Can the webmaster fix mozilla's web site so that users don't end up with non working 32bit version of firefox on their 64 bit Linux (see bug #723487)?
I've been subsribed to bug #723487 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=723487) for a year and a half, and I identified a problem in the way mozilla's site delivers the linux version of firefox almost a year and a half ago, but for reasons unknown to me, no one bothered to address this problem.
Other, properly built web sites that deliver binary software packages for linux, can successfully recognise if the user downloading firefox is using a 32bit or 64bit Linux distribution, and offer the appropriate version. Try www.libreoffice.org if you think that my claims are false.
But this somehow doesn't work with mozillas website, the website recognizes that the user's operating system is Linux, but doesn't try to figure out if it's a 32bit or 64bit linux, so the users end up with 32bit builds of firefox by default, which then don't work on their 64bit sytems.
The problem is even more intensified due to the rather stupid naming convention used by mozilla - both the 32 and the 64 bit versions are simply named identicaly - for instance firefox-29.0b6.tar.bz2 for the 29 beta 6 version. Other sane software producers (libreoffice, nvidia, qt-project) names their binary packages with different names (eg. the "x86" string is used for the 32bit version, "x64" for the 64bit version) so that the users don't end up trying to use (unsucsesfully; getting a cryptic error message) the wrong version. But in mozilla's case we end up with a lot of confused users filing bug reports, like the bug I mentioned above.
So to rephrase my question - is someone willing to do something about this (the QA Mentor who commented in bug #723487 has so far proven to be completely useless)?
Chosen solution
I agree. While the issue can be sidestepped, it certainly presents a problem for inexperienced users. It's pretty weird that the *official download website* serves the wrong version of Firefox.
I wonder how many people just assume that "Firefox is broken" and give up (OK, probably not that many, but it is still a bug :-) ).
Edit (Clarification comment by a moderator ~J99)
Note the problem now should only be on Beta downloads not on Release downloads. The problem with the Beta downloads is being addressed. Work in progress. Scroll down for more information ( my-post )
Read this answer in context 👍 0All Replies (13)
The 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on the http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ page since Firefox 27.0 or 26.0 I believe.
This link is listed under the green download button with the words of Systems & Languages
James, we are speaking about different things here.
Yes I know where the 64bit builds are listed. But we are speaking about propper UX (User Experience) design which also involves the distribution channels. Are you trying to convince me that the libreoffice.org webmasters have more coding experience that mozilla's people and can properlu automate the choosing of the appropriate version that the user needs, but this is somehow a space science for the mozilla's webmasters?!
The appropriate version is usually chosen based on the User Agent header that the user's browser send when accessing mozilla.org. This is an expected behaviour for the users. Do you really think that the ordinary users can make a difference between 32bit vs 64bit?
A clasical UX fail, that's what this is. Morover the Mozilla's bugzilla doesn's offer a category where such kind of problem can be reported. Another big fail from their part!
Actually there is one for www.mozilla.org if you click on Other Products. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=www.mozilla.org&format=__default__
I did not say anything of sort. However my point was the listing of the 64-bit Linux builds was only recent as they used to only link to the 32-bit Linux Releases up til then. One had to go find the 64-bit releases on ftp before.
Modified by James
IIRC I mentioned the issue a couple of times. Mainly in respect to our KB documentation. I seem to recall there was a response somewhere rejecting changes to documentation.
This is not like Windows where the 64 bit builds are not fully supported. I do not have the metrics but 64bit computers will be more and more common and presumably 64it Linux OS.
Unlike Windows where a 32 bit Firefox seamlessly installs on a Windows 64 bit at least on some distros a 32Bit Firefox will fail to work. I will bump the discussion of the documentation.
- Appears to offer 32 bit version only /kb/install-firefox-linux/discuss/2473
Chosen Solution
I agree. While the issue can be sidestepped, it certainly presents a problem for inexperienced users. It's pretty weird that the *official download website* serves the wrong version of Firefox.
I wonder how many people just assume that "Firefox is broken" and give up (OK, probably not that many, but it is still a bug :-) ).
Edit (Clarification comment by a moderator ~J99)
Note the problem now should only be on Beta downloads not on Release downloads. The problem with the Beta downloads is being addressed. Work in progress. Scroll down for more information ( my-post )
Modified by John99
Hm, I'm glad that someone else gave a thought to this problem and that I'm not the first one. Thank you John99 for clearing that. But now i need to ask what can be done about this problem? Should a bug be opened using the link that James provided (Bugzilla for Mozilla) or what?
I just read the extensive explanation and guidance by the aforementioned QA Mentor so I took the initiative and opened a new bug for Mozilla. It's bug 995539
Modified by pvelkovski
pvelkovski,
I'm going to mark your reply as the solution since one of the triagers confirmed the bug and is expected to have a fix.
Marking solution so question can leave AAQ Flow
Modified by Moses
I have just tested the download from
That worked fine. The download provided was 64 bit en-GB. So my language and 64 bit system was detected. It looks like the original issue has been fixed at some stage.
I have not tested the Beta download and I imagine that is not yet working but will be fixed with
- Bug 752644 - [bedrock] Port /firefox/beta/ page to bedrock
- Bug 995539 - Fix mozilla's web site so that users don't end up with non working 32bit version of firefox on their 64 bit Linux
Note the bug in question is
- Bug 995539 - Fix mozilla's web site so that users don't end up with non working 32bit version of firefox on their 64 bit Linux
Cluttering the bugwith discussions and metoo comments does not help but if you are interested in that what you may wish to do is
- Vote for the bug. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting.html and etiquette
- Follow the bug by CC ing yourselves on the emailing list. By default once registered you click the save changes button and because the CC checkbox is ticked it adds you to the list. No need to make any comment.
- Note
The email address you use for bugzilla is made public.
P.S.
- (Modified April 12, 2014 12:34:02 PM BST by John99 )
To see the beta download page in your default locale language use- https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/new
- the English page is https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new
- (Modified April 12, 2014 1:53:41 PM BST by John99 )
Note the 2009 bug found by James resulted in the 64 bit downloads being exposed since Feb 2014
Bug 527907#c72 - Expose x86_64 Linux builds on the download pages - And Bug 809697 - [download buttons] Offer linux64 builds to Linux x86_64 user agents
Modified by John99
I checked the Nightly downloads page that also is ok it currently offers a choice including specifically 64 bit or32 bit builds for Linux.
I also note that if this download page is used it appears that Aurora download detects and download the correct version already
- www.mozilla.org/firefox/channel
- FAILS to detect & offer 64 bit http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/beta/
-
Works http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/#aurora -> [Green Button]
edit
Trying STR again. I have struck through parts of the comment above.
It did download and install correct 64 bit version for the Release.
I also thought I got a correct Aurora download. At present it only seems to detect the language. Not sure if maybe one workflow works and another does not. Its simpler just to use ftp downloads but that is not the point of the original question.
Modified by John99
Something is weird and probably wrong here.
I think this is what I am seeing but I will have to check.
- ok http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/#aurora
- offers a 64 bit build. firefox-30.0a2.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
- not my specific language but en-US no big problem
- FAILS http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/aurora/ -> [Green Button]
- offers a 32 bit build firefox-30.0a2.en-GB.linux-i686.tar.bz2
- gets my language right but not the build
I did think at one time I had a wrong download, but I looked only at the file name not the entire path and it was
- ok http://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/29.0b7/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-29.0b7.tar.bz2
That will probably be the one I mentioned in the last post, looks wrong as not having 64 bit in the download name but installs ok and is 64 bit.
Somehow I got
- Problem ? http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-aurora-l10n/firefox-30.0a2.en-GB.linux-i686.tar.bz2
and I mean I got that from a download page not from navigating the ftp options.
I need satisfy myself about what I have done and seen but potentially I will be either filing a bug about this or adding a comment to one of the other bugs if it seems more appropriate. Just now I am not ruling out that I have done something silly and clicked a bookmark or history item instead of using something from the download page.
John99, from what I can gather from Kohei Yoshino's comment in bug #995539, when the link you are using contains the "channel" string, it is the Bedrock platform (whatever that means) being used, and the bug has already been fixed there. In your case, that is: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/#aurora
But when you are working with http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/aurora/, it is not hosted on the Bedrock platform.
Don't let the hierarchical (path) name in the links confuse you - there is no guarantee that the pages are served from the same server although for you (your client) it seams that they are (it is exactly this that makes the WWW scalable). Should you add a comment to bug bug #995539, and remind them that the Alpha channel is also in the need of upgrade to the new platform?
Modified by pvelkovski
The ftp.mozilla.org is from one sever. For releases they encourage to link to http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/ or a cdn like http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/ so as to not put unnecessary load on ftp.mozilla.org server.
Also there is no Alpha channel as there are four main development channels as in Releases, Beta, Aurora and Nightly. There is also the ESR and not really used anymore channel for UX.
As a warning note, I know you are frustrated about this however that will Not be a valid excuss to attack anybody including myself in this forum or in kb discussions. Forum rules and guidelines
Modified by James