Buscar en Ayuda

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

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)?

  • 13 respuestas
  • 6 tienen este problema
  • 2 visitas
  • Última respuesta de James

more options

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)?

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)?

Solución elegida

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 )

Leer esta respuesta en su contexto 👍 0

Todas las respuestas (13)

more options

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

more options

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!

more options

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.

Modificadas por James el

more options

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.

more options

Solución elegida

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 )

Modificadas por John99 el

more options

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?

more options

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

Modificadas por pvelkovski el

more options

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

Modificadas por Moses el

more options

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 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

Modificadas por John99 el

more options

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


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.

Modificadas por John99 el

more options

Something is weird and probably wrong here.

I think this is what I am seeing but I will have to check.

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

Somehow I got

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.

more options

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?

Modificadas por pvelkovski el

more options

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

Modificadas por James el