6 ms·
That is interesting extra context. With that in mind, it doesn't really make sense to me why anybody (especially Linux distro vendors) would care then. Which se
by starttoaster 2y ago
That is interesting extra context. With that in mind, it doesn't really make sense to me why anybody (especially Linux distro vendors) would care then. Which seems to clash with the article's statement:
> Firefox's Linux binaries have been produced for x86 32-bit and x86_64 but any AArch64 binaries on Linux have been left up to Linux distribution vendors and other third-parties wanting Firefox on Arm.
Which I infer means distro vendors were the beneficiary of the new linux/arm64 binaries, since it's implied they would no longer need to worry about compiling their own binary. Guess not then.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoI would read that line roughly as "Mozilla published (source and) binaries for 32 and 64 bit x86, but ARM has been solely Mozilla publishing code and distros building their own binaries". So yeah, in many ways I think this is a relatively minor change for Linux ARM users. The main place I could see it mattering is if users wanted to get binaries directly from Mozilla that's an option now, and the most likely reason I can think for that is to get bleeding edge binaries - either stable versions before the distro updates or to get beta/nightly versions that the disto doesn't ship at all.