This forum is a discussion about improving the "Install Firefox on Linux" article. If you'd like to participate, please register.

If you need product support, please ask a question.

Appears to offer 32 bit version only

  • 11 Replies
  • Last reply by James
  1. John99 3665 posts
    more options

    UPDATE - ISSUE RESOLVED

    This issue must have been resolved at some stage.
    The page https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/new works ok now as tested 12th April 2014

    • It detected my correct language version, in my case en-GB
    • And that I was using a 64bit system
    • I did download and install to confirm it worked without errors.

    Outstanding issue
    Presumably the Beta channel download is a problem still. I did not test that. But it does have open bugs and is expected that it will be fixed.

    • 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
      • Bug 752644 - [bedrock] Port /firefox/beta/ page to bedrock
    • The issue is no longer regarding this documentation but see support question about the issue 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)? /questions/994466

    I am rather new to Ubuntu, but it appears we are only offering 32bit versions, even to those who may be using a 64 bit distro/pc.

    I know I am rather an edge case & we are only expecting users to have the one Firefox install, but if we offer an install maybe we should either

    • offer the correct version,
    • or at least in the KB article remind users to check they have the correct version.
      • or suggest workarounds or how to install the required libraries
    UPDATE - ISSUE RESOLVED This issue must have been resolved at some stage. <br /> The page https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/new works ok now as tested 12th April 2014 * It detected my correct language version, in my case en-GB * And that I was using a 64bit system *I did download and install to confirm it worked without errors. <u>Outstanding issue</u><br /> Presumably the Beta channel download is a problem still. I did not test that. But it does have open bugs and is expected that it will be fixed. *[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=995539 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 ** [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752644 Bug 752644] - [bedrock] Port /firefox/beta/ page to bedrock * '''The issue is no longer regarding this documentation but see support question about the issue ''' ''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)?'' [/questions/994466] ------------- I am rather new to Ubuntu, but it appears we are only offering 32bit versions, even to those who may be using a 64 bit distro/pc. I know I am rather an edge case & we are only expecting users to have the one Firefox install, but if we offer an install maybe we should either * offer the correct version, *or at least in the KB article remind users to check they have the correct version. ** or suggest workarounds or how to install the required libraries

    Modified by John99 on

  2. John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Another edge case I note Solaris builds are hosted by mozilla /questions/931813 &

    Another edge case I note Solaris builds are hosted by mozilla [/questions/931813] [/questions/950688 &]
  3. John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Bump.

    I note the issue has been asked about on the SupportForum

    • 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)? /questions/994466
    Bump. I note the issue has been asked about on the SupportForum * ''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)?'' [/questions/994466]
  4. Andrew 1232 posts
    more options

    There is only 32 bit Firefox, not 64 bit.

    There is only 32 bit Firefox, not 64 bit.
  5. ldklinux 0 posts
    more options

    Andrew said

    There is only 32 bit Firefox, not 64 bit.

    This is (close to) true on Windows, but not Linux. Firefox provides 32-bit and 64-bit builds for Linux, and most of the time downloading the incorrect one results in Firefox not working.

    ''Andrew [[#post-9511|said]]'' <blockquote> There is only 32 bit Firefox, not 64 bit. </blockquote> This is (close to) true on Windows, but not Linux. Firefox provides 32-bit and 64-bit builds for Linux, and most of the time downloading the incorrect one results in Firefox not working.
  6. James 1620 posts
    more options

    Andrew said

    There is only 32 bit Firefox, not 64 bit.

    This is true for Windows yes.

    However there has been 64-bit for Release ever since Firefox 4.0 for both Mac OSX (combined 32/64) and for Linux. Mozilla however only really started linking to the 64-bit Linux builds on http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ ever since Firefox 26.0 or 27.0 if I recall as one had to find the 64-bit Linux releases on ftp before.

    See http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0/ where linux-x86_64/ is listed.

    ''Andrew [[#post-9511|said]]'' <blockquote> There is only 32 bit Firefox, not 64 bit. </blockquote> This is true for Windows yes. However there has been 64-bit for Release ever since Firefox 4.0 for both Mac OSX (combined 32/64) and for Linux. Mozilla however only really started linking to the 64-bit Linux builds on http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ ever since Firefox 26.0 or 27.0 if I recall as one had to find the 64-bit Linux releases on ftp before. See http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0/ where linux-x86_64/ is listed.
  7. pvelkovski 0 posts
    more options

    I opened a new bug for this problem. It's bug #995539

    I opened a new bug for this problem. It's bug [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=995539 #995539]
  8. James 1620 posts
    more options

    You posted about https://www.mozilla.org/mk/firefox/beta/ page only and not the green download button links for Firefox on any www.mozilla.org page like well mozilla.org

    Also that bug report is kind of a duplicate.


    Ok it was since February 6 that the 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on all of the /all/ pages. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527907#c72

    You posted about https://www.mozilla.org/mk/firefox/beta/ page only and not the green download button links for Firefox on any www.mozilla.org page like well mozilla.org Also that bug report is kind of a duplicate. Ok it was since February 6 that the 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on all of the /all/ pages. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527907#c72
  9. pvelkovski 0 posts
    more options
    *******

    Modified by pvelkovski on

  10. John99 3665 posts
    more options

    pvelkovski,

    I have added to my first post. The problem as it is now would not appear to require amendment to this particular document.

    The documentation is not really aimed at beta users, or other advanced users. For instance we do not document

    • about: protocols, not even about:config;
      about:support only being documented as an option from the help menu
    • Beta Aurora or Nightly Channels
    • Developers tools, even though they are on the Firefox UI
    • The built in Profile manager is only briefly mentioned in passing.

    Thanks for raising the matter.

    From a personal viewpoint I am all for encouraging any interested, more advanced users, to install and use Beta. The majority of Releases need an expensive chemspill point release to fix issues that may have been avoided if Beta users had found the problem.

    It may make sense to improve documentation for those wishing to use Firefox Beta and Aurora. I am not sure where that would be done, but IIRC from past discussions, it would seem unlikely to be within support.mozilla possibly QMO MDN or some Wiki page

    James,

    Thanks for finding the change a couple of months back

    Ok it was since February 6 that the 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on all of the /all/ pages. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527907#c72 {Bug 527907 - Expose x86_64 Linux builds on the download pages }
    pvelkovski, I have added to my first post. The problem as it is now would not appear to require amendment to this particular document. The documentation is not really aimed at beta users, or other advanced users. For instance we do not document * ''about:'' protocols, not even ''about:config''; <br />''about:support'' only being documented as an option from the help menu * Beta Aurora or Nightly Channels * Developers tools, even though they are on the Firefox UI *The built in ''Profile manager'' is only briefly mentioned in passing. ---------- Thanks for raising the matter. From a personal viewpoint I am all for encouraging any interested, more advanced users, to install and use Beta. The majority of Releases need an expensive ''chemspill'' point release to fix issues that may have been avoided if Beta users had found the problem. It may make sense to improve documentation for those wishing to use Firefox Beta and Aurora. I am not sure where that would be done, but IIRC from past discussions, it would seem unlikely to be within support.mozilla possibly [https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/ QMO] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools MDN] or some [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Main_Page Wiki] page ---- James, Thanks for finding the change a couple of months back <blockquote>Ok it was since February 6 that the 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on all of the /all/ pages. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527907#c72 {Bug 527907 - Expose x86_64 Linux builds on the download pages }</blockquote>
  11. James 1620 posts
    more options

    pvelkovski, You did not tell me anything that I did not know from reading the bugs or help me based on your little use of bugzilla, however you did show you like to be rude to say the least with all of the you you you you you...

    And just because the bug was marked new does not mean it was separate and not on same thing with other existing reports which is why I said it was kind of a duplicate and was apparently something you took offense to.

    I have other things to do besides filing bugs for other people (not motivated to do so on you behalf now especially) as this issue does not bother me nearly the same degree as it does for you to the point of you attacking people in bugzilla and here.

    Be nice as I was not rude to you nor never did warrant such comments from you (to say the least) as you are breaking or pushing the forum rules. I also barely said anything compared to your book of a reply. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/forum-rules-and-guidelines

    Do not harass, insult, taunt, provoke, demean, or personally attack other forum members. Be friendly even if others are not.

    Not going to condone this rudeness towards me in this thread due to your excuse it was simply because you are pissed off about this what build is being served for Linux users thing. Same goes for on the Questions forum.

    I think as an apology and in giving you a chance this one time, you should edit out all of those attacks towards me as it was not needed for this thread and due to breaking the rules.

    Also you could have said much what you wanted to say without all of the ahem rudeness.

    pvelkovski, You did not tell me anything that I did not know from reading the bugs or help me based on your little use of bugzilla, however you did show you like to be rude to say the least with all of the you you you you you... And just because the bug was marked new does not mean it was separate and not on same thing with other existing reports which is why I said it was kind of a duplicate and was apparently something you took offense to. I have other things to do besides filing bugs for other people (not motivated to do so on you behalf now especially) as this issue does not bother me nearly the same degree as it does for you to the point of you attacking people in bugzilla and here. Be nice as I was not rude to you nor never did warrant such comments from you (to say the least) as you are breaking or pushing the forum rules. I also barely said anything compared to your book of a reply. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/forum-rules-and-guidelines <blockquote>Do not harass, insult, taunt, provoke, demean, or personally attack other forum members. Be friendly even if others are not.</blockquote> Not going to condone this rudeness towards me in this thread due to your excuse it was simply because you are pissed off about this what build is being served for Linux users thing. Same goes for on the Questions forum. I think as an apology and in giving you a chance this one time, you should edit out all of those attacks towards me as it was not needed for this thread and due to breaking the rules. ---- Also you could have said much what you wanted to say without all of the ahem rudeness.

    Modified by James on

  12. James 1620 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    James, Thanks for finding the change a couple of months back
    Ok it was since February 6 that the 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on all of the /all/ pages. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527907#c72 {Bug 527907 - Expose x86_64 Linux builds on the download pages }

    Thanks for your nice reply as it was one of the related connected bugs on this in my research on this that pvelkovski thinks I did not read.

    ''John99 [[#post-9518|said]]'' <blockquote> James, Thanks for finding the change a couple of months back <blockquote>Ok it was since February 6 that the 64-bit Linux builds have been listed on all of the /all/ pages. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527907#c72 {Bug 527907 - Expose x86_64 Linux builds on the download pages }</blockquote> </blockquote> Thanks for your nice reply as it was one of the related connected bugs on this in my research on this that pvelkovski thinks I did not read.