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

Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#91

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

lproven wrote: post #88
lakomen wrote: post #40

The author is an untrustworthy Ubuntu astroturfer who picks fights and insults his critics on the platform he publishes the paid articles he writes.

The author -- me -- rejects every one of those accusations. I am a former member of staff at both Red Hat and SUSE, and I have coming up on 30 years of experience on Linux across coming up on 100 different distros. Among the OSes on bare metal on my home machines are macOS, FreeBSD, RISC OS, ArcaOS, FreeDOS, PC DOS, Haiku, Oberon/A2, ChromeOS Flex, Q4OS, Windows XP, Windows 7, and Windows 10... alongside Ubuntu and o…

MX too bloated. Feel the power of ANTIX with RUNIT, run it RAM, setup some persistence on some storage in whichever way you like, disable and remove all the fluff like conky, use IceWM as WM, and zzzfm as filemanager, make it look nice, feel the insane speed.

Remaster. Then this is yours. And stays that way, whith some remastering from time to time, due to updates, whatever.

Giggle like a madman for not having to care about all the useless 'make work, make work!' anymore.

Relax.

Edit: While you're at it, deploy https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon / https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Profile-sync-daemon or something like that for FF. That's the icing on the cake, for FF not to access your /home , whereever that may be stored. Works wonders for Sideberry, and preserves your precious SSD. OFC that applies to any distro.

Edit: s/Openbox/IceWM

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#92

Post by pornel »

JohnFen wrote: post #77
dyingkneepad wrote: post #27

I think web browsers should be the exception to Distro's "stable" release rules. Browsers do not work at all like every other package. There are so many security implications, everything is so complex that I really think having whatever is the newest release is actually the most stable strategy. New releases tend to be pretty stable considering how much testing they get everywhere.

Personally, I don't want a nightly release of a browser (or any other software). Not because of stability or bug concerns, but because I don't want my software to change often. I strongly prefer long-term releases, and even then tend to put off updating for as long as I can get away with. Updates are pain unless they're security-only ones.

First, this is an illusion of choice. The software changes anyway, and you can't realistically opt out of it changing by opting out of updates, since compatibility with the external world will force you to keep updating.

Secondly, if you don't like change, putting off upgrades may actually make it worse for you. You will have an "OMG, they've changed everything!" shock when you upgrade rarely. OTOH if you run regular updates, you'll get small changes one at a time, boil-the-frog style. You can't opt out of changes, you can only get them in small drops, or a whole bucket at a time.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#93

Post by jeroenhd »

jancsika wrote: post #69
jeroenhd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on Ubuntu so I'm also using the tarballs. I wouldn't want to have to update it manually every time, though. Instead, I've extracted Firefox into ~/.local/opt/firefox and the auto-updater works as expected. I'll definitely switch to the apt distribution down the line, though. Package management is one of the main reasons why I use Linux in the first place.

Why switch? You're currently already using Firefox's own auto-updater. Since you've already done the manual set up, Debian's package manager would add nothing AFAICT.

I have two users on my system so I have two auto-updating Firefoxes which is slightly annoying. I also use Timeshift to take snapshots every time I update software, so the more software I can integrate into that, the better.

The auto-updater is better than Snap, but I'd rather use as few alternative package management solutions as possible.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#94

Post by lproven »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #91
lproven wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author -- me -- rejects every one of those accusations. I am a former member of staff at both Red Hat and SUSE, and I have coming up on 30 years of experience on Linux across coming up on 100 different distros. Among the OSes on bare metal on my home machines are macOS, FreeBSD, RISC OS, ArcaOS, FreeDOS, PC DOS, Haiku, Oberon/A2, ChromeOS Flex, Q4OS, Windows XP, Windows 7, and Windows 10... alongside Ubuntu and o…

MX too bloated. Feel the power of ANTIX with RUNIT, run it RAM, setup some persistence on some storage in whichever way you like, disable and remove all the fluff like conky, use IceWM as WM, and zzzfm as filemanager, make it look nice, feel the insane speed. Remaster. Then this is yours. And stays that way, whith some remastering from time to time, due to updates, whatever. Giggle like a madman for not having to car…

I've tried and reviewed antiX:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/01/antix_23/

For me, I think it's a mess. Four desktops, 3 file managers, multiple app menus, panels, text editors, etc.

Work out one best item, pick it and use it. IMHO they need to stop shipping 3, 4, 5 or more alternatives for each function. If people have strong enough views, they can go choose their own.

The same applies to Window Maker Live.

It's how distros used to be in the 1990s, and it was a pain then, too... but then most of us didn't have broadband so trying out multiple tools was much harder and slower. Then, there was a reason. Now, there isn't.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#95

Post by JohnFen »

pornel wrote: post #92
JohnFen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't want a nightly release of a browser (or any other software). Not because of stability or bug concerns, but because I don't want my software to change often. I strongly prefer long-term releases, and even then tend to put off updating for as long as I can get away with. Updates are pain unless they're security-only ones.

First, this is an illusion of choice. The software changes anyway, and you can't realistically opt out of it changing by opting out of updates, since compatibility with the external world will force you to keep updating. Secondly, if you don't like change, putting off upgrades may actually make it worse for you. You will have an "OMG, they've changed everything !" shock when you upgrade rarely. OTOH if you run regula…

> you can't realistically opt out of it changing by opting out of updates, since compatibility with the external world will force you to keep updating

Long term, this has truth (although it's usually overstated -- most software, even internet software, that I have still works even after many years). But what I can do is decide for myself when to make that change. This is particularly important when features I need are removed, as it lets me still have working software while I look for an alternative.

> if you don't like change, putting off upgrades may actually make it worse for you.

It doesn't. UI changes, particularly, are disruptive. Having frequent small ones is far more disruptive to me than infrequent large ones.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#96

Post by mr_toad »

dyingkneepad wrote: post #27

I think web browsers should be the exception to Distro's "stable" release rules. Browsers do not work at all like every other package. There are so many security implications, everything is so complex that I really think having whatever is the newest release is actually the most stable strategy. New releases tend to be pretty stable considering how much testing they get everywhere.

Download it from Mozilla and use the auto update.

I like package managers in general, but for a select few tools I’ll use a more timely update process.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#97

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

lproven wrote: post #94
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MX too bloated. Feel the power of ANTIX with RUNIT, run it RAM, setup some persistence on some storage in whichever way you like, disable and remove all the fluff like conky, use IceWM as WM, and zzzfm as filemanager, make it look nice, feel the insane speed. Remaster. Then this is yours. And stays that way, whith some remastering from time to time, due to updates, whatever. Giggle like a madman for not having to car…

I've tried and reviewed antiX: https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/01/antix_23/ For me, I think it's a mess. Four desktops, 3 file managers, multiple app menus, panels, text editors, etc. Work out one best item, pick it and use it. IMHO they need to stop shipping 3, 4, 5 or more alternatives for each function. If people have strong enough views, they can go choose their own. The same applies to Window Maker Live. It'…

Yes. I can understand how you see it like that. It looks like a mess. But it can be made to fit your needs. Easily.

Just deinstall everthing that you don't like, install anything that's missing, choose some theme, deinstall the rest...

And remaster. From there on, it's like being made for you, because you made it so :-)

OFC you could say that about any distro, but then you'd lose the specific scripting for booting it from whereever, running it live in RAM, while having persistence in various ways, which is the USP of it.

From that POV your review didn't go deep enough, I think. Sorry ;-)

For me it's like a debian-distro-kit, enabling me to customize the shit out of it fast and easy, while having access to the whole Multiverse of everything that's Debian, it's update and administration mechanisms, and so on.

But usually not needing to. Because it just works. Fast. Because in RAM.

Edit: Which reminds me of Q4OS which you mentioned. Regarding the distro-kit aspect, I once added the Trinity repositories to Antix, installed it, fiddled with some superflous stuff, removed that, and remastered.

BAM! Had a fucking fast trinity desktop running in RAM! Just like that.

Though I'm not using that anymore, because no need. Icewm & zzzfm are enough for me.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#98

Post by lproven »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #97
lproven wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried and reviewed antiX: https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/01/antix_23/ For me, I think it's a mess. Four desktops, 3 file managers, multiple app menus, panels, text editors, etc. Work out one best item, pick it and use it. IMHO they need to stop shipping 3, 4, 5 or more alternatives for each function. If people have strong enough views, they can go choose their own. The same applies to Window Maker Live. It'…

Yes. I can understand how you see it like that. It looks like a mess. But it can be made to fit your needs. Easily. Just deinstall everthing that you don't like, install anything that's missing, choose some theme, deinstall the rest... And remaster. From there on, it's like being made for you, because you made it so :-) OFC you could say that about any distro, but then you'd lose the specific scripting for booting it…

That's absolutely fine. You do you.

For me, that is way more work than I want. I am old and grumpy and want an easy life and tools that work acceptably out of the box.

For playing around, that's different. Thus A2 and Haiku and things. But for work, if it needs that much work to adjust the shipped distro to me, then it is the wrong distro.

There are good reasons I don't run Arch.

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#99

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

lproven wrote: post #98
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I can understand how you see it like that. It looks like a mess. But it can be made to fit your needs. Easily. Just deinstall everthing that you don't like, install anything that's missing, choose some theme, deinstall the rest... And remaster. From there on, it's like being made for you, because you made it so :-) OFC you could say that about any distro, but then you'd lose the specific scripting for booting it…

That's absolutely fine. You do you. For me, that is way more work than I want. I am old and grumpy and want an easy life and tools that work acceptably out of the box. For playing around, that's different. Thus A2 and Haiku and things. But for work, if it needs that much work to adjust the shipped distro to me, then it is the wrong distro. There are good reasons I don't run Arch.

I'm 'old' too. Born summer 1969. What makes me grumpy is the OOTB experience of any distro I tried. And I (mostly) don't want to have to compile stuff anymore. So I settled for (mostly) binary distros, like Arch, which btw. I (mostly) had no troubles with whatsoever. It just lacked 'convenience' and some scientific/technical stuff in their repositories, which I'd then have to compile again, so no, Arch had to go. Settled for Debian then, because even though their ways of doing things can seem bizarre, old-fashioned and stale, it (mostly) just works, they have it all, and when you get around their 'bizarreness' shiny new, too.

Almost paradise, except for 'systemdness', which I can't stand. So there are countless derivatives with different goals and priorities, some of them for running live in RAM, some of them being especially 'free' from an ideological but impractical POV(which I also can't stand), and some of them eliminating 'systemdness'.

Then there are Antix/MX whose goal seems to be to get that stuff running any way they can on any somewhat reasonable system, more or less frugal in case of Antix, rather comfortably in case of MX. While giving a shit about ideology, prioritising availability of all sorts of drivers, connectivity, convenience in very pragmatical ways. While running in RAM for speed(optionally), but still enabling persistence in various ways.

This toolset of them enables me to get up and running on almost anything from very barebones images with the presses of a few function keys, some mouseclicks, some eliminating of unwanted stuff(by mouseclicks, no editing necessary, I checked), installing my stuff, choosing theme/widget/deco/whatever, and be done with it in maybe 30 minutes max initially(including that remaster thing).

From there on it is absolute BLISS for me, because that way I have fast systems, looking and feeling how I like it, without getting in my way, or missing anything. For MONTHS, while still being updated, without reboots. Exceptions are kernel or fundamental library updates. These are just a few clicks in Synaptic anyways, reload, mark, apply, YÄSS, YÄSS!, gieev, gieev meee new stuff! Maybe 3 to 5 minutes daily while I'm slurping my morning coffee or tea? Too much change? Switched some core components meanwhile? Remaster in not more than 10 minutes. Reboot. Done.

BLISS again.

For playing around I'm tempted to try https://github.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem3 (since you mentioned A2 ;-)) but probably not, because I'd rather enjoy riding my new hyperbicycles more ;-)

Re: Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly

#100

Post by LtWorf »

hackideiomat wrote: post #47
dyingkneepad wrote: post #27

I think web browsers should be the exception to Distro's "stable" release rules. Browsers do not work at all like every other package. There are so many security implications, everything is so complex that I really think having whatever is the newest release is actually the most stable strategy. New releases tend to be pretty stable considering how much testing they get everywhere.

I recently accidentally triggered a years old vuln in my Firefox, because ESR is shit and Debian is shit and why on earth would people want to use outdated software? I regret installing Debian :D

Which specific vulnerability are you talking about?
Post reply on HN