5 ms·

The distro (canonical/Ubuntu) didn’t do it: Mozilla did.

by rubyist5eva 4y ago

ghostly_s 4y ago
Source? Why would they do so only on Ubuntu?
- rubyist5eva 4y ago
  My guess is that Ubuntu (and derivatives) is the only major distribution that installs snapd by default. > Source? https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seeding-the-official-firefox-snap-in-ubuntu-desktop/24210?u=d0od https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seed...
- kd913 4y ago
  https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-snap-default https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-sna... The reason probably being that for Canonical and Mozilla, it is a pain to support/backport multiple ubuntu versions, so why not just support 1 build. It makes it simpler for them to release as it's directly integrated in their build system. Considering how small a percentage linux users are, it isn't an illogical decision.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    That's a highly commercial story they're telling there. It's all PR. I'd bet that it was canonical who approached Mozilla and offered compensation. After all Mozilla is always looking for money. If offering a Deb is such a major issue for Mozilla, why are they still offering a distro-agnostic one that works just fine? This whole story just doesn't make sense but fits in perfectly with Canonical's obsession with making snap a success.
    - blihp 4y ago
      Ubuntu has been looking for ways to differentiate themselves (and arguably lock users in) for many years and Snap is their latest go at it. Consider that Debian (i.e. Ubuntu's upstream) has been providing Firefox .debs for a very long time, so it takes effort not to offer .debs for it on a Debian derivative.
      - siwatanejo 4y ago
        Debian providing Firefox debs for a long time? I think you are very wrong because Firefox is not even called this way in Debian, it's IceWeasel.
        blihp 4y ago
        Your information is outdated. It hasn't been called IceWeasel for a while now and that only had to do with a trademark issue[1] but it was still based on the Firefox sources. Source: running Firefox via .deb (firefox-esr in the Debian repo) on Debian stable to write this. [1] IIRC, it had to do with using the Firefox name even though Debian was lightly modifying sources to remove a couple of things. This was resolved a while ago and the Firefox branding resumed.
        rubyist5eva 4y ago
        Last time I tried Debian they only provided packages for the current ESR release - Canonical wants to provide the latest stable release.
    - kyrofa 4y ago
      Ding ding!
    - rubyist5eva 4y ago
      Mozilla doesn't directly offer a .deb file. They offer precompiled binary tarballs for Linux. Mozilla doesn't make distribution specific packages as far as I am aware and it was Canonical that was packaging it for all of their supported distributions. It's less work for Canonical now to package Firefox, and Mozilla has more control over pushing updates so it's mutually beneficial for them.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        Does ubuntu actually package it. Don't they just re-use debians work like 99% of their distro?
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        Isn't https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa managed by Mozilla? They have the name and the logo.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        rubyist5eva 4y ago
        No, it is not managed by Mozilla. It's a separate, independent group of people - and for this reason you should not use this PPA.
    - jethro_tell 4y ago
      Not that many projects offer native .debs. Most of that work is done by package maintainers that have an interest in the project and package the update for each release. The projects that usually do make their own debs/rpms/whatever are usually backed by companies that have a strong interest in making their software easy to access. I guess mozilla should be in that group but they aren't. MS releases full versions of code, Google Releases Chrome, you can get a terraform deb you can get neovim. Not really sure why FF doesn't release one but the way I understand it, FF is kinda back burner for Mozilla so who knows.
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        Someone on the Mozilla team seems to distribute DEB files: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa Lots of projects seem to producing DEB files. I think they're the most common shared distribution format except for maybe PKGBUILD files for Arch. Loads of projects have their own package repositories but cross distro distributions like Flatpak and Snap tend to be recommended before the docs refer to the repositories. The extra two or three clicks necessary to get the repository URL seem to make a big difference in popularity.
        rubyist5eva 4y ago
        "Mozilla-team" is not actually Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523551 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523551 > Matthias Versen [:Matti] > Again, there was never a PPA by Mozilla but rather by the unofficial Mozilla-team and the Mozilla-Team is not Mozilla. > They are AFAIK a group of people from the Ubuntu community who maintain and provide the Builds for Mozilla.org products for Ubuntu users. > You have to ask at Ubuntu or ask directly the Members of the Ubuntu Mozilla-Team about the status of those builds and who generates them.
    - thawaya3113 4y ago
      This. If Mozilla was so keen on snaps of their own accord why wouldn’t they be pushing other distros to also pack it up as a snap and/or Flatpak.
      - rubyist5eva 4y ago
        Because other distros have different ideological reasons for packaging Firefox their way than Canonical. Fedora, for example, applies patches to Firefox before distributing their rpm.
  - gnufx 4y ago
    Fedora, a volunteer project, currently has packages for four different current and future releases.
    - rubyist5eva 4y ago
      Which is crazy because Mozilla provides an official flatpak and Fedora has flatpak installed by default, but if Fedora developers want to be masochists they are free to do so.
      - vetinari 4y ago
        Fedora build is slightly different that the upstream one; in a way that many FOSS users appreciate: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1518 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1518 Additionally, it is being done by the same folks who drive development of linux-specific features (like wayland support or video decoding acceleration) anyway.
        rstat1 4y ago
        Ah I always wondered why Firefox releases on my Fedora installs lagged behind official ones. Its so they can screw with it instead of just shipping what Mozilla released.
        vetinari 4y ago
        The "screwing with it" does not take much time. Building the binaries themselves do. Mozilla does it few days in advance, so at the release they can push everything (and the binaries are available on the ftp.mozilla.org day before, uusually around 16:00 UTC). Other parties can start building their binaries only after the release. In case of Fedora, it is pushed into the testing stream and only after positive feedback (or few days) it is pushed into the release. If you want it earlier, you can get the tested builds from bodhi (bodhi.fedoraproject.org). You can also see the status of all builds there.
    - phatfish 4y ago
      Humm, Fedora is the source for CentOS and RHEL. Surely most of the contributions to Fedora come from people employed by Red Hat?
  - ghostly_s 4y ago
    > Why? Mozilla asked for it apparently: > “This is the result of cooperation and collaboration between the [Ubuntu] Desktop and Snap teams at Canonical and Mozilla developers, and is the first step towards a deb-to-snap transition that will take place during the 22.04 development cycle,” Ubuntu desktop team’s Ken VanDine explains in a Discourse post. This quote does not in any way support the claim that "Mozilla asked for it". Maybe find better sources for your info.

The distro (canonical/Ubuntu) didn’t do it: Mozilla did.

ghostly_s 4y ago

Source? Why would they do so only on Ubuntu?

rubyist5eva 4y ago
My guess is that Ubuntu (and derivatives) is the only major distribution that installs snapd by default. > Source? https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seeding-the-official-firefox-snap-in-ubuntu-desktop/24210?u=d0od https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seed...
kd913 4y ago
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-snap-default https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-sna... The reason probably being that for Canonical and Mozilla, it is a pain to support/backport multiple ubuntu versions, so why not just support 1 build. It makes it simpler for them to release as it's directly integrated in their build system. Considering how small a percentage linux users are, it isn't an illogical decision.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  That's a highly commercial story they're telling there. It's all PR. I'd bet that it was canonical who approached Mozilla and offered compensation. After all Mozilla is always looking for money. If offering a Deb is such a major issue for Mozilla, why are they still offering a distro-agnostic one that works just fine? This whole story just doesn't make sense but fits in perfectly with Canonical's obsession with making snap a success.
  - blihp 4y ago
    Ubuntu has been looking for ways to differentiate themselves (and arguably lock users in) for many years and Snap is their latest go at it. Consider that Debian (i.e. Ubuntu's upstream) has been providing Firefox .debs for a very long time, so it takes effort not to offer .debs for it on a Debian derivative.
    - siwatanejo 4y ago
      Debian providing Firefox debs for a long time? I think you are very wrong because Firefox is not even called this way in Debian, it's IceWeasel.
      - blihp 4y ago
        Your information is outdated. It hasn't been called IceWeasel for a while now and that only had to do with a trademark issue[1] but it was still based on the Firefox sources. Source: running Firefox via .deb (firefox-esr in the Debian repo) on Debian stable to write this. [1] IIRC, it had to do with using the Firefox name even though Debian was lightly modifying sources to remove a couple of things. This was resolved a while ago and the Firefox branding resumed.
      - rubyist5eva 4y ago
        Last time I tried Debian they only provided packages for the current ESR release - Canonical wants to provide the latest stable release.
  - kyrofa 4y ago
    Ding ding!
  - rubyist5eva 4y ago
    Mozilla doesn't directly offer a .deb file. They offer precompiled binary tarballs for Linux. Mozilla doesn't make distribution specific packages as far as I am aware and it was Canonical that was packaging it for all of their supported distributions. It's less work for Canonical now to package Firefox, and Mozilla has more control over pushing updates so it's mutually beneficial for them.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      Does ubuntu actually package it. Don't they just re-use debians work like 99% of their distro?
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      Isn't https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa managed by Mozilla? They have the name and the logo.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - rubyist5eva 4y ago
        No, it is not managed by Mozilla. It's a separate, independent group of people - and for this reason you should not use this PPA.
  - jethro_tell 4y ago
    Not that many projects offer native .debs. Most of that work is done by package maintainers that have an interest in the project and package the update for each release. The projects that usually do make their own debs/rpms/whatever are usually backed by companies that have a strong interest in making their software easy to access. I guess mozilla should be in that group but they aren't. MS releases full versions of code, Google Releases Chrome, you can get a terraform deb you can get neovim. Not really sure why FF doesn't release one but the way I understand it, FF is kinda back burner for Mozilla so who knows.
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      Someone on the Mozilla team seems to distribute DEB files: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa Lots of projects seem to producing DEB files. I think they're the most common shared distribution format except for maybe PKGBUILD files for Arch. Loads of projects have their own package repositories but cross distro distributions like Flatpak and Snap tend to be recommended before the docs refer to the repositories. The extra two or three clicks necessary to get the repository URL seem to make a big difference in popularity.
      - rubyist5eva 4y ago
        "Mozilla-team" is not actually Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523551 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523551 > Matthias Versen [:Matti] > Again, there was never a PPA by Mozilla but rather by the unofficial Mozilla-team and the Mozilla-Team is not Mozilla. > They are AFAIK a group of people from the Ubuntu community who maintain and provide the Builds for Mozilla.org products for Ubuntu users. > You have to ask at Ubuntu or ask directly the Members of the Ubuntu Mozilla-Team about the status of those builds and who generates them.
  - thawaya3113 4y ago
    This. If Mozilla was so keen on snaps of their own accord why wouldn’t they be pushing other distros to also pack it up as a snap and/or Flatpak.
    - rubyist5eva 4y ago
      Because other distros have different ideological reasons for packaging Firefox their way than Canonical. Fedora, for example, applies patches to Firefox before distributing their rpm.
- gnufx 4y ago
  Fedora, a volunteer project, currently has packages for four different current and future releases.
  - rubyist5eva 4y ago
    Which is crazy because Mozilla provides an official flatpak and Fedora has flatpak installed by default, but if Fedora developers want to be masochists they are free to do so.
    - vetinari 4y ago
      Fedora build is slightly different that the upstream one; in a way that many FOSS users appreciate: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1518 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1518 Additionally, it is being done by the same folks who drive development of linux-specific features (like wayland support or video decoding acceleration) anyway.
      - rstat1 4y ago
        Ah I always wondered why Firefox releases on my Fedora installs lagged behind official ones. Its so they can screw with it instead of just shipping what Mozilla released.
        vetinari 4y ago
        The "screwing with it" does not take much time. Building the binaries themselves do. Mozilla does it few days in advance, so at the release they can push everything (and the binaries are available on the ftp.mozilla.org day before, uusually around 16:00 UTC). Other parties can start building their binaries only after the release. In case of Fedora, it is pushed into the testing stream and only after positive feedback (or few days) it is pushed into the release. If you want it earlier, you can get the tested builds from bodhi (bodhi.fedoraproject.org). You can also see the status of all builds there.
  - phatfish 4y ago
    Humm, Fedora is the source for CentOS and RHEL. Surely most of the contributions to Fedora come from people employed by Red Hat?
- ghostly_s 4y ago
  > Why? Mozilla asked for it apparently: > “This is the result of cooperation and collaboration between the [Ubuntu] Desktop and Snap teams at Canonical and Mozilla developers, and is the first step towards a deb-to-snap transition that will take place during the 22.04 development cycle,” Ubuntu desktop team’s Ken VanDine explains in a Discourse post. This quote does not in any way support the claim that "Mozilla asked for it". Maybe find better sources for your info.