• @PushButton
    link
    641 month ago

    Wow, they are going to zip it with a different algo. That’s fucking amazing!

    Faster installation, I don’t know what I will do with all that extra time!

    Plus, faster downloads, that’s even more free time.

    Mozilla really know how to innovate.

    Best company evvvvaaarrr

  • Lucy :3
    link
    fedilink
    391 month ago

    Who’s not using a package manager? Except for LFS, for which you should compile it yourself.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 month ago

      I don’t. I have installed Firefox manually for many years across several distros now, albeit for different reasons. For example:

      • Debian only has Firefox ESR in the Bookworm repo. I want the latest mainline version.

      • Bazzite only offers it via Flatpak, which breaks functionality I need such as native messaging.

      I see no problem installing it manually. It keeps itself updated and has caused me zero problems.

    • Frellwit
      link
      81 month ago

      On Ubuntu I use the tar.bz2 version to not have to deal with snaps or extra repositories. Also on Debian Stable to get the latest version.

      • Fonzie!
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        If you don’t want to deal with snaps being forced down your throat, why are you still on Ubuntu?

      • Wilmo Bones
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I use the flatpak on Fedora but have used the tar version in the past because the package managed version is hijacked with stupid Redhat bookmarks and homepage that loves to return after being removed randomly.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 month ago

      I highly suggests all Ubuntu users to use the vanilla Firefox version downloaded from Mozilla. It’s way better because it’s not a Snap package.

  • kbal
    link
    fedilink
    271 month ago

    The .tar.xz format decompresses more than twice as fast as .tar.bz2, allowing you to get up and running in no time

    $ time tar xjf firefox-134.0b3.tar.bz2 
    
    real    0m9.045s
    user    0m8.839s
    sys     0m0.450s
    
    $ time tar xJf firefox-135.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.xz                                                
    
    real    0m4.903s
    user    0m4.677s
    sys     0m0.510s
    

    Nice! Presumably it’d be twice as fast if disk was infinitely fast or something. Unfortunately by testing this I’ve already used up a hundred times more time than I’ll ever save as a result of it.

  • boredsquirrel
    link
    fedilink
    131 month ago

    Fixing their damn sandbox would be something truly useful.

    Implementing a fork server so Flatpak AND Android Firefox can stop being fucking insecure for no reason.

  • @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
            227 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

  • Ephera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 month ago

    Interesting, I always assumed they would be using a pretty optimal algorithm with their .tar.bz2 format, because they obviously benefit quite a bit from smaller downloads. Good to know that .tar.xz is actually better.

  • boredsquirrel
    link
    fedilink
    127 days ago

    Btw how are they the only ones hopping on to XZ?? Like, everyone is switching to zstd currently.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -11 month ago

    Yes, use the format that was almost backdoored a few months ago! I’m sure it has a very strong development team behind it! /s

    • @x00z
      link
      English
      91 month ago

      I would call it the format that has the most eyes on it now.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -31 month ago

        My point is that it had an overworked maintainer who was easily persuaded into giving the project to someone else. I highly doubt it has gotten a solid team behind it now.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 month ago

          It wasn’t “easy” at all, they had to put in over 2 years of useful contributions before there was chance to insert the malware. If you’re worried just stay on an older version, it should still open new files perfectly fine.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -101 month ago

    What? More compression?

    Here I am wondering why in 2024 we don’t have the option to automatically decompress downloaded files like Apple users supposedly can.

    Ahh well, I guess that’s why these designers don’t work for apple. They’re not good enough.