Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox moving to 4 week releases

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#111

Post by Wowfunhappy »

kingofpandora wrote: post #71
aquabeagle wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla only provides binaries for Linux 32-bit, Linux 64-bit, macOS, win32, and win64: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/69.0/ All of the various Linux distributions just repackage those binaries. iOS and Android are distributed only through the App Store and Google Play. The BSDs and other ("tier 3") platforms have to compile from source and distribute their own packages: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-…

> All of the various Linux distributions just repackage those binaries. Source please. Never mind, it's simply wrong so don't even worry about it!

Even if you’re right and they’re wrong, the snark was unwarranted IMO. You should either correct the GP or request more information (like a source), not ask rhetorically.

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#112

Post by kevingadd »

LinuxBender wrote: post #95
fluffything wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox ships ~100 binaries for 100 different targets, from mobile phones, to desktops, tablets, ... x86, arm, sparc, ppc, riscv, ... X linux, windows, macos, freebds, openbsd, netbsd, .... X arch linux, debian, ubuntu .. At some point you need to say this is what we want to ship, and branch, and make sure that not only all tests pass, but that the installers work, run the benchmark suite that might not be run on eve…

Not to mention, different builds per language for each OS. [1] This has never really made sense to me, but I'm sure there must be a good reason. [1] - https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.1.0esr/linux...

My educated guess is that the localization data for every language is pretty massive, so per-region downloads can include the text for their region without dragging along a few extra megabytes of text/images for other regions. If you swap regions after installing it can probably download on-demand.

Historically reducing your download size by a couple megabytes has had measurable positive impact on conversion rates (from webpage visit -> install) so I expect this tradeoff made a lot of sense in the past even if it's less important now.

EDIT: One other thing worth note is that there's zh-CN and zh-TW, and I can imagine the Chinese government being very irritated about the idea of their release having separate Taiwan loc text/images baked in since according to them Taiwan doesn't exist. Major software like Windows has already had CN-specific releases for this (among other) reason(s).

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#114

Post by ggg3 »

earenndil wrote: post #65
aquabeagle wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla only provides binaries for Linux 32-bit, Linux 64-bit, macOS, win32, and win64: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/69.0/ All of the various Linux distributions just repackage those binaries. iOS and Android are distributed only through the App Store and Google Play. The BSDs and other ("tier 3") platforms have to compile from source and distribute their own packages: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-…

Most linuces build their own firefoxes from source, same as the BSDs.

it mostly was the case to remove the logo at some point in time :/

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#115

Post by nwah1 »

xg15 wrote: post #79
nwah1 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but by using binary deltas you can minimize that cost. And failure to upgrade may mean running more inefficient algorithms, wasting more processor cycles, or transferring more data in general. For instance, if you are on a browser that doesn't support Brotli compression then you'll miss out on the dramatic compression improvements provided by that algorithm.

It also means more effort for people who have to validate the changes downstream for potential problems - e.g. extension developers or package maintainers.

Agree with that, also, but there's no reason why their processes couldn't be just as streamlined.

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#116

Post by JohnFen »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #99
JohnFen wrote: post #25

I think this is sad news, but that's because I view the current "rapid release" trend and being, on the whole, a bad thing for everyone. It decreases software quality, decreases stability, and increases hassle and stress for everyone from developers to users.

It actually does the opposite. It's big, infrequent releases that are risky, less stable. Users update automatically; they barely notice it today. Most non techie users have no idea that it is happening. A few years go we had these big bang releases with browsers, operating systems, etc. and things were much worse. Anytime you unleash millions of new lines of code on users it's almost guaranteed that there will be so…

Yes, I'm well aware of the arguments in favor. It's just that I don't see it playing out much in the real world. In my experience (on the whole -- there are exceptions), rapid released software tends to be of lower quality.

Even if that weren't true, though, rapid release means a lot more updates, and updates are a pain in the butt.

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#117

Post by JohnFen »

nwah1 wrote: post #42
WoodenChair wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're addressing the pain for the developer but not the pain for the user and society more largely. The user (who may be on a slow internet connection) has to deal with the bandwidth of the more frequent downloads. Society has to deal with additional network congestion costs and electricity usage.

True, but by using binary deltas you can minimize that cost. And failure to upgrade may mean running more inefficient algorithms, wasting more processor cycles, or transferring more data in general. For instance, if you are on a browser that doesn't support Brotli compression then you'll miss out on the dramatic compression improvements provided by that algorithm.

> may mean running more inefficient algorithms, wasting more processor cycles, or transferring more data in general.

Quite often, missing those sorts of improvements isn't a big deal. That depends on the nature of the software in question, though.

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#118

Post by Hello71 »

kevingadd wrote: post #112
LinuxBender wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, different builds per language for each OS. [1] This has never really made sense to me, but I'm sure there must be a good reason. [1] - https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.1.0esr/linux...

My educated guess is that the localization data for every language is pretty massive, so per-region downloads can include the text for their region without dragging along a few extra megabytes of text/images for other regions. If you swap regions after installing it can probably download on-demand. Historically reducing your download size by a couple megabytes has had measurable positive impact on conversion rates (f…

zh-CN and zh-TW has nothing to do with that, and I'm virtually certain there are no "Taiwan images". in applications which provide zh-CN and zh-TW, including Firefox, the former means Simplified Chinese and the latter means Traditional Chinese. theoretically, it could mean Taiwanese Chinese, but then there would also be zh-HK, zh-MO, zh-SG...

Re: Firefox moving to 4 week releases

#119

Post by naniwaduni »

nwah1 wrote: post #115
xg15 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also means more effort for people who have to validate the changes downstream for potential problems - e.g. extension developers or package maintainers.

Agree with that, also, but there's no reason why their processes couldn't be just as streamlined.

There are plenty of reasons their processes can't be as streamlined as an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars of resources.
Post reply on HN