March 22, 2005
Wondering why there are no .zip files for the Fx and Tb 1.0.2 releases?
Some people have been wondering why there are no .zip files for the Firefox and Thunderbird 1.0.2 releases. The reason for this is that the Mozilla Foundation has discontinued issuing them for our major releases to avoid the user confusion it was causing.
During previous releases, a number of people grabbed the .zip package and used that in their Firefox installation directory. When Firefox 1.0.1 rolled around, they grabbed the .exe installer package. When they setup 1.0.1 using the installer, a lot of them chose the same installation location in which they'd unzipped the .zip file. This led to their Firefox 1.0.1 installation crashing repeatedly and (very!) mysteriously.
We tracked down the cause of the large number of Talkback incidents we were receiving late-late-late into the night of the Firefox 1.0.1 release to being caused by misuse of the .zip and .exe packages. It was obvious then there was no quick fix. The smartest thing for us to do was reduce our configuration management/QA complexity while simplifying user experience by assisting those less savvy among us in selecting the correct file to use for their platform. For Windows, people should use the .exe package.
If you're a Mozilla developer and love the .zip files, rest assured they aren't going away completely. While we won't issue the .zip package with the rest of the major release files, we will still issue these packages in their standard nightly form.
Comments
Why don't you just put them into a subdirectory called "zips" or something- the average user won't even go into the subdirectory to look for files, they will just see the exe's. Smart users will go there for zips if they want them.
Jason
Posted by: Jason Lustig at March 22, 2005 05:32 PM
This is a horrid idea. You already link directly to the exe files from all the web sites, what's wrong with just putting the zips ins a different directory from the exe, if users are too dumb to click the right file, they'll be too dumb to move through a directory tree.
Posted by: Matt at March 22, 2005 05:42 PM
Matt, your argument doesn't hold given that exactly what you describe as being unlikely happened during the 1.0.1 release and, in fact, turned out to be very likely. We did not have links to the .zip packages from our website but yet people found these files on the FTP site and used them instead.
We are careful about how we develop the product and that is because we are creating an inclusive (not exclusive) product. We have an audience that is varied in depth and experience. We want to help these people and, for whatever reason, they have been bitten by this particular issue.
Our options are limited but we will try our best to preempt this problem for the thousands+ that could have run into it had we ignored it.
Posted by: Chase at March 22, 2005 06:12 PM
I can't understand it. Will u stop the firefox-zips as well?
It is impossible to protect the people against thier own stupidity. It is OK to link only the installers on the mozilla.org-site, but if a wannabe professional getting the "hidden" zip-files from the ftp-server and kills his installation... um, thats life.
I really need the zips, i can't use the installers. and i will not use nightlies on a regular base, i want the official releases for the daily business.
So, please think over it.
Thank you!
Posted by: Rudolph at March 22, 2005 06:41 PM
I miss the ZIP for for t-bird. I install everything from ZIP.
Posted by: orrin at March 22, 2005 06:42 PM
I like having zip builds for releases for regression-narrowing. Instead of discontinuing zip releases, why not fix the installer so it deletes files included with nightlies?
Posted by: Jesse Ruderman at March 22, 2005 06:48 PM
I don't have the rights to use the installer at work. I need the zip. I install it for others who are newbies also, so I can't give them a nightly build.
Posted by: Phillip at March 22, 2005 09:07 PM
Ditto Phillip. The only way I can use Fx at work is by extracting the zip into a firefox folder under My Documents. I guess I will just have to use nightlies (which I don't mind doing at home, but would prefer a more stable build for my intranet applications).
Posted by: Rob at March 22, 2005 09:44 PM
wth no zips? only way I can use FX and TB at school and work is with zips. Along with all my other classmates and co-workers which equal over 100. Really stupid move
Posted by: Kurt at March 22, 2005 11:38 PM
I have a little suggestion. We can give the ZIP files a special extension instead of ZIP. This way an average user won't try to download and extract them, but users that know what they are doing will still be able to use them as before. I personally used the ZIP release versions dozens of times, both for development purposes and for installing into under-priviledged accounts. Just my $0.02.
Posted by: Alex Sirota at March 23, 2005 12:10 AM
Just to outline some points why dropping zipped builds is really a bad idea - thread here http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=239375
Posted by: jemm at March 23, 2005 12:17 AM
Everyone disagrees with dropping the .zip. PLEASE listen to the community.
Posted by: Lott at March 23, 2005 12:21 AM
I for one will be really annoyed if you drop the non-installer version on Linux as I hate the installer as it is much more of a hassle to use.
Oh well if I'm using Windows at the time, I can just grab either a recent nightly for testing or if I want a release build I could grab a nightly .zip close to the relase date if possible at time.
For staters there are many various bugs of sorts some users get like for example as I have see this proble posted alot:
FireFox thinks its Netscape 7.x when I run installer, leads to crash
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249067
I just hope you guys don't regret this as it could do more harm then good in the long run depending.
Posted by: Steve at March 23, 2005 12:46 AM
what alex said above is good. why not just rename (e.g. firefoxbiuld.zip.SOMEDUMBEXTENSIONTHATNOOBSCANTSTUFFUP
Posted by: SCOTT at March 23, 2005 01:26 AM
This renaming idea is a solution as is the following - add a file into the installation directory (or a line into some configuration file), which states installation type (.zip or .exe) and then add a check to the .exe installer that will raise alarm if .exe installation is attempted over .zip installation.
Posted by: jemm at March 23, 2005 01:58 AM
Another alternative is to provide .7z 7-zip builds, it would also have the advantage of making them a smaller download.
Posted by: BobB at March 23, 2005 02:27 AM
Hi Chase,
One major concern:
A lot of work has been done into getting a silent installer ready for Aviary 1.1 products. This work has not gone into the Aviary 1.0 stable branch. How will users accomplish silent installs of Aviary 1.0.2 products without the zip files, given that the silent installer features are only really working well in Aviary 1.1 products?
I'm not saying we should never consider dropping zip builds, just that I'm wondering if this is the right time to do it, when our latest release does not have proper silent installation features on Windows.
Thanks,
Ali
Posted by: Ali Ebrahim at March 23, 2005 02:42 AM
> When they setup 1.0.1 using the installer, a lot of them chose the same installation location in which they'd unzipped the .zip file. This led to their Firefox 1.0.1 installation crashing repeatedly and (very!) mysteriously.
The best suggestion in this case would be to drop the installer and instead use a self-extracting .zip installer. Since the installer was introduced it has often caused trouble for users and many bugs were marked installer only.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2005 02:51 AM
I don't really see how this solves the issue.
AIUI, the problem is with installing exe builds over zip builds. People that used a zip build previously now have no option except to use the installer, so in terms of the 1.0.2 release, the problem is made worse rather than better.
From what I've seen, as well as people user unprivileged accounts, the corporate/institutional installations that the Firefox folks have been so happy about were done using the zip builds. What are those people supposed to do now? Continue using 1.0.1 with its security flaws until 1.1 comes along? Grab a nightly build? Grab an unofficial build?
I would guess that you've made the QA/support story more complicated for a number of people that were using the zip builds...
Posted by: michaell at March 23, 2005 03:01 AM
You'll lose - yes, lose - a lot of users, if you're not providing zip files anylonger..
I never use installers, so it means I'm not going to use TBird, as long as .zip packages don't come back..
..really a crappy idea..
Posted by: Thor at March 23, 2005 03:16 AM
Dropping deployment features of all things in a security/critical bugfix release does sound a bit odd... would seem to make tons more sense to do in a feature driven release.
Posted by: tuukka at March 23, 2005 03:17 AM
So i can no longer tell a Mozilla "nay sayer", "Hey, just try it! It's not a problem, if you don't like it you can just delete the folder. Doesn't install a thing... See its just a zip file"
You guys are Soooooooooo shooting yourselves in the foot, you just raised the barrier to wider adoption with this silly decision.
Posted by: kam_yuen at March 23, 2005 04:12 AM
I can't install the TB 1.0.2 with the installer without any apparent reason...
I wish to continue to use the zip version for both TB and FF...
The idea to put them in a separate directory for the download will be sufficient as posted above...
Please let available a zip version! :)
Posted by: cecca at March 23, 2005 04:29 AM
I wrote up a post on blog about this. Not happy one bit, even though I don't use the zip builds myself. There are too many users/projects effected by this change.
Once again, Mozilla.org has not communicated a major change beforehand and has left a lot of people angry, confused, and they have no alternatives to the zip builds.
Posted by: Chris G. at March 23, 2005 04:54 AM
The nightly build zips from right after the release are just as stable as the release itself. Also, especially on the long-lived Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla Suite 1.7 branches, no dangerous checkins are done so at pretty much all times the nightlies are safe.
A lot of fuss about nothing. Installers are the de facto standard, there is few software which even provides an alternative.
~Grauw
Posted by: Laurens Holst at March 23, 2005 05:16 AM
I can never remember wether I used a zip or an exe to install and I am always in doubt which one I should use therefor, or weather i should uninstall and reinstall and what not.
So it seems fair to simplify things a bit.
Posted by: Mads at March 23, 2005 05:21 AM
Chase,
Let's see... The problem, from your description, is that the installer is broken when installing over a version installed from a zip. Your solution is to remove the zip version. Thus everyone who had previously installed from zip must use the exact procedure that leads to problems.
And of course, those who cannot use the installer (no administrator rights) now cannot install at all. So they get to use IE/OE or a previously installed version that has known security issues. I'm hard pressed to see how this fits with "Built with your security in mind".
Thanks for explaining how the Mozilla Foundation carefully arrived at this decision.
Posted by: Mike at March 23, 2005 05:24 AM
Laurens Holst - "The nightly build zips from right after the release are just as stable as the release itself."
That's just not the case. If it were true we would ALL use the latest nightly, why bother with the official stable release at all?
Secondly, just becuase installers are the defacto standard doesn't mean its the right solution for everyone.
I for one, use the Mozilla apps precisely because i don't need to install (until now) and Mozilla *did* provide an alternative.
Thirdly, if its possible to supply nightly builds, it sure is possible to provide the stable zip build. It surely is just a case of not linking to it on the main Moz page so the less technically minded can just use the installer.
With regard to the crash reports for people installing into their old zip folder, getting rid of the zip file just means that in future these crash stats will never be reported because (cue fireworks) the the zip file isn't availble to cause that problem. *But* that doesn't mean the technical cause of that has disappeared. IMHO, it's just burying your head in the sand so you can't see the problem. That way it will never get resolved.
Posted by: kam_yuen at March 23, 2005 05:46 AM
Let me add my voice to the chorus of disatisfaction, for the reasons enumerated by Jesse and Phillip above: 1. it's helpful to have the zip files for previous versions available for regression/compatibility testing, and 2. I generally use my machine as a restricted user and it's convenient not to have to use an installer to obtain the latest release.
How about making the zip versions available in a separate "developers" area to reduce exposure to less savvy users?
Posted by: Charles Melhorn at March 23, 2005 06:56 AM
No zip -> no Fx or Tb for me,or my family,or work. And i sure won't recommend them to anyone else anymore. How stupid can you get?
Posted by: welde at March 23, 2005 07:09 AM
Let me add my support for resuming the ZIP builds for releases (or at the very least, for Thunderbird 1.0.2).
Sadly though, the fact that such a decision was undertaken without any dicussion / informing of the users doesn't say too much about the attitudes of the developers to the users.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2005 07:19 AM
i would have to say, personally, this is a bad idea.. i rely on zip released to be able to use ff/tb at college :/
i can see how it caused a problem for people, but even here, at home, using the firefox installers
my upgrade from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 wasnt smooth, and i had to completely remove firefox to install 1.0.1
Posted by: Max Glenister at March 23, 2005 07:39 AM
I agree that having the option of a zip build in addition to a .exe installer is a basic requirement of any comprehensive plan for delivering software to the user (when it is an option, i.e., the program will function as a standalone app). This provides greater flexibility and, for many, is the ONLY way they will try out new software.
There has got to be a way for the zip versions to be distributed in a more "protected" way so as to not confuse the uninformed. The files could be delivered on a seperate area of the Mozilla ftp with CLEAR warnings/instructions as to their purpose and use distinguishing them from the installers. The file names could be more descriptive as well so as to avoid confusion.
One of the measures I have used to evaluate my willingness to adopt and promote FF and TB is the availability of ZIP builds.
Bring 'em back.
Posted by: Werdhi at March 23, 2005 08:22 AM
Unless I misunderstand, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If you're a user advanced enough to deploy .zip releases of Mozilla, then finding the appropriate corresponding nightly shouldn't be too hard.
I agree with the decision to discontinue the widespread availability of .zip RELEASE versions because considering the market penetration of Mozilla, it's understandable that a lot of intermediate users might run into compatibility problems going between .zip and .exe files.
Again, I would venture that all of you that love .zip files or require them are capable enough of getting to the nightlies and finding out which one corresponds to the particular official release you want.
There could be a better way of handling this, perhaps relocating the .zip releases, but I'm not sure that would entirely address the demographic most likely to find and try the .zip files and then run into problems.. that would be the "intermediate" user: skilled enough to find the .zip but not experienced enough to know not to install .exe releases on top of .zip releases.
Again though, I don't think getting rid of .zip files is as big a problem as its being made out to be, as the nightlies are still available.
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at March 23, 2005 08:33 AM
> as the nightlies are still available.
Show me where to find a nightly zip for firefox 1.0.2. The one in pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-aviary1.0.1/ was built on 14 Mar. The win installer was built today, 23 Mar.
Posted by: Mike at March 23, 2005 09:02 AM
> as the nightlies are still available.
I can't find the matching nightly also.
Bring back the zips, please.
Posted by: Marc at March 23, 2005 09:17 AM
> The one in pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-aviary1.0.1/ was built on 14 Mar. The win installer was built today, 23 Mar.
I believe the reason for that is because a release is finalized a few days before actually being released for public consumption. That means the nightly that corresponds to the 1.0.2 release is actually from 14 Mar.
I'm not involved in the Moz build/release process, but I believe that is the way they do nightlies/releases... someone correct me if I'm mistaken.
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at March 23, 2005 09:21 AM
Yeah, and to prevent this confusion, which nightly is the release (if there is any) it would be so easy to publish them somewhere, so that the zip-lovers can rely on that they are the original releases with minimizing the chances that an unexpierienced user grab them in mistake... but hey, someone who is fishing around on the ftp-server and loading zips might also destroy his installation because of trying a (corrupt)nightly... will the nightlies be banned now?
come on, it cant be so difficult to find a way to publish them in a clear way... thats the most beautiful thing on open an free software - the variety!
It cost nothing, and many people are happy... deal?
Rudolph
Posted by: Rudolph at March 23, 2005 09:37 AM
Stop patronising users and bring back the ZIP's. Just put them in an extra directory and/or point out that these releases are only for 'advanced users' or something like this.
Posted by: Hans at March 23, 2005 10:13 AM
I did install Firefox to my friends PC with zip file, because we get some "denied" error with installer.
no newer Firefox to that PC i think.
Posted by: Jan at March 23, 2005 10:19 AM
No more zip releases? Its a mess to install Fx/TB in a custom folder using the installer.
Thats a really bad decision. No zip, no Firefox. :(
Posted by: Guest12345 at March 23, 2005 10:28 AM
I often have to use an Internet cafe to access the Internet. Many computers are locked down and, more often than not, don't have Firefox.
In this case the first thing I do is download the zip file to the desktop, extract it, and run the executable.
Having to use a less secure 1.0.1 release because there is no zip for the 1.0.2 release seems to me to be a step backwards...
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2005 10:32 AM
Chase,
This sounds like a good measure to take for the time being, and I support the decision.
On the other hand, shouldn't MoFo be working to reduce the differences to ensure this doesn't happen? Zip and exe should be vehicles for distribution, not versions in their own right.
Anyway, I don't know enough about that issue, so I'll leave it there.
The real thing that I want to know is if you're still making the builds available as nightlies, is there something wrong with the build system currently? The latest-aviary1.0.1 folders on the FTP contain today's executables and a zip dated the 14th or 15th of March.
Posted by: Cusser at March 23, 2005 11:06 AM
This is ridiculous! Now those who don't have administrator accounts in Windows XP can't install FF. Bad move Mozilla.
Posted by: hoovernj at March 23, 2005 11:25 AM
I'm fine with the exe, but may I have my icon in cornflowerblue?
Posted by: Tom at March 23, 2005 11:30 AM
I have to add my voice to this cacophony of disapproval. I use the installer @ home, but I *can't* at uni. And installing nightlies there, "stable" or not, isn't an option for me.
Posted by: Reboot at March 23, 2005 11:41 AM
And just a thought - you're saying that most of the problems are caused by doing the installer OVER the zip. Well, now everyone affected will either:
1) Not upgrade (security holes ahoy)
2) Upgrade with... the installer over the zip, in all likelihood.
Posted by: Reboot at March 23, 2005 11:51 AM
"""And just a thought - you're saying that most of the problems are caused by doing the installer OVER the zip. Well, now everyone affected will either:
1) Not upgrade (security holes ahoy)
2) Upgrade with... the installer over the zip, in all likelihood."""
Yep basically there will be more likly to have mixing this time around for users who used the 1.0.1 .zip only to the be forced to use the 1.0.2 installer and then install that over the .zip build because they did not know better or because they thought that was the only way to keep their settings...
Personally I hate using the installer builds on Windows and also Linux, so I am glad that there will still be .zip nightlies for testers.
Posted by: J.P at March 23, 2005 12:19 PM
I have to add my voice to the general discordance going on here.
I know literally dozens of people who don't have proper permissions to run installers on their office and college computers, but won't run anything other than Firefox. The ZIP release is the way around that. Download, unzip, run it right from the desktop, etc. By taking away these releases, the Foundation has made uptake of Firefox far more difficult.
As others have suggested, use a different extension, place the files elsewhere, do *something*, but don't completely remove ZIPs! This type of backlash won't stop, it's the only option a lot of people have to use their favorite software.
Posted by: Mike Palumbo at March 23, 2005 12:21 PM
If you all are so desperate for a zip build, then find someone in the community to make a community build in that format.
We've determined that widespread use of the zip builds is potentially causing problems for literally millions of users. It's not a safe deployment tool unless you're a custom build that isn't checking the Mozilla update system.
I don't see how we can ship a build with update turned off and still call it Firefox, so the only option left to us is to stop shipping the problematic build. This will prevent future millions of users from running into serious problems using the built-in update mechanism.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler at March 23, 2005 12:28 PM
Ok, for Firefox I can use nightlys. But for Thunderbird there are no lokalized nightlys. I'll stay with version 1.0.
Posted by: GK at March 23, 2005 12:35 PM
"so the only option left to us is to stop shipping the problematic build"
What about committing to fixing the update system so that its no longer problematic? I understand that fixing bugs such as these is not a trivial task, but wallpapering over a problem by not releasing builds that thousands of people use and appreciate is somewhat disappointing. Worse, you're saying to the users that need or want these builds that they should go and get nightlies and sort out branch/trunk themselves, or use third party builds. That sounds to me like a much more dangerous situation than disabling the buggy auto-update for zip builds. I'm sure that the vast majority of zipped build users avoid auto-update, for the same reasons that they downloaded the zipped build in the first place.
I'm disappointed.
Posted by: Gavin Sharp at March 23, 2005 01:02 PM
I'm disappointed in the decision to remove zip builds from future versions. I don't believe that community builds are an adequate solution because, if I understand it correctly, the Mozilla licensing scheme prevents use of the same branding/icons in community builds as the official builds. Thus, users who install a zip build receive a different user experience and may forego Firefox entirely since the community builds can be seen as coming from a non-trusted source.
Posted by: James Murphy at March 23, 2005 01:08 PM
Is there a way to create the zip distros myself? Like if I install the EXE setup on a throwaway machine and then just zip the files up to install on my good machine, or are these files borked in some way like previous EXE installs?
Does anyone know of a third-party that might be releasing ZIP versions? I noticed MOOX has only EXE installs as well :(
Posted by: The Spook at March 23, 2005 01:22 PM
Moox distributes self-extracting zips, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by: Cusser at March 23, 2005 01:42 PM
Gavin,
I agree that fixing the zip->exe overinstall conflict is probably only reasonble way forward.
Just dropping the zip-builds is wrong remedy for that problem.
Posted by: jemm at March 23, 2005 02:02 PM
"Is there a way to create the zip distros myself? Like if I install the EXE setup on a throwaway machine and then just zip the files up to install on my good machine, or are these files borked in some way like previous EXE installs?"
No, that method will work fine. Just make sure you install into a clean folder, and don't run Firefox after installing (not until after you've created your zip, anyway).
Posted by: michaell at March 23, 2005 02:19 PM
So the real issue isn't that basic users don't understand the difference between a zip build and an exe build, it's that the builds are different. There's no reason that a unzipped Firefox directory should be any different from an installed Firefox directory.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2005 02:31 PM
Wow, I wish I could solve all of my problems by telling people they aren't allowed to look at them. What problems are caused by installing over an unzip? Why does it happen? I'd like to see the problem fixed. I really need zip builds, and will not be updating until one is available.
Posted by: kevin at March 23, 2005 02:34 PM
This is ridiculus... sorry.
"If you all are so desperate for a zip build, then find someone in the community to make a community build in that format."
yeah, right, maybe someone will make it...
That sounds like a definite decision, so i think its senseless to try to change your mind... what a pity...
goodbye...
bu*lsh*t!
Posted by: wikinger at March 23, 2005 03:11 PM
just bring back the ZIP's and put them in another directory - firefox and thunderbird !!
Posted by: tloader at March 23, 2005 04:43 PM
fix the problem, for pete's sake! i'm surprised anything comes out right with decisions like these. seriously, i agree with the comments that community input is taken with a grain of salt! even one discussion about it ahead of time would have saved alot of face. yet time and again decisions like these are just made and we have to deal. well looks like some of us don't want to anymore...
someone seriously needs a reality check over there....
Posted by: craig at March 23, 2005 04:52 PM
Sorry, this is a horrible idea. Please bring them back, obscure them if you need to, but bring them back. I recently was able to get someone to switch to Firefox because of the availability of the .zip. He is not able to run the installer because his Windows machine (for work) is locked down.
What should I tell him to do now? He CAN'T run the 1.0.2 installer. He doesn't have a .zip to unpack, and he needs to upgrade for the security fixes! Will the win32 browser.xpi work for him? Does he need anything else? Help!
-Chris R
Posted by: Chris R at March 23, 2005 05:13 PM
If Windows users that need the installer are finding zip builds, they need an explanation on the FX and TB pages that the zip file DO NOT contain an installer like they are used to getting from a lot of places that package an executable( a single .exe) in a zip archive.
So give su back our zip builds and tell the rest of the world that thay are not 'Self-Installers'
Posted by: LongTimeUser at March 23, 2005 05:18 PM
Please give back zip builds.
Im person who always use zips and I really hate installers myself. I do not like installers myself.
I already know that Im not alone who is upset with what mozilla did.
Please listen to the community.
Posted by: Mouse at March 23, 2005 05:38 PM
According to Asa' blog, the nightly .zip that gets made into the 1.0.2 release is available somewhere. Can anyone help find it?
The 1.0.2 about page shows Gecko 20050317, but the latest nightly directory in http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/ is 07-Mar-2005. What gives? Am I looking in the wrong place? Oh, and what branch is the 1.0.2 build from? Aviary-1.0.1? Trunk? Some info, please! Thank you.
-Chris R
Posted by: Chris R at March 23, 2005 05:44 PM
Way to go Chase for doing this at last - I've wanted to discontinue these releases for a long while.
Folks, we're on a shoestring QA budget. Testing software update and other functions with a complex installation matrix is neither glamorous nor fun, nor something we can afford to be doing.
Posted by: Ben Goodger at March 23, 2005 05:48 PM
No ZIPs? I'm very disappointed.
The "installers" for both Firefox and Thunderbird simply don't work on either of my Windows 98 machines.
I guess it's back to the Mozilla Suite and/or Opera.
Posted by: None at March 23, 2005 05:54 PM
Dropping ZIPs is not a good idea: Many people are dependent on them. I cannot think even one good reason why you discontinued ZIPs considering the many underprivileged accounts that exist out there in universities and businesses. I am a Konqueror fan and I prefer Mozilla to Firefox, but if I was a Windows user I would avoid downloading .exe files. Can you please reconsider and listen to your community?
Posted by: NSK at March 23, 2005 05:54 PM
Thanks to Roy in Asa's blog, there is this URL to what could be the .zip for the official released build. Can anyone confirm that this is the correct file?
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2005-03-14-17-aviary1.0.1/firefox-1.0.2.en-US.win32.zip
Thanks
-Chris R
Posted by: Chris R at March 23, 2005 06:08 PM
Do these prefs mean anything at all.
If not , why don't they work. And if they do, wouldn't it be simple matter to have them preset in the zip builds to not allow updates.
// App-specific update preferences
pref("app.update.enabled", true); // Whether or not app updates are enabled
pref("app.update.autoUpdateEnabled", true); // Whether or not background app updates are enabled
Posted by: I'd_rather_ask at March 23, 2005 06:09 PM
I think this is a terrible idea, so many people NEED the zips as they don't have administrative privileges. How about changing the default unzip directory to "Mozilla Firefox Zipped" or something similar?
Posted by: Suggestion at March 23, 2005 07:42 PM
Seems to be a knee jerk response to a broken INSTALLER. Fix the installer, don't get rid of the .zip files.
Posted by: M at March 23, 2005 10:12 PM
Hopefully this decision will be reversed, history tells me there is no chance of that though. I guess the community truly has no say in anything, worse yet the mozilla foundation apparently puts zero value on the needs of a large portion of the community. I hope my observations are wrong, but I doubt it. It has been said it is trivial to zip the program file folder of firefox after running the setup. That should then be no extra QA expense for the mozilla foundation to do that and offer it from ftp.mozilla.org as the zip build. Explain to me how that installed zip build is going to interact badly with the update function??? Since it IS from the installer technically, it should be a non-issue. What is the deal here?
Posted by: RabidPenguin at March 23, 2005 10:21 PM
The weirdest thing, i managed to get a zip version of FF 1.0.2 from http://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/mozilla.org/bouncer/firefox/win32/en-GB/ yesterday, not long after it got released. And after reading all the comments here this morning, i figured ok, maybe these guys haven't found it yet. So i checked and...It gone! So either MoFo put up a nightly by mistake or they had put in a zip build by mistake and then yanked it off again. With all the MoFo biggies pitching in like Ben and Asa and backing up Chase, i guess what they're saying is the decision is final. What a complete shame the decision is only a MoFo one and not a community one.
The guys at Redmond must be wetting themselves laughing, they'll bring out IE7 which will still be inferior to FF, but guess what they couldn't give a monkeys, why? because MoFo just shot themselves in the foot by kicking out a good proportion of the users. It would be good to see some stats of the proportion of installer/zip downloads to see how many users MoFo just binned.
FF & TB/MoFo just lost a lot of shine for me.
Posted by: kam_yuen at March 24, 2005 12:01 AM
please listen to us and bring back the zips. They are essential for a lot of people.
Posted by: User at March 24, 2005 12:02 AM
My 1.0.1 Installation crashed the first time I used it, and it was a .exe Installation over a previous .exe one... Perhaps there are other problems there.
But it was stable after first crash.
Nevertheless, dropping public .zip files, or at least make them only available for geeks with a remark how to use it, would be the best (and only?) solution to avoid further problems with 1.0.x release-updates. You can't fix users installed version without an update, and that's exactly the problem at the moment, where they can't make larger changes to the code in 1.0.x tree. Perhaps there will be a solution for the 1.1 tree.
Posted by: X-Trace at March 24, 2005 12:31 AM
Why not simply do like the Mozilla Suite installer does. It removes the files from the former installation before installing itself.
I've mixed nightly and release installations and never had problems. To me, this is the safest way to ensure a clean install.
Posted by: Marc at March 24, 2005 01:24 AM
"so the only option left to us is to stop shipping the problematic build"
As far as I can tell, this was not done. In fact, just the opposite: After identifying a critical flaw in the installer (specifically, the installer does not correctly upgrade ZIP-installed builds) you are now forcing everyone to use the installer.
In fact, there isn't just one flaw, there are 238 bugs currently in bugzilla which are attributed to the installer, everything from crashes to freezeups to extraneous registry entries to lost profile data to display problems in the installer itself.
Posted by: Dave at March 24, 2005 01:55 AM
another vote for bringing back the zips. you should continue to cater to the power users as well... i'll warrant most of us don't use the auto-update feature anyway (i sure don't). i avoid installers wherever possible and it seems apparent that dropping the zips is going to deter a lot of users. so in summing up, bring back the damn zips. please. =)
Posted by: josh at March 24, 2005 03:53 AM
Just another voice to the crowd, but, for different reasons.
Firefox has a wide and varied appeal, a good deal of it is the fact that Firefox is the browser for everyone, it has the features and flexibility that power users need, and alot of the simplicity that joe user needs.
The .zip packages are a blessing for me, I know --EXACTLY- what the .zip package does. The installer hides things, it doesn't let me see exactly what's happening, and that bothers me. I try to avoid as much software that does that as possible. That's just for me, I'd actually be happy if you made a verbose installer, that said 'adding registry key blah' and had a nice little scroll window. But, noone's done that and I seriously doubt anyone will.
Also, mentioned is the underpriveledged users. I think you'll see the number of firefox users go down (College users that can't install updates specifically.)
Considering the sheer number of people on this blog alone that have requested .zips be returned, I find it slightly ridiculous that it's not even being considered.
Myself? I'll continue to use Firefox, but, I won't be so proud of the people behind it when they don't listen to the people that use the browser. It's almost always felt like Firefox was user-fueled, but, this is a first-step otherwise when you say 'Screw you guys, I'm going home' and you take your .zips with you.
Posted by: Rachel at March 24, 2005 03:56 AM
I agree that users should have the choice to use a zip file. Zip is a backdoor for many to use the software on underprivileged accounts. However, the argument being used that "the community" or "most of the community" wants zips isn't accurate.
Are there bugs in the installer? Yes.
Are zips useful for university/business locations? Yes.
But the problem with the growth of Firefox's userbase is that Mr. & Ms. "I *think* I'm computer savvy" and Mr. & Ms. "I don't care how it does what it does, as long as it works" starts to use the product. Downloading Firefox clearly won't make those people suddenly become computing pros.
These are the same people who couldn't tell you Mozillazine even exists, despite the fact that it's mentioned on the front page of mozilla.org. For Firefox to continue to grow in market share, the system needs to be as simple as possible to accomodate those types of users...the users who don't have Firefox yet, but might get it tomorrow or next week/month/etc. Those users are not affected by a change to .exe only. Furthermore, if MoFo is successful in taking even 15% of the browser market share with FF, those future users will be in majority over those who use the product today.
Since one can assume that currently the majority of FF/TB users are somewhat skilled people, the damage is minimal compared to releasing a fixed installer later...a situation that may turn off a far greater number of users.
[the people who mess up their installation + the bad press that mass of users would generate = more people who don't want Firefox]
That sort of situation would play directly into Microsoft's hands since IE7 will be express delivered to XP users through an automated WinUpdate when it's done.
Yes it's disappointing that MoFo didn't discuss it in advance, but let's be honest...a discussion would've brought a turnout of those into FF/TB development, not the average computer user (who is rapidly becoming the average Firefox user).
However for the upset segment of the community, I do agree that a "firefox-1.x.x.pizzed" instead of ".zip" would be a great solution.
Posted by: Refilwe at March 24, 2005 04:17 AM
> I won't be so proud of the people behind it when
> they don't listen to the people that use the
> browser.
Indeed,
IT'S A SHAME!
:-( George
Posted by: George at March 24, 2005 04:45 AM
Very bad IDEA!
We used the ZIP Packages, to deploy Firefox on a lot of computers!. First deleting the old version.
Now, there is no easy unattended installation left. Please bring the zip-package back!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Posted by: Andreas Profitlich at March 24, 2005 05:35 AM
Refilwe - "Since one can assume that currently the majority of FF/TB users are somewhat skilled people, the damage is minimal compared to releasing a fixed installer later"
Except the minimal damage that is being done to these current technical users are exactly the people that are promoting FF/TB usage to the not so savvy. And what is one way of convincing these not so savvy users? By telling them that they won't have to install anything, that they can wipe it off by deleting the folder.
At 6% current reach, there is still a lot of convincing to do to reach the critical 15% tipping point. I said it before, but i'll say it again. This is just raising the barrier to adoption of FF/TB.
Posted by: kam_yuen at March 24, 2005 06:09 AM
please don't do that, offer zip's again, almoster everyone who posted here also like to have FF/TH as a zip
Posted by: roock at March 24, 2005 07:33 AM
I am NOT going to go through this uninstall - re-install dance for every system I administer. Getting rid of zips for the release version was an unbelievably bone-headed move. Fix the installer so that there isn't a "version" conflict, fix the update function so that it's the seamless update end-users are expecting, and for the sake of common sense make the zip of released versions available somewhere.
Geez, it's always something...
Posted by: Arthur at March 24, 2005 07:33 AM
Stop thinking for users and make zip releases available again! This is really *not* the way of 'spreading' firefox :(
Posted by: Blake at March 24, 2005 07:43 AM
Why not just put them in an "Unsupported Releases" directory only available by FTP. Also make the zips unzip to mozilla.org-relversion so that a future installer version wouldn't use the same directory.
Posted by: Ben at March 24, 2005 08:25 AM
Go vote for this bug if you want zips back!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287499
Posted by: Ben at March 24, 2005 08:30 AM
I use the zips to keep multiple firefox version installs on my system to use for testing web sites to ensure compatability. The installer version makes this a big pain, but the zip versions work great.
Please bring zips back. If the installer has problems with existing installs, just have it move the pre-existing mozilla install dir to mozilla-backup.
Posted by: Jon at March 24, 2005 08:36 AM
I'd suggest putting zip versions silently somewhere else on the server, maybe in a few days when most users have already upgraded. Well, you know, just like the localization xpi's that nobody never finds but still are to be found somewhere :)
Posted by: Benoit at March 24, 2005 09:22 AM
Because of no ZIP Version I don't use the firefox anymore.
It was a great time.
Good bye!!!!!
Posted by: Joe at March 24, 2005 09:49 AM
There is a problem with Firefox, Ok, but why with Thunderbird too ? There is no automatic update with Thunderbird... I don't understand, it's a very stupid idea to prevent everybody to use it just because some were stupid.
Posted by: Calimo at March 24, 2005 10:15 AM
For all those massively frustrated with the way things are at the moment. Here is a great tip http://mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6281#36 which should help alleviate the pain slightly. It won't help everyone, but it does mean you can create the zip from the installer without having to do the install first.
Posted by: kam_yuen at March 24, 2005 10:52 AM
/me *sighs* at comment #3 by Asa in Bug#283676
>>we want to stop shipping zipped and tarball builds. it's installers only from
here on out. should I file a different bug for stopping delivery of the
compressed builds for releases?<<
Why the (release) tarballs also? I though this issue was more with the crashes caused by Windows .zip installer mixing.
I have seen many many posts on MZ fourms where the installer did not work right or it simply took extra work walking new linux users through the steps of using installer when the regualar tarbal is usually the better choice to begin with in many ways.
Posted by: James at March 24, 2005 03:25 PM
ZIPs are shit, we should all do as Bill Gates says and use the crtified installer.
I demand that the Linux-version uses a Microsoft-compatible installer too to prevent them from using Firefox to download pirated copies of Windows XP Professional.
Posted by: Steve Shwants at March 24, 2005 09:49 PM
> you're on the right way if you want to piss off people
How true ...
Posted by: Shawn at March 24, 2005 10:31 PM
Hello,
the world want and needs the ZIPs.
When did you realize that??
:-((
Itīs not good if you donīt give us ZIPs because of some DAUs.
I support lots of companies and I putted always the ZIP of FFX there, because of problems with the exe.
Now I canīt continue implementing the FFX there only because some people (you) donīt want continuing the ZIPs.
Do you really want to lose your "customers"?
Posted by: Ruben at March 25, 2005 12:16 AM
How about this:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/l10n/localize-release.html
I've tried it with the 0.9.1 installer lying around (I have no recent installer as I use ZIPs). After unpacking with 7zip, there is a file called browser.xpi, which is as all XPIs really a ZIP. This ZIP contains the browser. I haven't tested running the browser yet, as I first have to get that Firefox 1.0.2 installer :(
Posted by: Marek at March 25, 2005 12:55 AM
We will the ZIP Version!!!!!!!!!
Bring it back or we use an other browser!!!!!!
Posted by: Harald at March 25, 2005 05:44 AM
You won't get the ZIPs back.
Reversing the decision to drop ZIPs would mean admitting they were wrong, and they will never do that.
Posted by: anon at March 25, 2005 06:14 AM
Oh dammit. Just when I was planning to finally get Mozilla Firefox setup on my USB memory stick, some idiots decide to drop out official release ZIPs. Oh great. This certainly isn't going to make me happy. It's f*cking preventing me to do what I want! I want to be able to conveniently download stable releases as ZIP archives and extract them to my removable medium, so that I can then use Firefox outside home. Wait! You just made that impossible! Thanks! You really pulled the trigger for me now. First Seamonkey, now this. What's next? This is making Mozilla Foundation more into the HQ for Microsoft, rather than a loose collaboration movement for Gecko loving geeks. I hate to say this, but Mozilla isn't highly regarded by me for the time being.
Posted by: Rasbelin at March 25, 2005 07:21 AM
Wrong, bad ---
I could write a long list of adjectives to this move, but hey you all aren't listening anyway.
Only posting here to add to the number of post indicating that you've goofed.
Posted by: Skeeter at March 25, 2005 07:54 AM
go on and continue to treat your customers like this and one day you will wake up asking yourself why user-numbers are dropping...
you simply can't remove a feature overnight which worked well all the time. just because there's something not working the way it should you will look like idiots if you remove the whole thing instead of making changes where they are necessary...
you better turn round on your campaign from time to time to make sure that there are people following you...
Posted by: advice at March 25, 2005 08:32 AM
Jeez, talk about people crying over spilt milk. The equation is simple - there's only a limited budget for QA testing, so the less distribution methods that have to be tested (across all supported platforms no less) means that the existing install method will get much more QA time. More QA time equals a better product, and given that most people use the installer it was inevitable that the ZIP releases had to go.
You're really not telling MoFo anything when you say that this will affect people on underprivileged accounts - they would have thought long and hard about the consequences before making this decision. It sucks, but unless everyone who wants to keep the ZIP builds is prepared to donate regularly to MoFo for the extra QA, there's not a lot those guys can do.
As Asa said, if there's such a demand for a ZIP build, the community will undoubtedly create one - the only question is how many of you value the ZIP install over the pretty graphics.
Posted by: Steve at March 25, 2005 08:38 AM
It took me more time to read a portion of this thread than it took me to create my own self extracting 7zip of both ff and tb 1.0.2 in one archive.
Posted by: hirgatimbas darekulaskibatitibolegitidrisiki at March 25, 2005 08:52 AM
Bad idea, really bad idea....
Until there's a ZIP Version I'll use the 1.0.1
Posted by: John Doe at March 25, 2005 11:30 AM
Yeah, same here. Got used to the .zip version. Despite the security implications, I'll stick to 1.0.1 until 1.0.2 gets zipped.
Posted by: jarod at March 25, 2005 12:27 PM
Rasbelin:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portable_firefox/
Of course, now he won't do localisations because there's no .ZIPs. buutt...
Posted by: Somebody at March 25, 2005 01:54 PM
why not just put a big warning on the installer, i too really like the zip's and dont see why i should !install! something that just needs extracting...
this has all been said before but i had to add my number
Posted by: DrOwl at March 25, 2005 06:03 PM
Dear Ruling Elite at Mozilla,
sometimes we make decisions that are not very bright.
Wouldn't you agree that out-of-the-blue policy changes by whatever
software vendor -- commercial or free -- are unacceptable for
everybody relying on this software? Apparently you folks have no idea
how much credibility you've lost with thousands of serious users,
just overnight. Amazing your responses so far - ranging from
hypocrite to arrogant. Just have a look at one example here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287499
Do you even realize that taking such a decision without consulting
the many affected users may cause a problem? Fair enough if eventually
it is resolved (is it?) that's the way to go, but ...
How about letting people know in advance, so they can make
alternative arrangements? Sure, dropping non-installer-archives the
same moment people require a security relevant update is one way.
However, not exactly helpful if pre-arranged procedures fail due to
your miserable decision. (yes I'm slightly upset)
Although we will get over this one, I wonder if there's more on your
drop-list of things too complex to deal with? Why not do away with
security? It's tricky too. Sorry guys, but I can't take this risk for
the users I voluntarily support and may migrate them to alternatives
ASAP (which means month anyway).
You may believe in installers, I believe in educating people in how
stuff actually works, enabling them to fix problems themselves. How
about improving the mess of a documentation first? Oh sorry, you
already explained ressources are tight and I guess you guys must be
very busy chasing MSIE and explaining people how cool your projects
are. Pages like http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ suggests
it's more important to thrill users with fancies, rather then
explaining them the basic difference between a zip-archive, an
executable installer, and the consequences they should be aware of.
If Fx/Tb is too difficult for users to handle we have two choices:
remove complexity or just hide it behind an assistant (installer). If
you go for the latter do not forget to add me to your list of your
fiercest opponents.
I propose to remove the installer and provide just the zip/tarball
instead.
Anyhow, thanks to all contributors who attempted to make Firefox
different. I hope eventually you will succeed.
Posted by: shawn at March 25, 2005 07:17 PM
"I propose to remove the installer and provide just the zip/tarball
instead."
Iīll second that.
Posted by: tombik at March 26, 2005 02:19 AM
Please issue zip for releases. I read Asa's note and there isn't a easy way to pull the correct nightly that matches the release build. The simple answer is to fix the autoupdate rather than cutting the cord for users in situations where they cannot / prefer not to use the exe build.
Posted by: Eddy at March 26, 2005 06:15 AM
I agree this is ridiculous decision, and btw., as stated here:
http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html
"And we will, above all, be flexible and responsive. We realize that if we are not perceived as providing a useful service, we will become irrelevant, and someone else will take our place."
I would be really glad if this wuld be true also in zipped packages case. Because with this decision Mozilla.org will surely saved few f the non-geek Firefox users, but you might actually lose many others.
P.S., Also see another well-visited thread I've opened about this:
MozillaZine Forums - Will be Thunderbird 1.0.2 available in .zip package ??
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=239047
cheers, satyr
Posted by: satyr at March 26, 2005 07:35 AM
"I propose to remove the installer and provide just the zip/tarball instead."
What and throw away the entire (growing) non-geek userbase who just want to be able to click on the installer and go... Now, that is madness.
How many of the leading commercial software packages come in a zip file? Are they doing something wrong? Should Macromedia Dreamwever be installed by zip instead? (this isn't a copy protection issue, you can still do copy protection with a zip).
Ben wrote: "Testing software update and other functions with a complex installation matrix is neither glamorous nor fun, nor something we can afford to be doing."
I agree. I work for a company which develops embedded software. Test and verification costs us money and time and we only have to worry about one target hardware platform!
Posted by: mjt at March 26, 2005 09:13 AM
I've already posted once, but, it still seems the opinion is the popular one. I've decided to start recommending people to use Maxthon [http://www.maxthon.com/] (previously known as MyIE2) instead. It doesn't have a zip package either, but, it's a far superior browser product. As long as people have to use an installer, I'll point them in a better direction.
Firefox lives off word of mouth, alienating the community isn't the way to further your product. We will simply move to something else that serves are interest. People are not loyal to firefox, they are loyal to themselves, and when you give people what they want they'll help you out, when you don't, they simply leave.
Posted by: Rachel at March 26, 2005 02:01 PM
While this solution will definitely work, it is not the best solution for the community. I don't have install privileges on all the computers I use. If I have to use different browsers at different computers, then this browser, firefox, loses much of its appeal for me.
I hope the developers displayed a greater skill level when approaching problems of security, etc. Preventing installation into a directory containing a previous installation seems like a trivial problem compared to security. Can I really trust Firefox to be more secure than IE ?
Posted by: -R at March 26, 2005 09:02 PM
Read this quote from another user carefully:
"...It's almost always felt like Firefox was user-fueled, but, this is a first-step otherwise when you say 'Screw you guys, I'm going home' and you take your .zips with you."
Posted by: Rachel at March 24, 2005 03:56 AM
That sums it all up right there. IE gives the same product to people no matter what they think. Here's your Microsoft product now shut up and use it.
You're doing the same thing. Just because you've got an outline for the project, or you don't want new users to brick their machines, you're going to completely ignore the requests of your users. That tells us that you don't really care about our interests, you just don't want to be sidetracked. That's horrible.
Another quote:
"You won't get the ZIPs back.
Reversing the decision to drop ZIPs would mean admitting they were wrong, and they will never do that."
Posted by: anon at March 25, 2005 06:14 AM
This doesn't have to be the case. Just admit that you were trying to help the vast majority of growing users by dropping the zips, but that when doing so you received a lot of feedback saying that was the wrong choice. Then figure out or choose some previously mentioned ideas for supporting the zips in a safe place.
Quote:
"Just when I was planning to finally get Mozilla Firefox setup on my USB memory stick..."
Posted by: Rasbelin at March 25, 2005 07:21 AM
Very true
Quote:
"What and throw away the entire (growing) non-geek userbase who just want to be able to click on the installer and go... Now, that is madness. ..."
You've got a point, and that does make sense, but then your next sentence has to be the lamest thing I've ever read:
"How many of the leading commercial software packages come in a zip file? Are they doing something wrong?"
Posted by: mjt at March 26, 2005 09:13
The ONLY reason that the non-geeks are using this software is because the geeks spread it. So now that the geeks aren't needed for momentum anymore, kick them to the curb and become a commercial piece of trash, just like the one distributed with MS? Absolutely idiotic, and your support of this decision proves that you'd rather just be spoonfed your programs and don't realize the value in a software package of this (previous) nature.
Posted by: Damon at March 27, 2005 01:32 AM
For those complaining about work vs home, install at home, zip, send to work.
Gee, that was so very hard...
Posted by: Collin at March 27, 2005 01:33 AM
"How many of the leading commercial software packages come in a zip file? Are they doing something wrong?"
OK, lets clarify this. The reason the leading commercial software packages use installers is because it is expected by the majority. It is a usability thing. Just as (in English speaking countries) we read a book from left to right, many expect a piece of software to come with an installer and see it in a slightly dubious light if it doesn't (yeah yeah it's stupid).
Almost everybody here seems to approaching this by throwing their toys out of their cot (metaphorically) rather than looking for the constructive way forward. Why doesn't anybody put together a list (in one place) of why the zip is needed (such as when you don't have admin privileges, multiple browser version testing, etc).
Posted by: mjt at March 27, 2005 02:52 AM
I've a hard time understanding a few simple things...
1) If it's so easy to create a zip file from an installed firefox, why doesn't mozilla foundation simply release this "new" kind of zips along with the installer? That should solve every problem, isn't it?
2) Why does the installer need administrator privileges? It should only be necessary when installing to a protected directory or when creating system-wide shortcuts. Some installers are good and cover most user needs... the current firefox installer is NOT good enough, and can't be a substitute for the zip files.
The clamis about QA being simplified by removing the zip releases my be correct and wise, but I think that, until the installer is fixed/enhanced, there is still the need for the features provided by the zips.
At the very least (as many suggested), the nighlies corresponding to a release should be clearly indicated somewhere and not deleted after a few weeks.
Posted by: davorl at March 27, 2005 08:20 AM
Davorl stated:
"At the very least (as many suggested), the nighlies corresponding to a release should be clearly indicated somewhere and not deleted after a few weeks."
Absolutely. And what a simple compromise that would be.
Perhaps post the info in an obscure, discrete place.
Also, add a disclaimer, i.e.:
"This ZIP file is intended for advanced users only.
Mozilla.org will not be responsible for, or answer questions regarding, any problems arising from the use of the ZIP versions of its' products."
Then, post the file name/url of the nightlies (FF & TB) which corresponds to the release versions.
Posted by: Test at March 27, 2005 08:36 AM
... well, that was a demoralizing read. I'm not as attached to zips as some, but seeing the feedback, I couldn't help but think "... another straw on the camel's back." I'm worried that bad community relations is eventually gonna bite MoFo in the ass...
Posted by: MechR at March 28, 2005 12:40 AM
For me the ZIP-package was one of the best features of Firefox and Thunderbird. Easy deployment in three networks. IMHO dropping them is an idiot decision.
Hoping to get them back soon.
Posted by: Jörn at March 28, 2005 03:30 AM
I never used a ZIP file for Mozilla Firefox, so I'm not sure, but I guess that it doesn't display the EULA, and that might be another, if not even more important legal issue with these ZIP files...
Posted by: HJ at March 28, 2005 07:24 AM
What a lame excuse.
Software has been distributed in ZIPs for many, many years. It continues to be distributed in ZIPs.
Software distributed as a ZIP file will often include a FAQ, Readme or similar file(s).
A EULA could juast as easily be included in a text file within the ZIP.
Posted by: Test at March 28, 2005 09:01 AM
Actually, the simple presence of the EULA has no legal standing, which is why you have web EULAs before downloading in many cases.
Its not an insurmountable issue, but its also under discussion, since we haven't entirely dropped zips, just for actual releases.
Posted by: Mike at March 28, 2005 09:04 AM
Am I the only one wondering why this post keeps updating it's date and keep appearing on the top of feedhouse.mozillazine.org ?
Posted by: Donny at March 28, 2005 10:32 AM
Seems like it has something to do with the timestamp on these comments.
Posted by: Chris at March 28, 2005 02:43 PM
I think most people have overblown reactions to this problem, but if it's a real segment of the market that's being disadvantaged by this problem, I do hope MoFo comes up with a way to serve those issues.
It makes sense to me to have exactly one certified distribution (for each OS, that is). My dream is something along the lines of the following: an installer that offers options to advanced users.
- Normal Install (into Program Files directory with shortcuts and uninstall info)
- Just Extract Files (so you can run from your disadvantaged account)
- Just Run Firefox (extacts to temp dir and executes)
I don't know what's required or expected on Linux as far as installers. For MacOSX, I can't see anything that would need to change, since the OS pretty much takes care of it.
Posted by: Chris at March 28, 2005 02:56 PM
For those complaining about no zip version of the release, should release that there actually is. Find out which nightly build was chosen for release from a site like burningedge.com and you will find the zip under that nightly directory.
I understand the reason for this as it would be expected by people to work. The reason it doesn't is only due to the fact that the files in the installer are compiled differently to those in the zip.
Posted by: Michael at March 28, 2005 03:01 PM
All my zip files are unzipped in a special folder, and there is no way that I could have a problem.
I am pretty sure that people do mess up their files,but the reason for not making .zip files available is lame. Most uninformed people would use and installer. But, I use the installer if I trust it. Under these conditions, I will take my time.
Posted by: Fulvio Perini at March 28, 2005 10:31 PM
Perhaps now is time to register a domain of stopfirefox.com and begin a campaign to explain how the bad relations the developers are keeping make the software not worth using.
Posted by: Rachel at March 28, 2005 11:02 PM
It should be noted that the latest aviary nightly does not include the fix for bug 278936 (which has been fixed for 1.0.2 according to the Burning Edge), so the "official" workaround of using the appropriate nightly is not possible.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2005 03:04 AM
IMHO, stopping the production of zip FF and TB is not a solution Chase. You're trying to run away from the problem. Why not educate the users instead of trying to pamper them ? Or if you still want to run away from the problem, just change the default zip location to firefox-zip or something else. But I still say educating the users is the best thing to do.
Remember, ZIP users are mostly people who know something about computer. You are losing intelligent people who can describe and report bugs better, just because you wanted to cater to the less smart people out there. Don't follow M$. Trying to get a larger base for the market but not improving the quality of the products is an M$ idea.
I'm not saying you guys are not working hard to improve FF & TB. But stopping ZIP builds is a backward step, and it affects people's opinion on the product, because some consider ZIPs are better than EXEs in the perspective of installation & uninstallation issues.
And yeah.. No ZIP, No new releases of FF & TB for me, No feedback from me & a lot of other people as they refuse to upgrade.
Posted by: Hassan at March 29, 2005 09:08 AM
... an "old" but still growing friendship (started in former times at phoenix 0.5) now will be divorced - because of no further .zip versions.
no .zip, no feedback!
and why? only a few total unsuspecting users are able to totally irritate all developers of the - til today - best browser in the universe.
Bye, bye firefox - looking for an alternative ... never IE, but who knows ...
Posted by: wolle at March 29, 2005 10:57 AM
I'm not glad about hearing that.....
I really loved Firefox, mostly because of the zip files, but if they don't exist any more, I will look for another Browser. Firefox is good, because it's not integrated in the OS. There aren't any Programs, which can manipulate Firefox to send Information through the Internet, because they don't know, if Firefox exists, thats different with the Installer, the Installer makes entries in the registry, so all programs can manipulate Firefox.....
Posted by: Marius at March 29, 2005 12:07 PM
> "I propose to remove the installer and provide just the zip/tarball instead."
>
> What and throw away the entire (growing) non-geek userbase who just
> want to be able to click on the installer and go... Now, that is
> madness.
Is that right? How come we survived decades without installers?
Decent programs used to run just from anywhere you unpacked them. A
concept I managed to explain to many (firefox) users I support
voluntarily.
Technically an installer is unnecessary, adds complexity (bugs,
security issues) and "non-geek" users are unlikely to ever find out
how it's going to spoil their system the second they press ok. If
your interested in this topic please also check out the chapter about
how evil it is to store stuff in the Windows registry.
> How many of the leading commercial software packages come in a zip
> file? Are they doing something wrong? Should Macromedia Dreamwever be
> installed by zip instead? (this isn't a copy protection issue, you
> can still do copy protection with a zip).
Too little, these days. Yes. No. Yes. What's that to do with copy
protection?
Seriously though: archive-only vs. installer is just the tip of the
iceberg. The idea Firefox used to support (Phoenix r.i.p.) and I
strongly advocate is to provide an actual alternative to the "leading
commercial" packages -- a slim, fast, secure, easy to manage, single-
purpose, self-contained application.
Rather I'd reduce the speed of attracting masses of "non-geeks" and
take the time to educate them, than compromise here already,
repeating the mistakes of others. If people deliberately choose an
installer over a process they actually understand, they probably need
to learn about the implications and alternatives first.
You suggest having an installer is a matter of style? Hopefully we
will miss out on the next stylish thing "leading vendors" like MoFo
come up with (maybe a talking paper clip? an assistant telling you
what sites to visit?).
Finally, it's not a geek vs. non-geek issue. If people want to use
software, we should tell them how it works, and leave the decisions
to them. If you're advocating a "just press install" policy instead
... Yes, that is indeed madness. (and I sincerely hope you're not are
driving instructor)
Posted by: Shawn at March 29, 2005 03:00 PM
I too would like to express my deep disappointment about the dropping of zip files for the latest release. :-(
Proper documentation that states that the exe installer is for most users, whereas zip is not, blinking bright red if necessary, should solve the problem imho.
Posted by: Carsten at March 30, 2005 04:09 AM
>>>It should be noted that the latest aviary nightly does not include the fix for bug 278936 (which has been fixed for 1.0.2 according to the Burning Edge), so the "official" workaround of using the appropriate nightly is not possible.<<<
How recent a aviary nightly as there is a March.30 aviary nightly now in 4 of the 6 mirrors that make up ftp.mozilla.org
ex: ftp://mozilla.isc.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-aviary1.0.1/
Ok so i'm too lazy to boot into my WinXP Pro partion right to see for myself as I prefer Linux.
Posted by: Steve at March 30, 2005 11:43 PM
> All this feedback... is anyone really listening?
I read every comment left here.
Posted by: Chase at March 31, 2005 10:20 AM
After reading the "why no zips" thread to-date, my initial reaction is: Wow! This is one passionate community!
But to the point:
The first version of Firefox I installed (on both a WinXP/SP2 desktop and a Win98SE laptop) was 1.0PR. When Firefox would inform me of a recommended update (so far, the 1.0 release and the 1.0.x security updates through x=2), I would click where appropriate, "watch" the download, and then watch as the new version installer ran.
Eventually, I discovered the Mozilla support forums, where I learned that what happened "automatically" was, in a word, incorrect. And two more: potentially unstable.
Anyway, I wound up deleting the extra "Add/Remove" entries, uninstalling and then re-downloading and re-installing 1.0.2 "cleanly."
Ultimately, if the MoFo is going to decide to give the installed user-base only one upgrade option, it ought to be one that works seamlessly. (I feel the same way about video drivers which require previous versions to be uninstalled before the new version is applied. What good is an update-installer if it doesn't correctly UPDATE?)
And that, I believe, is the bottom line.
Posted by: Paul B at April 1, 2005 09:01 AM
ZDnet Must-Read-News-Alerts like this did little to clarify the situation.
"The Mozilla Foundation issued a patch for a major security flaw in its Firefox browser on Wednesday and advised people to update their software."
A patch, by anyone's standards is not a complete re-install of the program. I'm sure many non-savvy users would look for a zip rather than a fresh install based on this.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5632148.html?tag=nl.e589
Maybe a better laison is needed with these 'semi-geek' services.
Posted by: JoeS at April 1, 2005 05:33 PM
Both the Firefox and Thunderbird threads in the MozillaZine forums regarding this topic have been locked.
For the record, I support having the release builds of FireFox and Thunderbird as .zip files.
Posted by: atwwong at April 2, 2005 02:42 PM
No zip's -> no Fx or TB for me anymore anymore.
Teribly wrong decision...
Posted by: bugmenot at April 3, 2005 06:29 PM
no zip, just installer -> no thanks. very easy. so i can use the crappy ie too, nothing else.
want back the zips. thanks
Posted by: no at April 3, 2005 11:23 PM
I want to keep this topic open for comments but the "me too" comments are unnecessary and are drowning out the useful comments. People on both sides of the matter have made the gist of their opinions known.
I will stress this point: If you can't add signal to this discussion in the form of an articulated comment with substance that has not already been made, then simply hold back and don't add a comment. It's not that I don't want to hear from you, it's that I have heard your "me too" repeatedly from dozens of other people already.
Posted by: Chase at April 3, 2005 11:59 PM
Go vote for this bug if you want ZIP releases restored:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287499
Posted by: Sam at April 5, 2005 05:30 PM
i want thunderbird installation whitch is independent from user... like poco systems mail.. i mean, if i unzip thunderbird to d:/ partition and use it for ar while .. then after format c:/ everything is gone because it saves some crap (including mail and some configs) in documents and settings... and ia hate doing backups.. :) so think about it.. it could be very usefull with USB flash drives... bla bla bla .. give me option to choose how i want to store my mail even if that is not very safe... whatever :)
Posted by: prusux at April 5, 2005 10:26 PM
Chase stated unequivocally as follows:-
"If you're a Mozilla developer and love the .zip files, rest assured they aren't going
away completely. While we won't issue the .zip package with the rest of the major
release files, we will still issue these packages in their standard nightly form."
It really doesn't get much simpler than that, so why has this sparked of a major
bitch-fest by all these self proclaimed uber-geeks? Petulance of this order surely
requires us to question their competence and motives.
The one outstanding feature of Firefox that has attracted the majority of users is its
superior security when compared to the market leader, and I guess this is a major
consideration for geeks too.
So how come the majority of hostile comments on this topic seem to be from people
who are hell bent on subverting the limited security privileges they have been granted
on corporate and academic IT networks?
Just asking, guys.
Posted by: Jaymac at April 6, 2005 09:38 AM
Call me lazy, but if it's so simple, what's the link? There've been a few tossed around, but AFAICT nobody here's really sure which nightly's the right one :(
Posted by: MechR at April 6, 2005 11:12 AM
Answers to Jaymac questions.
1) As far as I understand, nightly files are sometimes different release files (correct me if I'm wrong).
2) The set of people requiring (or simply preferring) zips over installers is quite larger than the people which is knowledgeable enough to dig through developers' blogs to find the correct nightly zip. I am one of them. I always loved zip releases (they make me feel I'm in control - no hidden actions), but I didn't know a bit about nightlies until 1.0.2 came out.
3) About "subverting the limited security privileges they have been granted": these privileges limit the system-wide settings you can alter, NOT what you can run. I don't think anyone would care if you browse the web using firefox instead if IE... as long as you don't store firefox's shortcuts inside the "all users" menu, leave an entry in the "add/remove programs" list, and so on. FF & TB's installers require special (administrator) privileges to do something that is not really needed by many users.
Imagine this: you need to go shopping near the city centre, where cars are not allowed. You live a few miles away so you would just ride a bicycle... but no, they aren't producing bicycles anymore, it's only trucks from now on.
The traffic restriction around city centre is there to keep cars and trucks out, not bicycles. But you DON'T REALLY WANT to drive a truck, and you're not "trying to subvert the limited traffic privileges".
Not surprisingly, some guys are not very happy about Bicycle Foundation's decisions ;)
[I apologize for my poor english]
Posted by: davorl at April 6, 2005 01:14 PM
davori
1) Nightlies are part of the software development cycle and change in response to testing and feedback, both in-house and from the wider community. Nightlies issued close to a final release will usually have only minor differences from the final roll-out. So you can still have the zips if you are prepared to work just a little bit harder. Bookmark the dev-blogs and check them regularly for info on new releases. Download the nightly nearest to the release date.
2) The number of people who prefer installers greatly exceeds those who want zips. See 1) above on how to indulge your preference.
3) The point I was trying to make here (not very well) was that system administraters do not want people to install UNAPPROVED software apps on their networks, even when it is something as good as Firefox. It's polite to ask.
Even so, I really did enjoy your clever "traffic" analogy. Nice one!
The decisions now being taken by the guys over at the "Bicycle Foundation" (BiFo?) are the result of Firefox's success. The progress made so far has to be consolidated and that means hard choices have to be made and, yes, it does mean that a lot of people will be annoyed. Just ask the Moz Suite developers and users.
The Firefox installer/updater issue is critically important to the future success of the app and the decisions being made by the devs should be supported by everyone.
Zippers should adapt and survive; some people didn't have that choice.
Posted by: Jaymac at April 7, 2005 08:41 AM
I install everything on a centralized server running on linux. I really LOVED it, just to have to unpack a .zip and everything runs from sratch on each workstation.
i export a folder via SAMBA which keeps some versions of some software, and a symlink to the latest stable versions.
This eases software management a lot!
Why do i have to say good bye to such a convenient way, just because some idiots who shave no clue and therefore shouldn't own a PC in the first place don't know the basic difference between an executable and an archive file ?!
I DESPERATELY WISH THOSE .EXE CLICKERS A HORRIBLE LOT OF TROJANS AND VIRUSES!
Phew. Now i start feeling better. :)
Thanks for listening.
AND PLLEEAAASSEE GIVE US BACK THOSE ZIPS!
Put them in a place where no idiot can find them, make them available via FTP only (which no dumb-user is able to operate enyway)
Posted by: Bernd P. at April 9, 2005 08:27 AM
While I was not all that thrilled about the ZIP releases being removed I understand where the Mozilla Foundation is coming from.
As for those complaining they can't use Firefox at work/school have you thought that perhaps you have not been given permission to do so for a reason? You do not own the systems used at work/school and you should respect the limitations imposed (limitations you no doubt agreed to (and signed) when you first got access to the system). Have you tried raising a business justification for using Firefox? There are no license issues and with a few google searches you would have 100+ pages of information regarding how it is better than IE. This is what I did to get Firefox installed where I work. Once IM where happy they allowed installation of Firefox on corporate systems providing a request was filled first (changing from the corporate build can be very costly from a support point of view).
I suggest you follow the proper channels and get Firefox installed by the person who owns the machine that way you don't need the ZIP releases :)
Posted by: Morgan at April 11, 2005 04:10 AM
I don't suppose some kind soul (who is able to run the installer) would consider zipping the Thunderbird (and possibly Firefox) folders, and uploading the ZIP to "YouSendIt" http://www.yousendit.com/howdoesitwork.aspx (Then posting the dl info here.)
It's obvious Mozilla is going to ignore those of use who can't use the installers - our numbers are apparently insignificant.
All we need is a few people to take pity on us, who will ZIP Thunderbird and/or Firefox, and upload the files somewhere (anywhere).
Posted by: None at April 13, 2005 09:24 PM
One schapel posted this link in comment to the news of 1.0.3's release. Should be the Win32 zip.
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2005-04-15-05-aviary1.0.1/firefox-1.0.3.en-US.win32.zip
Posted by: MechR at April 16, 2005 06:21 PM
Is there a way to provide a sort by date from newest to oldest, thus bypassing the ~96% BS posted from 05/03/22 thru 05/04/17 @00:22 (although that particular garbage from "mature black women" should be removed, soon!)?
Regarding this topic, "Wondering why there are no .zip files for the Fx and Tb 1.0.2 releases?," there have been only a few mature responses (Chase has 3, leaving ~5 others); the resounding ~96% of the comments are from immature crybabies that need to get a life. ;) Those of you that make economic threats toward Mozilla (or any other developer), as if a "coalition" of the brainless would make any impact, negative or otherwise, just proves the naïveté of such a thought. Why should I feel pity for a user that is trying to bypass security measures put in place in a network environment, especially when that user (and all others like him), thinks they have no fears from viruses, trojans, spyware and other malware from ZIP's, as they would have from the standard EXE, et al. If you took the time to learn the simple steps necessary for attaining a fully secure system, you wouldn't be in the current quandry!
An unfortunate side affect that I've seen occur in the same manner, over and over for almost three decades, relates to how these types of people (e.g., more commonly referred to as "ingrates" ;) ) come out of the woodwork when it involves any kind of free program. In the case of the comments that are being dumped on Chase, and the FF/TB staff regarding a choice to stop providing THREE different types of installation processes, they prove that their authors have no more than any average user's understanding of microcomputers, at best and no grasp of normal installation techniques that have been used for decades! Where have these ne'er-do-well's been living; about the only programs that come archived as a ZIP, are small, simple and uncomplicated utilities that simply need to be downloaded and extracted to a folder then run...usually no other installation steps, drivers, or what-not needed. But you don't expect any substantive program be provided to you in a ZIP archive! Some of these goofs then have the nerve to state, not just infer, that Mozilla ignores the needs of the users who can't use installers. You're 100% correct in your assessment that Mozilla, as well as ALL of the major software developers across the globe are "going to ignore those of use who can't use the installers - our numbers are apparently insignificant."
To the Mozilla staff/developers, I would like to offer my appreciation for the programming being done that provides us with such excellent alternatives for browsing the internet and managing our email. As an IT/IS Management trainer, consultant and programmer, I recommend it highly to those of my clients who fall into the particular nitch that your products address so well. I'm looking forward to the continuing improvements and unique features that you've already touched upon, so keep up the excellent work!!
Posted by: Skylark at April 17, 2005 08:17 AM
Skylark, mature black women's post had more sense then yours. As an IT/IS Management trainer, consultant and programmer, you know surprisingly little about computer programs and intricacies of their installation methods.
Posted by: tty at April 19, 2005 09:30 AM
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/aviary1.0.1-l10n-candidates/
I did install Finnish Zip version.
I also did install official Finnish EXE version
from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
to another PC.
And ZIP versio number and EXE ver. num. was same.
"Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3"
Posted by: J. at April 19, 2005 09:33 AM
> about the only programs that come archived as a
> ZIP, are small, simple and uncomplicated
> utilities that simply need to be downloaded and
> extracted to a folder then run...usually no other
> installation steps, drivers, or what-not needed.
You just described Fx right there.
As for the topic, what's the problem with just telling people on the page with zip builds that they're not supposed to use them?
Posted by: Ant at April 20, 2005 09:18 AM
This is *lame*. I had to spend 40 minutes to research this stupid issue and figure out how to make a zip package from an installer as I use the same the zip on multiple machines.
Now I have to spend 20 mins on something that used to take 5, and I have been using firefox since it first came out. Pissed, to say the least.
Posted by: doesnotmatter at April 20, 2005 08:32 PM
Why not use RAR instead, I only use winrar anyway, its much better that winzip....
Posted by: xman at April 21, 2005 12:31 PM
What has been really interesting in this topic is the almost total inability of the pro-zip faction to articulate a reasoned case for the retention of easily accessible zip files. (Honourable exception for davori.)
Chase, it's time to shut this thing down. Game over.
Posted by: Jaymac at April 22, 2005 02:58 AM
Zip-genious works.
I guess ZIP builds aren't easier to manage but I really do think u should continue them
Posted by: J at April 24, 2005 03:04 PM
i'd just like to give you a big thank you for locking us all out who work in corporate environments and not having admin rights to our machines.
it was always increasingly harder to get the zips but i have never thought the team would actually get the courage to scratch them. what next? password protected nda signed msi packages?
i wish the team didn't screw thousands of people in the ass just because some users mess up. this is exactly the microsoft type of thinking which made them number one hated company by advanced users.
Posted by: minusf at April 24, 2005 10:51 PM
A few people can always be expected to foul up like using a zip file when they shouldn't have. But is this a reason to punish those who know what they are doing? Please don't fall into the trap of designing your software for the lowest common denominator. Embracing this concept will make you no better than MS, rather than being an independent software developer. Please bring back the ZIP files.
Posted by: ackerberg at April 26, 2005 06:44 AM
Surely we should fix the problem with the buggy installer not just abandon zip files. This seems a very bizarre decision to me.
Posted by: Alan Milnes at April 29, 2005 06:40 AM
Well, cause Chase is not hearing our prayes for a zip-version (Yes, this installer really sucks in some situation, but noone from the Mozilla Team seems to see this problems!)
I changed all my installations to:
http://www.moox.ws/tech/mozilla/
This works fine for me. And there is a zip-version of the german version, too. Thats what I need.
Your decision, to abandon the zip release is absolutly wrong. Seems you are not interested in your community, so its time to stop this thread. It makes no sense to explain you our problems, cause you won t here our arguments.
Andreas
Posted by: Andreas Profitlich at April 29, 2005 04:08 PM