MozillaZine

Will Firefox follow Thunderbird to drop zip-builds?

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Robert S.

User avatar
 
Posts: 4399
Joined: April 24th, 2004, 3:04 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post Posted March 24th, 2005, 2:10 am

I seem to recall that there will be a separate release without the EULA, etc. - that would seem to be the perfect place to provide zip builds... besides, you can't have everything... where would you put it?

wmcbrine
 
Posts: 352
Joined: May 6th, 2004, 8:13 am

Post Posted March 24th, 2005, 2:36 pm

Neither I, nor anyone I know, has any objections to the GPL/etc. But those terms are not what's presented in the EULA.

Some open-source apps do present the GPL as their "EULA" before installation, but that's also incorrect, since the GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. (Not to mention that the entire concept of EULAs is legally dubious.) But in any case, that's not what Firefox does.

I just looked at the EULA on http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/EULA/firefox-en.html , and it's less objectionable than I remember it. (Didn't there used to be an anti-reverse-engineering clause? I can't find that there.) Now, it seems more or less confined to disclaimer of warranty (same as GPL), and protection of their trademarks (the aforementioned branding rubbish). It's still silly, but I admit, it's not making me cringe.

Spewey
Folder@Home

User avatar
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: January 25th, 2003, 2:06 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnes°ta

Post Posted March 24th, 2005, 2:41 pm

OK, Mr. Linux McNerd. The licensing is pretty complex because of the scope (in both time and space) of this project and is not really relevant to the discussion of whether zips are provided for releases. The "EULAs are asinine" thread is hidden up in the new post button.

VirtualLarry
 
Posts: 483
Joined: July 21st, 2004, 2:39 am

Post Posted March 24th, 2005, 10:01 pm

Spewey, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The fact that the installer version normally requires you to click-through to agree to the EULA, whereas the ZIP version does not, makes the issue directly relevant, at least to some of us.

gunpowda
 
Posts: 35
Joined: September 27th, 2003, 5:40 am

Post Posted March 28th, 2005, 3:34 pm

What about adding a switch to the installer like '-createzip' that "installs" the programme to a zip file, i.e. creates a zip of all the equivalent files located in the release that can just be decompressed to a directory as usual?

That would probably solve the headache of those who lack sufficient admin privileges, and would also let the zealots know they're using the version they want to rather than some other nightly.

rtmjr50

User avatar
 
Posts: 6318
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:06 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Post Posted March 28th, 2005, 5:33 pm

gunpowda wrote:What about adding a switch to the installer like '-createzip' that "installs" the programme to a zip file, i.e. creates a zip of all the equivalent files located in the release that can just be decompressed to a directory as usual?

That would probably solve the headache of those who lack sufficient admin privileges, and would also let the zealots know they're using the version they want to rather than some other nightly.


that not a bad idea ....

the better one is to get the installer to work correctly (like M$ update site patches) .... and do completely away with all zip files .... if the installer work correctly ... then I can not see why you need to screw around with a zip file ... from what I understand, the only reason for the zip file was for a long time the only way to install firebird/firefox was the zip file ...

Oh, one last thing ... anyone can think of any major window software that is still using zip files???

later, Richard
Rule #1: My computer is always right, the human is always the problem .. RULE #2: See Rule #1
using Win XP/SP2 (home) FF1.5.0.9 FF2.0.0.1 FF3a1 Tbird1.5.0.9 ==> Press for More Answers <==
No colours in sig please.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13671
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted March 28th, 2005, 5:35 pm

if the installer work correctly ... then I can not see why you need to screw around with a zip file

Because you need admin privileges to run installers.

rtmjr50

User avatar
 
Posts: 6318
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:06 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Post Posted March 28th, 2005, 6:09 pm

Cusser wrote:
if the installer work correctly ... then I can not see why you need to screw around with a zip file

Because you need admin privileges to run installers.


and why is that a problem ... if you don't have admin privileges .... why are you installing the software?

if you are on a network ... then what you are saying is that you want to install firefox without permission ... the company that I work for ... would fire you .... actually, its impossible to install software on the network ... as the network reinstall the offical list of software each time you reboot your computer ... or at 3am when it does backups and system tasks each night ... so the best I can do is reinstall firefox each day, since each night, it is deleted ....

later, Richard
Rule #1: My computer is always right, the human is always the problem .. RULE #2: See Rule #1
using Win XP/SP2 (home) FF1.5.0.9 FF2.0.0.1 FF3a1 Tbird1.5.0.9 ==> Press for More Answers <==
No colours in sig please.

kern
 
Posts: 179
Joined: January 22nd, 2003, 10:09 am

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 1:57 am

then I can not see why you need to screw around with a zip file


Did you somehow miss the first post of the thread, which gave several reasons?

BenneJezzerette

User avatar
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: November 1st, 2004, 1:47 am
Location: Ghost in the Machine

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 2:17 am

I realise it is a bit wordy but at the end of this page is a reason.

My Oration on what it means from a users standpoint on the future of Zip Builds from anywhere.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050328 Firefox/1.0+
Vista Home Premium 64 AMD 9950 Quad Core + 8GB DDR2 1066 1x500GB 1X750GB Partitioned 1X1TB MSI GTX260 896
Firefox Safe Browsing - Pocomail Safe E-Mail from Script Kitties
True Internet Surfing + E-Mail not Junk

Phobeus
 
Posts: 27
Joined: July 15th, 2003, 11:12 am
Location: Hamburg/Germany

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 2:37 am

I also starts to dislike the mangement. The browser is awesome, but the Fondation is making again a decision, I am asking myself, if it is not only a cruel joke. They set the old base on fire... for protecting some new users? Who is taking stones from the house bottom, to fix a whole at the top? The problem are not the zip files, it is the installer. That one needs to be fixed and in fact this shouldn't be that complicate. It also should be no problem to put the ZIPs into a subfolder and put a ftp info file into it that is even shown in Internet Explorer at the right side. ;) Or putting a red webpage in front of the location or a .htaccess protection where you put in a warning at let users enter as username and password "mozilla". Hey, there are several better ways to don't get in conflict with the people who are using zips. Don't be so uncreative. This should be give enough time to get the installer fixed. Some companies relies on the zips... why losing flexebility and throw it just into the trash with a reason like "there are some users who don't can eat with knives, so we don't sell them anymore!". Common guys... don't disappoint me again...

malliz
Folder@Home

User avatar
 
Posts: 43714
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Australia

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 3:01 am

Not to sure if I should laugh or cry the ONLY zip builds that will not be produced are milestone one's. All the nightlies are and will be still there! For crying out loud does it realy matter if it doesn't have an "Milestone" build stamp on it? I never use milestones and most of you dont either. Get over it
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"

GrailKnight

User avatar
 
Posts: 2359
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 5:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 5:23 am

Moz Managment is starting to sound like MS.

MS also likes to decide what is best for it's users, yet fails for the most part.

malliz:
it realy matter if it doesn't have an "Milestone" build stamp on it?


Sure it does if you want to deploy in a business enviroment.
For some odd reason businesses see the "Milestone" name like an approved by inspector so and so.

No "Milestone" name would be deemed beta by the unknowing. IMHO
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". - Sherlock Holmes

Phobeus
 
Posts: 27
Joined: July 15th, 2003, 11:12 am
Location: Hamburg/Germany

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 5:46 am

@malliz: Quite funny! And all business that came to me for an insult will get an nightly, that even is not branded after another decision before I quite see a red line...

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13671
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted March 29th, 2005, 5:56 am

then what you are saying is that you want to install firefox without permission ... the company that I work for ... would fire you

I'm not saying it's ethically correct, but it's a potential reason. People like to carry their Firefox installs around with them... doing so without an installer is an advantage for them.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alex_mayorga and 5 guests