MozillaZine


wtf firefox just deletet 15gb on my disk!!!

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
mikeymike

User avatar
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: April 24th, 2003, 6:00 am
Location: UK

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 12:36 pm

WTF kind of bug is that? Thats not acceptable

Like the one in FrontPage 98 whereby if a 'web' was stored on the root of C, and the user selected 'delete web', it would nuke the contents of C drive? Of course it's not acceptable. That's why it's called a BUG! Really serious bugs happen sometimes, but developers do their best to avoid them. Honestly they do.

Shit happens sometimes, you know.

Another similar installer bug was in Intellipoint, v3x or v4x, it nuked the contents of Program Files just the same.
Last edited by mikeymike on May 7th, 2004, 12:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mikeymike

User avatar
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: April 24th, 2003, 6:00 am
Location: UK

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 12:38 pm

- double post -

bobharvey

User avatar
 
Posts: 148
Joined: January 28th, 2004, 2:11 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 1:01 pm

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233625
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=239722
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228672
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219701 (not so serious)

tell, between them, a very sorry story. particularly since the product is simple enough to be installed without an automated installer - just dump the code in a new directory and make a shortcut to the executable. It would surely have been possible to withdraw the installer until it was fixed, and rely on the zip file system?

I've installed the software on several machines at work, and have removed all the "uninstall" icons and the entry in "add/remove programs" since reading of these bugs. There is, admitedly, a warning of sorts on http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/#new but it does not cover all the cases referred to in the reports I've listed, and I may not have found all of them!

You can manipulate the "add/remove programs" list either with tweakUI or by using regedit on HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\Mozilla Firefox (0.8.)

My own installation appears to have been done in "%systemroot%" rather than c:\Program Files, and I just ran the default installer. I will not be running the uninstaller!

I agree with Mike that mistakes can happen, but this has been known about for quite a while, and It does want sorting out, doesn't it?

Vectorspace
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 14455
Joined: November 27th, 2003, 4:50 am
Location: Warwickshire, UK

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 2:58 pm

I just read a few of the bugs, and I think I understand what's happening.

The installer won't create a folder if the one you specify doesn't exist. Presumeably, that's why the 'New Folder' button is there (unless you use Win 98).
So, people navigate to: C:\Program Files\ and then type 'Mozilla Firefox' as the chosen folder, and the installer stays at C:\Program Files\

No-one stops to check the path, since common sense says it will work.
It's installed, and for whatever reason the person uninstalls it.
The uninstaller removes all the installed files, then asks if you want to remove the installation directory. The person clicks yes, without really glancing at the directory they're deleting because they remember installing it to C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\
And then the uninstaller attempts to delete the Program Files folder contents. Not everything will be removed since it won't be able to delete files that are in use.


The installer is flawed because if you type in a location that doesn't exist, it will stay at the current folder. You have to click the 'New Folder' button, which isn't obvious. It is also flawed because there is no 'New Folder' button under Win 98 (And probably 95 & ME as well), requiring you to create the folder yourself, outside the installer.

The uninstaller is flawed because it asks you if you want to remove the installation folder. This behaviour is especially bad because of the aforementioned flaws in the installer, which might leave the program installed in an unexpected place. Most uninstallers simply tell you 'Some elements could not be removed' and provide details of these elements.
"All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one" - Occam's Razor
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0

mikeymike

User avatar
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: April 24th, 2003, 6:00 am
Location: UK

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 3:22 pm

I agree with Mike that mistakes can happen, but this has been known about for quite a while, and It does want sorting out, doesn't it?

It has been sorted out. If you download the 0.8 release, the bug is fixed and the release executable updated. You could download it then run a difference check (windiff is available for Windows, diff on *NIX) to see that the 0.8 release download is different to the one with the problem.

- edit - apparently there are two similar bugs in the installer, I'm not sure which one I can vouch for.

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27833
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 4:11 pm

Vectorspace wrote:

The installer won't create a folder if the one you specify doesn't exist. Presumeably, that's why the 'New Folder' button is there (unless you use Win 98).
So, people navigate to: C:\Program Files\ and then type 'Mozilla Firefox' as the chosen folder, and the installer stays at C:\Program Files\
...
The installer is flawed because if you type in a location that doesn't exist, it will stay at the current folder. You have to click the 'New Folder' button, which isn't obvious. It is also flawed because there is no 'New Folder' button under Win 98 (And probably 95 & ME as well), requiring you to create the folder yourself, outside the installer.
This post below shows screen shots of the diffrence between Win98SE and WinXP in which New folder is missing in Win98SE. > http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 960#366960

And while I used to use Win95 alot myself, I never did try the Firefox release/nightly installer builds on it to confirm if the 'New Folder" button was missing.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 4:26 pm

Racer wrote:I am guessing, but it sounds to me like FF was installed into the "C:\Program Files" directory instead of "C:\Program Files\FireFox" (as the installer should have done). So, when it was uninstalled, the program saw C:\Program Files as the FF program directory and deleted everything inside.


Can anybody confirm this? That's what I think too.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 4:31 pm

mikeymike wrote:
WTF kind of bug is that? Thats not acceptable

Like the one in FrontPage 98 whereby if a 'web' was stored on the root of C, and the user selected 'delete web', it would nuke the contents of C drive? Of course it's not acceptable. That's why it's called a BUG! Really serious bugs happen sometimes, but developers do their best to avoid them. Honestly they do.

Shit happens sometimes, you know.

Another similar installer bug was in Intellipoint, v3x or v4x, it nuked the contents of Program Files just the same.


or the bug in the Therac-25 (used to treat cancer patients) that scrambled "X -mode" and "E-Mode" resulting in massive overdoses of radiation to 6 patients, killing them.

Racer
 
Posts: 6108
Joined: November 18th, 2002, 11:07 am

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 4:32 pm

One potential solution is to REQUIRE that the install directory have "FireFox" or "Mozilla" in the name. If it doesn't, the installer will not let installation continue. Similarly, when the program uninstalls, it would verify this as well.

Yes, this keeps the 2 people who want to install to the Foobar directory from doing it. But it also keeps the installer from screwing up the files of a lot more people.

Vigil
 
Posts: 71
Joined: January 28th, 2003, 2:40 am

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 8:19 pm

That would be a truly obnoxious solution. A real potential solution is to treat the problem the way other installers (InstallShield et al) do, which is to create folders that don't exist when they're specified, rather than silently refusing to. And also to not provide the option to remove the entire directory, but to state that it was not removed because it contained other files which must be removed manually.

Or, is just to bite the bullet and use one of those other installers. I don't see any reason besides programmer arrogance (of which I too am guilty) to code and continue using a custom solution.

Racer
 
Posts: 6108
Joined: November 18th, 2002, 11:07 am

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 8:44 pm

Vigil: how would completely solving the problem (with probably about 5 lines of code) be obnoxious? Yes, I agree that it would be very nice to make the installer more "user friendly", but that is not what this guy is talking about. He is talking about GB of data being deleted when it shouldn't, and my suggestion solves it.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted May 7th, 2004, 10:53 pm

zipped is the way to go.... imo
_________________


half agree.
IMHO, self extractable 7-zip version is the right way to go. ;)

mmoy W32 FireFox-2004-05-03-Pentium4A.exe
bangbang023: W32 Trunk Firefox 5/07/04 (O2/GL7/SSE2 Opt)

Vigil
 
Posts: 71
Joined: January 28th, 2003, 2:40 am

Post Posted May 8th, 2004, 12:10 am

So does mine, Racer ;) Or rather, so do the solutions proposed elsewhere in the thread and which are used by most common install packages. Backing out the ability of the installer to delete folders, for whatever the reason, would also completely solve the problem - and be in line with the behaviour of most of the common installer packages. And would be less obnoxious than forcing a user to name the folder something in particular so that you can be sure you're not deleting a non-Mozilla folder.

Dunderklumpen
 
Posts: 16224
Joined: March 9th, 2003, 8:12 am

Post Posted May 8th, 2004, 12:14 am

mikeymike wrote:Shit happens sometimes, you know..


Sure it does - but this one has been there for several weeks (months).
The same install-version is still being created.

That is not acceptable.

Vectorspace
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 14455
Joined: November 27th, 2003, 4:50 am
Location: Warwickshire, UK

Post Posted May 8th, 2004, 12:22 am

mikeymike wrote:It has been sorted out. If you download the 0.8 release, the bug is fixed and the release executable updated. You could download it then run a difference check (windiff is available for Windows, diff on *NIX) to see that the 0.8 release download is different to the one with the problem.


I just downloaded the 0.8 installer from here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/ ... up-0.8.exe
And I used Winiff to compare it to the version I already had, which I downloaded in Februrary.

Windiff declares them identical.
Last edited by Vectorspace on May 8th, 2004, 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one" - Occam's Razor
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0

Return to Firefox Support


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests