whole wide world think, talk and use exactly like you, right? So obviously, if there is no problem for you, there is no problem for anyone! Hail GreyGeek, King of the Linux Users!

And I apologize for my impertinent attempt to actually compare Firefox to Firefox. I mean, clearly, the Firefox update procedure under Windows is crafted by Microsoft, so comparing the Windows and Linux Firefox update procedures is totally Microsoft propaganda and has nothing to do with the topic at hand - updating Firefox. Obviously me mentioning Firefox under Windows gives me away as a Microsoft shill, because anything running under Windows is 110% Microsoft software, and even thinking about it is a Thought Crime.
How could I be so stupid to think comparing upgrade paths across platforms for a cross-platform application wouldn't give me away as a Windows zealot?! Thank God I didn't mention Firefox on Mac - you would've known of my secret plan to further the adoption of iWindOS X Snow Vista! :O



@Fintan: The problem in this case is, there is no choice per se. If there was a simple notice "Yo, FF 3.5 is available, but it might break your add-ons, do you want it?" there'd be no problem. The user could look at the features, maybe even auto-check which add-ons would break, and then make a decision.
Instead, the system basically pretends FF 3.5 doesn't exist. Neither Firefox nor apt give, in any way, any kind of notification that FF 3.5 even exists, much less an option to upgrade. I can happily tell apt to upgrade a dozen times a day, it'll never tell me "oh, btw, there is a new version of Firefox" for 3.5.

In order to even know there might possibly be a choice, the user himself has to do research (say, by following the release news on their site), then has to know that it won't update automatically, but needs a manual parallel installation, then has to figure out how the package is named (e.g. is it named firefox or shiretoko?) and install it, then has to manually clean up the installation, fix up the Firefox symlink, etc. to make it behave like 3.0 did before, and is then stuck with a Firefox that's not even named Firefox and won't react to changes in the firefox meta package.

I understand your point about the add-ons, and I do admit it is valid. Of course a user shouldn't be forced to install 3.5. But he should at least be offered the choice. Currently, that is not the case. None of us is being offered the choice to upgrade 3.0. Instead, we found out, on our own, that we have the option to parallely install an independent application which just so happens to be the upgraded Firefox.
That's not a choice to upgrade - that's the same as if I chose to install Opera next to Firefox. An independent browser with a different name next to Firefox 3.0, leaving the original unchanged. No upgrade ever happens.

So yes, I agree with you there should be a choice, but there's a difference between a choice to upgrade or not, and the choice to install an entirely new, independent application and leaving the old one to rot on the hard drive. It's not the same.


In addition, even if that is the reasoning behind the decision not to make 3.5 the firefox dependency - don't you agree Canonical could at least say something? Just a simple "Listen up, we don't want people to accidentally break their add-ons, so we're not offering 3.5 as an automatic update - you can install it manually by typing 'sudo apt-get install firefox-3.5', follow this link to the forum for more information."
It took me less than a minute to type that - is a one-sentence-post for clarity really so much to ask for?

[undoIT]

Re: Firefox 3.5

@ wkdboi

I like your writing style, you got some chops

[undoIT]

Re: Firefox 3.5

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the place where you can submit bug reports and feature requests for Firefox:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

And, you can submit ideas and feature requests for Ubuntu here:

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/

Didn't see anything on there yet for a smoother upgrade process when major Firefox versions are released.

I definitely agree that it needs to be smoother, with prompt for side-by-side install or upgrade. No more of this weird Shiretoko with unrecognizeable blue icon stuff that needs to be installed from terminal.

[Fintan]

Re: Firefox 3.5

@wkdboi:
Kubuntu doesn't tell you about an upgrade because it is NOT an upgrade it is different install.

Did the windows version of FF3 or windows for that matter tell you it would break add-ons if you upgrade to FF3.5? Did it?

As I said before: GET A LIFE

I am turning of the notification option because this "conversation" is going nowhere quickly in a very sandbox fashion

[lmilano]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Just to chime in. FF 3.5 here works great in my desktop, but it was a disaster in my eeepc, go figure. There will be a new Kubuntu release in 3 months. In these three months, FF3.5 will stabilize a lot. What's the great rush to set it as a default now, while it can have regressions, as I had in my eeepc and at work in a winxp machine. Given the quick 6 months release cycle, I applaud the decision of mostly releasing bug (and security) fixes in between. If you want bleeding edge, install the development version and have some fun.

Also, this discussion should be about Firefox 3.5, please don't hijack it. There is a forum for misc stuff, in case someone wants to start yet another boring troll war against evil Linux:
http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/index.php?board=14.0

Peace out.

[fidesratioque]

Re: Firefox 3.5

My two bits: I updated to FF 3.5 on my Mac, on Vista and on Linux. In Linux I just installed through the package manager. So what if it says 'Shiretoko'? In six months the next version of Kubuntu will be out and I'll do my usual backup + fresh install. That will bring all my software up to date and I won't have any further problems.

There's really no reason to need to be on the bleeding edge when new stable versions of the OS with tons of built-in software are released on a handy half-yearly cycle. My thanks go to all the developers and maintainers who make that possible!