Why doesn't Mozilla Firefox develop an Official Portable Version?
Hi there. I have been a longtime user of Mozilla Firefox and I really like it. However, I have noticed that the Portable Versions of Mozilla Firefox have always been developed by third party providers and downloadable through sites that are unaffiliated with Mozilla.
My question is simple. Why?
Doesn't it make sense for Mozilla Firefox to update to a portable version that is capable of being run on flash memory instead of through a hard drive download?
I just think that it makes sense because it will secure the Firefox property by not outsourcing its development to third parties. If it is the intention to enable third party production, then perhaps there should be some official affiliation with that developer so that it can be verified safe.
Mozilla!!!
Toate răspunsurile (3)
You can make some modifications yourself to the current release if you like by modifying prefs. There is no need for Mozilla to provide such a special version.
You can disable the disk cache or move the disk cache to another drive to minimize the amount of data that is written to the flash drive.
- http://kb.mozillazine.org/browser.cache.disk.enable
- http://kb.mozillazine.org/browser.cache.disk.parent_directory
You can open the about:config page via the location/address bar. You can accept the warning and click "I'll be careful" to continue.
Mozilla isn't "outsourcing" development of Portable to a 3rd party. That is parallel development.
In 2004 John T. Haller started Portable Apps using Firefox open source code as the basis of his first project. http://portableapps.com/about
Anyone can build their own browser based upon open source Firefox / Gecko code (or view that code), but few organizations have received permission or authorization to use the official logos and trademarks from Mozilla. And Mozilla does enforce their copyrights and trademarks vigorously. As long those organizations follow the "rules" that Mozilla set down they call call their product "Firefox". That makes them "affiliated" if not "semi-official".
Portable Apps and many Linux distros do offer "Firefox" branded versions of their own.
As far as why Mozilla doesn't offer a Portable version, John T. Haller does a fine job - why should Mozilla expend the time and resources to duplicate / eliminate something that works fine? If Mozilla was a for-profit company it might make financial sense, but from an altruistic postion that would make little sense.
If Mozilla did it for Windows, the Mac OSX and Linux users would be wanting it also if possible to add to even more work load of Releases.
Modificat în de James