• @Unknown1234_5
    link
    English
    101 month ago

    Why do they not just ship normal packages (.deb, .rpm, etc.) or an official flatpak that functions properly?

        • Wilmo Bones
          link
          English
          21 month ago

          How doesn’t it work properly for you?

          • @Unknown1234_5
            link
            English
            41 month ago

            Doesn’t go full screen on media correctly. Leaves the media the same size and adds massive grey bars to the receiving screen space. Interestingly, the flatpaks of every Firefox-based browser I’ve tried do the same.

          • boredsquirrel
            link
            fedilink
            224 days ago

            Has no filesystem sandbox whatsoever. They just pretend it is fine, causing uBlue devs and others to think it is okay to remove native Firefox

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      131 month ago

      I think the “etc” shows how f***ed up it might be to package for every single distro. Releasing a tar with no extra bloat and letting each community doing its own things over it is probably one of the best approaches?

      • @Unknown1234_5
        link
        English
        21 month ago

        But it makes finding a properly functioning official package more difficult for newer users, and really the etc. was superfluous. You only really need .deb, .rpm, and whatever arch uses. There is a flatpak, but it doesn’t work properly.

    • Ephera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think, you’ve answered your own question? There’s a lot of different formats for Linux. Getting them all correct and working on the different distributions is significantly trickier than just bundling a self-contained archive.

      Having said that, they do actually provide a DEB repo since a few months ago: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w_install-firefox-deb-package-for-debian-based-distributions-recommended