5 ms·

Firefox Developer Edition and Beta: Try Out Mozilla's .deb Package

72 points by feross 3y ago

superkuh 3y ago
If you want to be able to edit your add-ons/extensions you'll want the unbranded builds instead: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded... Just watch out that Mozilla has disabled updates in these builds so you have to manually download for each new version/security fix. The normal Firefox releases (except for the unstable alpha/aurora/developer version) don't allow you to edit your extensions without getting permission for each change from Mozilla's security theater automated signing portal.
- Grimburger 3y ago
  >Mozilla has disabled updates in these builds so you have to manually download for each new version/security fix Super easy and totally reasonable, thanks Mozilla
  - sgift 3y ago
    wth? Why would you do this, Mozilla? My Windows Nightly updates all the time and it works well?! (same for dev, which I used before)
    - Tsiklon 3y ago
      That direct download is literally just a binary - no repository is setup.
      - sgift 3y ago
        Ah. Thanks. That clears it up, my fault.
dissident_coder 3y ago
so if I want to avoid godawful snaps on Ubuntu with minimal fuss I need to use one of these?
- mcpherrinm 3y ago
  You can install it from their binary releases: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w_install-firefox-from-mozilla-builds https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w... I think if you do the "system" install, it won't be able to update itself, but the user install will be able to.
  - morsch 3y ago
    There's also a PPA: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa Though you'll have to convince Ubuntu to prefer that instead of the snap. It's not hard, certainly easier than installing Debian which is probably still what I should have done. I think I used this guide: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04 https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-d... Though what that doesn't tell you is that the snap install has its own profile folder location. So before you switch to one of the other install variants, note the location in about:support and make a copy of the folder. Running snap remove firefox will actually create a backup of the folder (unless you add --purge, so don't), which really saved my ass.
  - dissident_coder 3y ago
    thanks, I'll give the user install a try
- mkasberg 3y ago
  That would do it, or do this: https://www.mikekasberg.com/blog/2022/03/21/how-to-fix-firefox-crashes-on-ubuntu-21-10.html https://www.mikekasberg.com/blog/2022/03/21/how-to-fix-firef...
- sgift 3y ago
  Does this work? Coworker of mine tried to replace the snap and said that Ubuntu removed the non-snap and installed the snap again. Or does it work because it's beta/dev? (To add to this: Snap can go and die in the deepest layers of hell. What an awful "we have to be special" piece of 'technology')
perihelions 3y ago
Related thread from a couple weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38097858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38097858 ("Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly (theregister.com)", 103 comments)
tentacleuno 3y ago
Is there a clear guide as to what differs between Developer Edition and regular Firefox? The home-page for the Developer Edition project seems to mostly cite the inclusion of devtools, though these are of course present in the standard version.
- ghqst 3y ago
  Developer edition is dark mode by default and updates way more often than standard Firefox. Besides that I'm not really sure.
- highwind 3y ago
  > All the latest developer tools in beta, plus experimental features like the Multi-line Console Editor and WebSocket Inspector. (from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/) This is the biggest difference: Beta dev tool and experimental features.
  - jtvjan 3y ago
    That must be pretty outdated, because I'm on Firefox ESR and I have used the multi-line console editor and WebSocket inspector.
  - tentacleuno 3y ago
    The multi-line console editor is already on stable for me, at least. It's quite good; definitely recommend trying it out.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Originally it was called the "alpha" build if that wording makes more sense to you. Over the years it's been renamed to "aurora" and now finally "developer". But the gist is that it is an alpha with all that implies. I would not use developer for my daily driver.
  - sebazzz 3y ago
    I've used it as my daily driver for a very long time. It's very stable and think based on beta given the version number.
pacifika 3y ago
I thought they were going the snap route because it saved packaging time but now they’re introducing another .deb? Perhaps a change of strategy?
- ahartmetz 3y ago
  According to some anonymous HN(?) comments, it was a lie told by Ubuntu that Mozilla prefers to ship Firefox as a snap package for technical reasons.
shmerl 3y ago
Nice! Where can the .deb files for beta be seen in a browsebale repo? This one can't be browsed: https://packages.mozilla.org/apt https://packages.mozilla.org/apt UPDATE: Found it here: https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/121.0b5/linux-x86_64/en-US/ https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/121.0b5/lin... UPDATE 2: Hmm, the annoying thing is that beta package creates firefox-beta symlink instead of firefox symlink. Also, why is it packaged in /usr/lib/firefox-beta? /usr/lib is a weird location for it. Keeping it in /opt makes more sense.
sertbdfgbnfgsd 3y ago
Two of my favorite organizations working directly together.
solarkraft 3y ago
I'm still pissed that I have to use Developer Edition to be able to install add-ons that weren't signed by Mozilla.
- jetbalsa 3y ago
  I get it from a "users are dumb" and cybersecurity aspect of it.
- KetoManx64 3y ago
  Which addons do you use that arent in the Firefox store? It's interesting because i sideload APKs all the time on androis, but can't remember the last time wanted/needed to do it on firefox
  - solarkraft 3y ago
    Those that "aren't monitored by Mozilla so be careful" (pretty much all of them) which obviously means one should build it from the published sources oneself rather than downloading a pre-built package.
    - chronicsonic 3y ago
      All the popular ones are all Mozilla monitored, so I don’t agree that pretty much all of them aren’t. Personally I don’t touch unmonitored addons anyway. There have been incidents of developers selling their Addon to some dodgy buyers who then started abusing it.

72 points by feross 3y ago

If you want to be able to edit your add-ons/extensions you'll want the unbranded builds instead: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded... Just watch out that Mozilla has disabled updates in these builds so you have to manually download for each new version/security fix. The normal Firefox releases (except for the unstable alpha/aurora/developer version) don't allow you to edit your extensions without getting permission for each change from Mozilla's security theater automated signing portal.

Grimburger 3y ago
>Mozilla has disabled updates in these builds so you have to manually download for each new version/security fix Super easy and totally reasonable, thanks Mozilla
- sgift 3y ago
  wth? Why would you do this, Mozilla? My Windows Nightly updates all the time and it works well?! (same for dev, which I used before)
  - Tsiklon 3y ago
    That direct download is literally just a binary - no repository is setup.
    - sgift 3y ago
      Ah. Thanks. That clears it up, my fault.

dissident_coder 3y ago

so if I want to avoid godawful snaps on Ubuntu with minimal fuss I need to use one of these?

mcpherrinm 3y ago
You can install it from their binary releases: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w_install-firefox-from-mozilla-builds https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w... I think if you do the "system" install, it won't be able to update itself, but the user install will be able to.
- morsch 3y ago
  There's also a PPA: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa Though you'll have to convince Ubuntu to prefer that instead of the snap. It's not hard, certainly easier than installing Debian which is probably still what I should have done. I think I used this guide: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04 https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-d... Though what that doesn't tell you is that the snap install has its own profile folder location. So before you switch to one of the other install variants, note the location in about:support and make a copy of the folder. Running snap remove firefox will actually create a backup of the folder (unless you add --purge, so don't), which really saved my ass.
- dissident_coder 3y ago
  thanks, I'll give the user install a try
mkasberg 3y ago
That would do it, or do this: https://www.mikekasberg.com/blog/2022/03/21/how-to-fix-firefox-crashes-on-ubuntu-21-10.html https://www.mikekasberg.com/blog/2022/03/21/how-to-fix-firef...
sgift 3y ago
Does this work? Coworker of mine tried to replace the snap and said that Ubuntu removed the non-snap and installed the snap again. Or does it work because it's beta/dev? (To add to this: Snap can go and die in the deepest layers of hell. What an awful "we have to be special" piece of 'technology')

perihelions 3y ago

Related thread from a couple weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38097858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38097858 ("Mozilla treats Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly (theregister.com)", 103 comments)

tentacleuno 3y ago

Is there a clear guide as to what differs between Developer Edition and regular Firefox? The home-page for the Developer Edition project seems to mostly cite the inclusion of devtools, though these are of course present in the standard version.

ghqst 3y ago
Developer edition is dark mode by default and updates way more often than standard Firefox. Besides that I'm not really sure.
highwind 3y ago
> All the latest developer tools in beta, plus experimental features like the Multi-line Console Editor and WebSocket Inspector. (from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/) This is the biggest difference: Beta dev tool and experimental features.
- jtvjan 3y ago
  That must be pretty outdated, because I'm on Firefox ESR and I have used the multi-line console editor and WebSocket inspector.
- tentacleuno 3y ago
  The multi-line console editor is already on stable for me, at least. It's quite good; definitely recommend trying it out.
superkuh 3y ago
Originally it was called the "alpha" build if that wording makes more sense to you. Over the years it's been renamed to "aurora" and now finally "developer". But the gist is that it is an alpha with all that implies. I would not use developer for my daily driver.
- sebazzz 3y ago
  I've used it as my daily driver for a very long time. It's very stable and think based on beta given the version number.

pacifika 3y ago

I thought they were going the snap route because it saved packaging time but now they’re introducing another .deb? Perhaps a change of strategy?

ahartmetz 3y ago
According to some anonymous HN(?) comments, it was a lie told by Ubuntu that Mozilla prefers to ship Firefox as a snap package for technical reasons.

shmerl 3y ago

Nice! Where can the .deb files for beta be seen in a browsebale repo? This one can't be browsed: https://packages.mozilla.org/apt https://packages.mozilla.org/apt UPDATE: Found it here: https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/121.0b5/linux-x86_64/en-US/ https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/121.0b5/lin... UPDATE 2: Hmm, the annoying thing is that beta package creates firefox-beta symlink instead of firefox symlink. Also, why is it packaged in /usr/lib/firefox-beta? /usr/lib is a weird location for it. Keeping it in /opt makes more sense.

sertbdfgbnfgsd 3y ago

Two of my favorite organizations working directly together.

solarkraft 3y ago

I'm still pissed that I have to use Developer Edition to be able to install add-ons that weren't signed by Mozilla.

jetbalsa 3y ago
I get it from a "users are dumb" and cybersecurity aspect of it.
KetoManx64 3y ago
Which addons do you use that arent in the Firefox store? It's interesting because i sideload APKs all the time on androis, but can't remember the last time wanted/needed to do it on firefox
- solarkraft 3y ago
  Those that "aren't monitored by Mozilla so be careful" (pretty much all of them) which obviously means one should build it from the published sources oneself rather than downloading a pre-built package.
  - chronicsonic 3y ago
    All the popular ones are all Mozilla monitored, so I don’t agree that pretty much all of them aren’t. Personally I don’t touch unmonitored addons anyway. There have been incidents of developers selling their Addon to some dodgy buyers who then started abusing it.