Ubuntu 8.04 and Firefox 3 Beta 5

You can remove firefox 3b5 and install firefox 2 using package manager

Post by Ioannis Vranos
I have some concerns about Ubuntu 8.04 and Firefox 3 Beta 5. I have read
that Firefox 3 Betas are unstable. Why this Beta was chosen to be
included in Ubuntu 8.04 instead of the stable version? Are there any
other Betas included in Ubuntu 8.04? Has anyone any experience on
Firefox 3 Beta 5 under Ubuntu 8.04?
The Firefox 3 Beta 5 mainly stops me from upgrading to Ubuntu 8.04.
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

--
"Be the change you want to see in the world !" Gandhi Mahatma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20080424/d6b2c0f4/attachment.html>

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-24 16:09:03 UTC

Post by Nicolae Ghimbovschi
You can remove firefox 3b5 and install firefox 2 using package manager

No need to remove 3b5, you can install and use them in parallel

Felipe Figueiredo

2008-04-24 14:58:31 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Why this Beta was chosen to be
included in Ubuntu 8.04 instead of the stable version?

There was at least one thread about this this month. Please check the
archives.

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Are there any
other Betas included in Ubuntu 8.04?

Have you checked the release notes? You can also check packages.ubuntu.com
for the exact version of each individual package you want to know.

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Has anyone any experience on
Firefox 3 Beta 5 under Ubuntu 8.04?

Many people. See the past thread(s).

Post by Ioannis Vranos
The Firefox 3 Beta 5 mainly stops me from upgrading to Ubuntu 8.04.

There is also firefox-2 in universe, and they should be able to co-exist
nicely (but you shouldn't try to use them simultaneously!). Please, read
available information before taking conclusions.

regards
FF

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-24 15:14:54 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Why this Beta was chosen to be
included in Ubuntu 8.04 instead of the stable version?

There was at least one thread about this this month. Please check the
archives.

I am not interested in Ubuntu 8.04 Beta discussions. In Ubuntu 8.04 Beta
they could have added many Beta versions of any other programs they
wanted, since it was a Beta, and I didn't/don't care about Ubuntu 8.04
Beta discussions.

I care about the Ubuntu 8.04 final release and related problems.

I do not think there is any other discussion thread about Firefox 3 Beta
5 and Ubuntu 8.04 final release.

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Has anyone any experience on
Firefox 3 Beta 5 under Ubuntu 8.04?

Many people. See the past thread(s).

Post by Ioannis Vranos
The Firefox 3 Beta 5 mainly stops me from upgrading to Ubuntu 8.04.

There is also firefox-2 in universe, and they should be able to co-exist
nicely (but you shouldn't try to use them simultaneously!). Please, read
available information before taking conclusions.

Felipe Figueiredo

2008-04-24 15:27:17 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Why this Beta was chosen to be
included in Ubuntu 8.04 instead of the stable version?

There was at least one thread about this this month. Please check the
archives.

I am not interested in Ubuntu 8.04 Beta discussions. In Ubuntu 8.04
Beta they could have added many Beta versions of any other programs
they wanted, since it was a Beta, and I didn't/don't care about Ubuntu
8.04 Beta discussions.
I care about the Ubuntu 8.04 final release and related problems.
I do not think there is any other discussion thread about Firefox 3
Beta 5 and Ubuntu 8.04 final release.

Perhaps you failed to notice that firefox3 final would not be released
before Hardy final, and that FF3 should be upgraded accordingly when it
gets released. On a second notice, why would you believe FF3 beta would
be dropped in HardyH final, if it was included in the HH-beta?

Also note, as I and others mentioned, that you were wrong when you said
the beta was included *instead* of the stable, so this is actually a
non-issue.

PS: I am also pretty sure, even though I've not looked into it, that this
decision is documented somewhere either in ubuntu's website, or the
devel-* mailing list archives. If you're interested in this information,
I suggest you look at those places first.

regards
FF

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-24 16:05:14 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
I am not interested in Ubuntu 8.04 Beta discussions. In Ubuntu 8.04
Beta they could have added many Beta versions of any other programs
they wanted, since it was a Beta, and I didn't/don't care about Ubuntu
8.04 Beta discussions.
I care about the Ubuntu 8.04 final release and related problems.
I do not think there is any other discussion thread about Firefox 3
Beta 5 and Ubuntu 8.04 final release.

more precisely, Scientific Linux 4.x x86 (a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.x
derivative, like CentOS), they provided version 1.xx of Firefox and when
1.5 final became available, firefox was updated to 1.5 with no problems.

I suppose something similar could happen here, provide the stable
firefox 2.0.0.14 and when version 3.0 final became available they could
provide an update to it.

Post by Felipe Figueiredo
Also note, as I and others mentioned, that you were wrong when you said
the beta was included *instead* of the stable, so this is actually a
non-issue.

I do not agree with this view. When something is Beta, it is Beta.

In any case, I would like to see if anyone has/had any troubles with
Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Ubuntu 8.04 final.

Felipe Figueiredo

2008-04-24 16:24:31 UTC

Post by Felipe Figueiredo
Also note, as I and others mentioned, that you were wrong when you
said the beta was included *instead* of the stable, so this is
actually a non-issue.

I do not agree with this view. When something is Beta, it is Beta.

One can believe anything they want. That doesn't make it true. The
notation "beta" usually means different things for different apps - it is
usually commented on the web that MSWindows *final* versions should be
called beta releases (sometimes even alpha) in respect to critical and
important outstanding bugs. Firefox3 beta is reported to be stable in
some forums, while in others buggy and "crashy" and "freezy". Firefox2
final also have similar behaviour in my experience, having some freezes
now and then when I push it too hard, so I don't see why you seem to be
so picky about it being called beta. Beta5 is the final beta in FF
release cycle, and it appears to me that only polishing bugs are to be
considered until the release (which I've read will happen around June).

But I could be wrong in all this, which is why I suggested you to read
proper information before concluding anything at all. In any case, it
*is* a non-issue in the context you mentioned - to upgrade to HH or not
just because of this.

Post by Ioannis Vranos
In any case, I would like to see if anyone has/had any troubles with
Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Ubuntu 8.04 final.

Have you seen the bugs page?

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bugs

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 11:20:54 UTC

[...]

Post by Felipe Figueiredo
Also note, as I and others mentioned, that you were wrong when you said
the beta was included *instead* of the stable, so this is actually a
non-issue.

While upgrading FF2 was removed! I could reinstall it ... but see below.

Post by Ioannis Vranos
I do not agree with this view. When something is Beta, it is Beta.

I'm surprised about Ubuntu's decision, too!

Post by Ioannis Vranos
In any case, I would like to see if anyone has/had any troubles with
Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Ubuntu 8.04 final.

Yes, and it really bothers me! None of my Add-ons works anymore,
sound does not work and after installing FF2---yes, it had to be
reinstalled, because it was removed by the upgrade---the previous
session with about 30 opened webpages with very important research
content couldn't be restored. I'm that displeased with this upgrade
again---previous upgrades took me so much time, too---that I'll
check out Mac OS X now---after 10 ten years of Linux ... As a former
Debian user I was really pleased by the birth of Ubuntu and spread
it where it was possible. But an upgrade shouldn't be that time
consuming for users. YMMV

Best
Christoph *maybe overreacting*

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 11:31:21 UTC

Whatever the issues with FF3 vs. FF2, are you saying that you upgraded
while the browser was running with 30 important pages open? And you
expected that all would work absolutely flawless and now are pissed that
you lost your browser session?

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 11:49:26 UTC

Whatever the issues with FF3 vs. FF2, are you saying that you upgraded
while the browser was running with 30 important pages open?

Of course, no! But even if I did: Did I miss a warning about closing
every application before upgrading?

Post by Mario Vukelic
And you
expected that all would work absolutely flawless and now are pissed that
you lost your browser session?

See above!

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 11:59:46 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
Of course, no! But even if I did: Did I miss a warning about closing
every application before upgrading?

Oh ok. I just wanted to clarify. Still, relying on the session for very
important stuff is asking for trouble. FF has this handy "Bookmark all
Tabs" feature :)

I agree, though, that the upgrade process could do with a bit more
hand-holding for the user. I'd like, e.g., if it offered to make a
backup (if Ubuntu had a really good GUI backup solution, which it sadly
still lacks)

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 12:28:20 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
Of course, no! But even if I did: Did I miss a warning about closing
every application before upgrading?

Oh ok. I just wanted to clarify. Still, relying on the session for very
important stuff is asking for trouble. FF has this handy "Bookmark all
Tabs" feature :)

I know that there are always strategies to prevent data loss. And of
course I take backups every day. But these research results didn't
find its way to the backup because I found them between two backups.
And yes, I could have taken another backup before upgrading ... But
I didn't for different reasons (most important: lack of time) and I
really did not expect that a FF session could be lost by an upgrade.
Maybe that's just the last straw. I had so many hardware issues with
Ubuntu in the last year that took me so many time (I filed
respective bug reports). I'm a friend and supporter of FOSS and even
FF (I paid for an ad of FF 1 in a big german news paper)! But I
don't have the time anymore to handle all the time consuming issues.
After upgrading to Gutsy I listed 1? ISO A4 paper with problems
introduced by Gutsy. And now after upgrading to Hardy a new list is
growing again ...

Don't take my gripe amiss.

[...]

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 13:12:23 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
Of course, no! But even if I did: Did I miss a warning about closing
every application before upgrading?

Oh ok. I just wanted to clarify. Still, relying on the session for very
important stuff is asking for trouble. FF has this handy "Bookmark all
Tabs" feature :)

In case every Ubuntu version does not work for you for some reason, you
may try Scientific Linux 5.x which is a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.x
derivative, like CentOS, although I recommend SL instead of CentOS as
better organised (it has the main third-party repositories mirrored and
configured to use).

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 13:35:11 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
Of course, no! But even if I did: Did I miss a warning about closing
every application before upgrading?

Oh ok. I just wanted to clarify. Still, relying on the session for very
important stuff is asking for trouble. FF has this handy "Bookmark all
Tabs" feature :)

Thanks for the hint! It's some years ago that I had to work with Red
Hat at work and I never gave SL a try because I really like Debian's
package management. So I decided to try Ubuntu's first release and
was very pleased! I learned to admire the advantages of a well
preconfigured OS that even takes care on design which makes working
nicer and more motivating---at least for me.

I will install SL in a virtual machine to test it.

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 13:40:38 UTC

But I didn't for different reasons (most important: lack of time)

I understand your situation and know how you feel (and was in a similar
situation), but it /is/ obvious that you should not have upgraded at all
if you have no time, no new backup and need the machine in working
order. It's common sense. I know it does not help right now, but I
really don't think you can blame Ubuntu.

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 13:54:07 UTC

But I didn't for different reasons (most important: lack of time)

I don't want to blame anybody---I'm using FOSS which comes with
baggage. But I still wonder how software in beta stage can go to a
LTS release. I trusted Ubuntu that they know what they do and that
they only include FF3B5 if there would be no chance for any trouble.
But it was my mistake to do so and not to take a new backup after I
took one three hours before. I awaited 8.04 because of some new
software versions I desperately needed.

Maybe I just have to admit that I can't take that kind of
responsibility using FOSS anymore.

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 14:07:12 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
I don't want to blame anybody---I'm using FOSS which comes with
baggage.

But you act as if the same could not happen with OS X. I, however, am
sure that you can also run into problems when you upgrade OS while
having no backup and no time :)

Post by Christoph Bier
But I still wonder how software in beta stage can go to a
LTS release.

Well I have posted (too often) my understanding of the reasons and
quoted/linked to the explanation Ubuntu gives in the release notes.
There's nothing more for me to add.

Post by Christoph Bier
I trusted Ubuntu that they know what they do and that
they only include FF3B5 if there would be no chance for any trouble.

AFAIK Mozilla itself confirmed that FF3 is ready for prime time, apart
from the fact that not all extensions are updated.

I do agree that the migration from FF2 to 3 could have been handled more
smoothly by Ubuntu, but shit happens.

Nevertheless, it IS usually possible to continue using FF2 and it IS
possible to disable extension compatibility checking in FF3, which would
make most extensions work.

Both options have been discussed to death on the list.

[...]

Post by Christoph Bier
Maybe I just have to admit that I can't take that kind of
responsibility using FOSS anymore.

:) But again, it can happen with other OSes, too. Not to mention that
other OSes don't even let you upgrade the complete system, at all.

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 15:34:13 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
I don't want to blame anybody---I'm using FOSS which comes with
baggage.

But you act as if the same could not happen with OS X. I, however, am
sure that you can also run into problems when you upgrade OS while
having no backup and no time :)

Maybe.

[...]

Post by Christoph Bier
Maybe I just have to admit that I can't take that kind of
responsibility using FOSS anymore.

:) But again, it can happen with other OSes, too.

But then I can blame Apple for similar problems :-). And again, it
was just the last straw. Only this FF problem wouldn't be enough for
me to think about a different OS. But all of this hardware and
driver issues drive me crazy.

Post by Mario Vukelic
Not to mention that
other OSes don't even let you upgrade the complete system, at all.

So I have to make a complete new install for a new release? Is this
true? You can regard this as a rhetorical question as I'm getting OT
here.

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 15:41:19 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
But then I can blame Apple for similar problems :-)

If you upgrade under time pressure with no backup? No, you could only
blame yourself, just like now

Post by Christoph Bier
So I have to make a complete new install for a new release? Is this
true? You can regard this as a rhetorical question as I'm getting OT
here.

No, but upgrading Mac OS (say, from Tiger to Leopard (or whatever the
cats are, I did not pay attention) will just upgrade Mac OS. You will
have to upgrade all your applications (at least those that are not
provided by Apple) separately

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 16:33:57 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
But then I can blame Apple for similar problems :-)

If you upgrade under time pressure with no backup? No, you could only
blame yourself, just like now

No. If Apple wouldn't advice me to backup my data before upgrading I
really could blame Apple for losing data. In the FOSS world much
more experienced users are expected. One should know by itself that
one has to backup data before upgrading. There's more knowledge
assumed. None of my Mac using friends have any computational skills;
they really fear the command line. They just use their OS and it
works. They don't know how to configure a heterogeneous network on a
BSD system. And they don't need to, it just works.

Post by Christoph Bier
So I have to make a complete new install for a new release? Is this
true? You can regard this as a rhetorical question as I'm getting OT
here.

For the most important applications I use under Ubuntu this is also
true. I guess MacOS X is not the optimal solution especially
according to package management and proprietary techniques. But
maybe it is now a better compromise for me than a Linux solution.
Ubuntu will stay my productive system. But in the next days I
receive a Mac with OS X and give it a try. I will not except that I
will love Ubuntu much more after that experience :-).

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Avi Greenbury

2008-04-25 14:29:19 UTC

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:54:07 +0200

Post by Christoph Bier
I don't want to blame anybody---I'm using FOSS which comes with
baggage. But I still wonder how software in beta stage can go to a
LTS release.

On a 386-based box (and Ubuntu doesn't support anything else any more, does it?) FF3b is measurably more stable than FF2.x.

I _know_ it's still in beta release, and my gut instinct would be that, for that very reason, it should be kept out of a stable release. But this beta is more stable than the incumbent 'stable'. I can't speak for extensions, but extensions don't suddenly become compatible because it's left beta (and, as previously mentioned, you can switch of the compatability checks).
I've had no issues with my extensions, but I had a previous beta before I upgraded.

If you want a distro that _only_ uses packages that are in a stable release, Debian's probably more appropriate than Ubuntu.

Post by Christoph Bier
I trusted Ubuntu that they know what they do and that
they only include FF3B5 if there would be no chance for any trouble.
But it was my mistake to do so and not to take a new backup after I
took one three hours before. I awaited 8.04 because of some new
software versions I desperately needed.

There is _never_ 'no chance for any trouble' in a software upgrade.

Post by Christoph Bier
Maybe I just have to admit that I can't take that kind of
responsibility using FOSS anymore.

I'd be tempted to suggest that if you habitually upgrade your OS without taking backups, and then are surprised to lose data you've not backed up, you might not be able to take the kind of responsibility involved in using _any_ software.

--
Avi Greenbury

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 16:13:42 UTC

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:54:07 +0200 Christoph Bier

Mario Vukelic schrieb am 25.04.2008 15:40: I don't want to
blame anybody---I'm using FOSS which comes with baggage. But I
still wonder how software in beta stage can go to a LTS
release.

On a 386-based box (and Ubuntu doesn't support anything else any
more, does it?) FF3b is measurably more stable than FF2.x.

I had many problems using FF2 on my i386 based box and I had to use
Epiphany and Opera, too. But with FF3 I have some more problems. No
sound I did already mention. But it just hangs very often so I have
to restart it. This didn't happen with FF2.

[...]

If you want a distro that _only_ uses packages that are in a
stable release, Debian's probably more appropriate than Ubuntu.

At the moment I don't want to believe that it's really impossible to
have recent and stable software (I used Debian for about six
years---with many backports ...). Maybe you have more experiences in
different OS than me.

I trusted Ubuntu that they know what they do and that they only
include FF3B5 if there would be no chance for any trouble. But
it was my mistake to do so and not to take a new backup after I
took one three hours before. I awaited 8.04 because of some
new software versions I desperately needed.

There is _never_ 'no chance for any trouble' in a software
upgrade.

Maybe. But then there should be a notice before upgrading what kind
of data loss can happen. If it was there I've overlooked it.

Maybe I just have to admit that I can't take that kind of
responsibility using FOSS anymore.

I'd be tempted to suggest that if you habitually upgrade your OS
without taking backups,

I've already written that I take daily backups. Only after the
internet research I found those about 30 websites I didn't backup my
system again before upgrading. And I already admitted that it was my
mistake. Ioannis wanted to know whether one already ran into
problems with FF3B5. And I answered to his question. The problem
would have also occured even if I backed up again. But then I
wouldn't have reacted that inadequate emotional. Sorry for that!

and then are surprised to lose data
you've not backed up, you might not be able to take the kind of
responsibility involved in using _any_ software.

But again: It was just the last straw. Only this FF problem wouldn't
be enough for me to think about a different OS. But all of this
hardware and driver issues drive me crazy. For weeks I want to buy a
webcam but I don't have the time to search for a good cam that's
supported by Linux. The same for a scanner. To keep my route
guidance system up to date I have to run Windows in a virtual
machine. The same for my cell phone. On my wife's new ThinkPad with
a Core 2 Duo Ubuntu runs soo slow that I can't believe it (not to
mention the special keys ...). I have no glue what's going wrong but
even Vista on my brother's ThinkPad (same model) is much more
faster. I'm quite sure somewhere out there is a solution for this
problem as there are solutions for all the other
hardware/performance problems I ran into with GNU/Linux. But after
ten years I'm tired of searching for such solutions and I'm fed up
with parts of the Linux community that are very arrogant---the
Ubuntu community is a highly pleasing exception!---and I just don't
have the time for searching anymore.

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Avi Greenbury

2008-04-25 17:20:51 UTC

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:13:42 +0200

Post by Christoph Bier
I had many problems using FF2 on my i386 based box and I had to use
Epiphany and Opera, too. But with FF3 I have some more problems. No
sound I did already mention. But it just hangs very often so I have
to restart it. This didn't happen with FF2.

This, I would suggest, is an exception rather than a norm. I've heard lots of reports of increased stability in FF3b on all sorts of platforms.

Post by Christoph Bier
At the moment I don't want to believe that it's really impossible to
have recent and stable software (I used Debian for about six
years---with many backports ...). Maybe you have more experiences in
different OS than me.

It is, and I'd call FF3b stable in every sense of the word except as a release identifier.
It is stable in terms of functionality and look and feel - it's not going to look or work any different by the time it hits release.
It is stable in terms of usability - it is far less prone to crashes than much else that is available (including its predecessor)

I really don't see how Ubuntu could have done it any other way. To include FF2.x now and at some point spring FF3.x on unsuspecting users goes completely against any notion of common sense, and to include FF2.x now and not upgrade until long after the end of support for FF2.x is also a pretty stupid idea.

It's not a _good_ decision, but it's the best they could manage, so far as I can see. It's just an unfortunate mis-scheduling of software releases...

Post by Avi Greenbury
There is _never_ 'no chance for any trouble' in a software
upgrade.

Maybe. But then there should be a notice before upgrading what kind
of data loss can happen. If it was there I've overlooked it.

I think it's taken as a given that people know this. Personally, I'd be hacked off if every time I tried to upgrade anything my computer warned me that things might break. I _know_ this, and imagine (possibly incorrectly) that most other people do. It also would have the effect of lessening the percieved meaning of other messages that tell you when you really _could_ break your system (like removing debian-core for example). If you never get warning messages, when one does pop up, you're far more likely to notice.
Maybe there should be a primer to using computers that would explain such things as the possibility of problems when making major system changes, and the likelihood of software changes with an OS upgrade?

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
But again: It was just the last straw. Only this FF problem wouldn't
be enough for me to think about a different OS. But all of this
hardware and driver issues drive me crazy. For weeks I want to buy a
webcam but I don't have the time to search for a good cam that's
supported by Linux. The same for a scanner.

Please, it's not that Linux doesn't support it. It's that it doesn't support Linux. The model applied for all other OSs is that it is the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer to supply the drivers, not of the OS vendor to figure out how the hardware works. Why should this be different for Linux?

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
On my wife's new ThinkPad with
a Core 2 Duo Ubuntu runs soo slow that I can't believe it (not to
mention the special keys ...).

Really? I've never had an issue with any of my ThinkPads. This R61 did everything correctly out of the box, which is more than I can say for the Windows install it came with...
Which ones are they?
I am sure you've come across it already, but thinkwiki[1] is a great resource for info about Linux on Thinkpads.

[1]http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki

--
Avi Greenbury

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 20:27:36 UTC

Post by Avi Greenbury
It is, and I'd call FF3b stable in every sense of the word except as a release identifier.
It is stable in terms of functionality and look and feel - it's not going to look or work any different by the time it hits release.
It is stable in terms of usability - it is far less prone to crashes than much else that is available (including its predecessor)
I really don't see how Ubuntu could have done it any other way. To include FF2.x now and at some point spring FF3.x on unsuspecting users goes completely against any notion of common sense, and to include FF2.x now and not upgrade until long after the end of support for FF2.x is also a pretty stupid idea.
It's not a _good_ decision, but it's the best they could manage, so far as I can see. It's just an unfortunate mis-scheduling of software releases...

Just speaking objectively here. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.x and its
accompanying clones Scientific Linux 4.x and CentOS 4.x, provided
Firefox 1.0.x in the beginning, and when Firefox 1.5 final became
available they switched to 1.5. I didn't encounter any update issues
when I was using SL 4.x x86 when this happened, it was a welcome stable
update.

Christoph Bier

2008-04-26 10:18:34 UTC

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:13:42 +0200 Christoph Bier

[...]

Post by Christoph Bier
At the moment I don't want to believe that it's really
impossible to have recent and stable software (I used Debian
for about six years---with many backports ...). Maybe you have
more experiences in different OS than me.

It is, and I'd call FF3b stable in every sense of the word except
as a release identifier. It is stable in terms of functionality
and look and feel - it's not going to look or work any different
by the time it hits release. It is stable in terms of usability -
it is far less prone to crashes than much else that is available
(including its predecessor)
I really don't see how Ubuntu could have done it any other way.
To include FF2.x now and at some point spring FF3.x on
unsuspecting users goes completely against any notion of common
sense, and to include FF2.x now and not upgrade until long after
the end of support for FF2.x is also a pretty stupid idea.
It's not a _good_ decision, but it's the best they could manage,
so far as I can see. It's just an unfortunate mis-scheduling of
software releases...

Again, nobody needs to stand up for Ubuntu. I know, at least I am of
the opinion that one should not make demands to FOSS. It's the work
of volunteers that I really appreciate.

Post by Avi Greenbury
There is _never_ 'no chance for any trouble' in a software
upgrade.

Maybe. But then there should be a notice before upgrading what
kind of data loss can happen. If it was there I've overlooked
it.

Oh, yes, incorrectly. Sorry, but this is the Linux attidue[tm]
that's far from reality and for many years I was of your opinion.
But reality is quite different. Independent from profession (except
IT specialists) and education most of the people I know never take
any backup. Even when they upgrade their $WHATEVER_OS machine they
accept to loose most of their data. Some things get burned to a CD.
People laugh at me when they hear that I take daily backups.

That's what I meant in my other message: In the Linux/FOSS world
there's more computational knowledge than e. g. in the MacOS X
world. And this more of knowledge is in return presumed. None of my
Mac using friends has any book about MacOS but they don't have to
fight with their WLAN, bluetooth, resume, suspend etc. ... Most of
them don't even know that their data is encrypted by default
(something that's not that easy with Linux). This is no negative
criticism on Linux it's a general statement. But my needs changed
over the years. I don't need anymore a fully configurable FOSS
system even if I liked to have one! First of all I need a system
that works out of the box with all of my peripheral equipment and
most of the utilities I know from the FOSS world (bash and many CLI
tools, Emacs, TeX, GNU R, gnuplot ...) and a professional PDF
workflow (Acrobat Pro).

[...]

Post by Christoph Bier
But again: It was just the last straw. Only this FF problem
wouldn't be enough for me to think about a different OS. But
all of this hardware and driver issues drive me crazy. For
weeks I want to buy a webcam but I don't have the time to
search for a good cam that's supported by Linux. The same for a
scanner.

Please, it's not that Linux doesn't support it. It's that it
doesn't support Linux. The model applied for all other OSs is
that it is the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer to
supply the drivers, not of the OS vendor to figure out how the
hardware works. Why should this be different for Linux?

Did I say this should be different for Linux? I know the problems
very well. Years ago I wrote so many letters and e-mails to
manufacturers that they should improve their Linux support! But from
a user's point of view it just makes no difference who's to blame
for the bad hardware support under Linux/FOSS. Especially new
hardware doesn't work well under Linux and other free OS, my five
year old laptop never suspended successfully with Ubuntu. I'm
willing to pay for a system that works out of the box with nearly
every hardware. If it was a Linux/FOSS system I'd be *very* happy!

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
On my wife's new ThinkPad with a Core 2 Duo Ubuntu runs soo
slow that I can't believe it (not to mention the special keys
...).

Really? I've never had an issue with any of my ThinkPads. This
R61 did everything correctly out of the box, which is more than I
can say for the Windows install it came with... Which ones are
they? I am sure you've come across it already, but thinkwiki[1]
is a great resource for info about Linux on Thinkpads.
[1]http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki

Yes, I know this page. Thanks! And as I already wrote I don't have
the time to always investigate things on my own anymore. My rare
spare time is to precious for getting my computers to work even if I
like to fine tune my system. On my five year old laptop and my
wife's ThinkPad WLAN doesn't work yet and I already spent days with
the help of the Debian and Ubuntu community (not to mention my
Nvidia graphics card). Getting basic things to work doesn't mean
fine tuning.

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Avi Greenbury

2008-04-26 11:15:34 UTC

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:18:34 +0200

Post by Christoph Bier
Oh, yes, incorrectly. Sorry, but this is the Linux attidue[tm]
that's far from reality and for many years I was of your opinion.
But reality is quite different. Independent from profession (except
IT specialists) and education most of the people I know never take
any backup. Even when they upgrade their $WHATEVER_OS machine they
accept to loose most of their data. Some things get burned to a CD.
People laugh at me when they hear that I take daily backups.

I know this quite well (I support Windows users all day during the week). But Linux upgrades present no greater risk of breaking things than Windows updates do (I've little experience with OSX).
So, if a user upgrades from IE6 to IE7, and loses everything, they're generally (IME) quite prepared for that. If it saves anything/everything, they're happy. More so from Win2k to WinXP.

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
But my needs changed
over the years. I don't need anymore a fully configurable FOSS
system even if I liked to have one! First of all I need a system
that works out of the box with all of my peripheral equipment and
most of the utilities I know from the FOSS world (bash and many CLI
tools, Emacs, TeX, GNU R, gnuplot ...) and a professional PDF
workflow (Acrobat Pro).

Well, then I'd suggest OSX is a better option for you, as you've already said.

Post by Christoph Bier
Did I say this should be different for Linux?

You implied it with the line 'I don't have the time to search for a good cam that's supported by Linux', which implies you want Linux to support the cam, rather than the other way round.
Or, rather, I inferred it from that line.

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
But from
a user's point of view it just makes no difference who's to blame
for the bad hardware support under Linux/FOSS.

Yep, this I agree with. Which is probably partly why I keep jumping on people as I did you above...

Post by Christoph Bier
Especially new
hardware doesn't work well under Linux and other free OS, my five
year old laptop never suspended successfully with Ubuntu. I'm
willing to pay for a system that works out of the box with nearly
every hardware. If it was a Linux/FOSS system I'd be *very* happy!

See, rather than find an OS that works with all hardware, I find hardware that works with my OS. I know compatible OSs aren't hard to find, but since I don't mind what the hardware is, just what it does, this seems to make more sense to me. Though I accept it's not feasible for you.

It's the above approach that's always lead me to Thinkpads. I'm a little confused at your troubles, but maybe I've just been lucky, or you unlucky. Or it's just that the lower-end ones are more compatible (which is likely, since things'll be simpler).

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
On my five year old laptop and my
wife's ThinkPad WLAN doesn't work yet and I already spent days with
the help of the Debian and Ubuntu community (not to mention my
Nvidia graphics card). Getting basic things to work doesn't mean
fine tuning.

Ah yeah. I've just always made sure that when I buy a laptop everything's Intel. The presence of an nvidia chipset corroborates my statement about the cheaper ones being less compatible. Finally! A good thing about having no money!

--
Avi Greenbury

Christoph Bier

2008-04-27 13:32:54 UTC

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:18:34 +0200 Christoph Bier

Post by Christoph Bier
Oh, yes, incorrectly. Sorry, but this is the Linux attidue[tm]
that's far from reality and for many years I was of your
opinion. But reality is quite different. Independent from
profession (except IT specialists) and education most of the
people I know never take any backup. Even when they upgrade
their $WHATEVER_OS machine they accept to loose most of their
data. Some things get burned to a CD. People laugh at me when
they hear that I take daily backups.

I know this quite well (I support Windows users all day during
the week). But Linux upgrades present no greater risk of breaking
things than Windows updates do (I've little experience with OSX).
So, if a user upgrades from IE6 to IE7, and loses everything,
they're generally (IME) quite prepared for that. [...]

I wasn't prepared :-(. I guess because I'm spoiled by Linux
concerning data loss. That's the other side of the coin.

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
But my needs changed over the years. I don't need anymore a
fully configurable FOSS system even if I liked to have one!
First of all I need a system that works out of the box with all
of my peripheral equipment and most of the utilities I know
from the FOSS world (bash and many CLI tools, Emacs, TeX, GNU
R, gnuplot ...) and a professional PDF workflow (Acrobat Pro).

Well, then I'd suggest OSX is a better option for you, as you've already said.

I'm not sure but I'll give it a try. My first trials with MacOS X
weren't successfull because I couldn't cope with the user interface
and bash was truncated. But I'll try again now.

[...]

Post by Christoph Bier
Especially new hardware doesn't work well under Linux and other
free OS, my five year old laptop never suspended successfully
with Ubuntu. I'm willing to pay for a system that works out of
the box with nearly every hardware. If it was a Linux/FOSS
system I'd be *very* happy!

See, rather than find an OS that works with all hardware, I find
hardware that works with my OS.

But it's soo time consuming! And you can not be sure that it really
works. I always did intense research on which hardware to buy. It
shouldn't only work with Linux but it also should meet my
expectations of quality. One year ago I bought a new Nvidia graphics
card that should work perfectly with Linux resp. Xorg. Obviously it
does for all other users but I can get only 500 FPS with the recent
proprietary Nvidia driver. I could continue the list of hardware
problems ...

I know compatible OSs aren't hard
to find, but since I don't mind what the hardware is, just what
it does, this seems to make more sense to me. Though I accept
it's not feasible for you.
It's the above approach that's always lead me to Thinkpads. I'm a
little confused at your troubles, but maybe I've just been lucky,
or you unlucky. Or it's just that the lower-end ones are more
compatible (which is likely, since things'll be simpler).

I'm talking about a R60 with a Core 2 Duo, Intel chipset and ATI
graphics card.

<snip>

Post by Christoph Bier
On my five year old laptop and my wife's ThinkPad WLAN doesn't
work yet and I already spent days with the help of the Debian
and Ubuntu community (not to mention my Nvidia graphics card).
Getting basic things to work doesn't mean fine tuning.

Ah yeah. I've just always made sure that when I buy a laptop
everything's Intel.

The ThinkPad's chipset is Intel. But I really don't want to be
restricted to one manufacturer!

The presence of an nvidia chipset

I don't have a nvidia chipset. I talked about my Nvidia graphics
card (6200 LE, 256 MB RAM) in my desktop PC which has an Intel
chipset, too.

[...]

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 20:20:38 UTC

As a rule of thumb all HP products are supported in Linux (more
accurately: They provide Linux support for their products).

My HP scanner and HP inkjet printer work out of the box.

NoOp

2008-04-25 20:36:04 UTC

As a rule of thumb all HP products are supported in Linux (more
accurately: They provide Linux support for their products).
My HP scanner and HP inkjet printer work out of the box.

Give you $10 if you can help me get my old HP ScanJet 3200C (parallel
port connector) working on Gutsy & Hardy :-)

I use a different scanner (Canon MP750) but want to get this working so
I can install it at a different location.

New thread to respond of course :-)

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 20:46:49 UTC

Post by NoOp
Give you $10 if you can help me get my old HP ScanJet 3200C (parallel
port connector) working on Gutsy & Hardy :-)

Well my HP scanner and printer are using USB ports. Try installing Kooka
and see if it recognises it.

steve

2008-04-25 11:55:35 UTC

Mario Vukelic wrote:
| On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:20 +0200, Christoph Bier wrote:
|> Yes, and it really bothers me! None of my Add-ons works anymore,
|> sound does not work and after installing FF2---yes, it had to be
|> reinstalled, because it was removed by the upgrade---the previous
|> session with about 30 opened webpages with very important research
|> content couldn't be restored.
|
| Whatever the issues with FF3 vs. FF2, are you saying that you upgraded
| while the browser was running with 30 important pages open? And you
| expected that all would work absolutely flawless and now are pissed that
| you lost your browser session?
|
|

everyone repeat after me.

1. BACKUP all work before proceeding with an upgrade.

- --
Steve Reilly

http://reillyblog.com

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-25 12:31:38 UTC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
|> Yes, and it really bothers me! None of my Add-ons works anymore,
|> sound does not work and after installing FF2---yes, it had to be
|> reinstalled, because it was removed by the upgrade---the previous
|> session with about 30 opened webpages with very important research
|> content couldn't be restored.
|
| Whatever the issues with FF3 vs. FF2, are you saying that you upgraded
| while the browser was running with 30 important pages open? And you
| expected that all would work absolutely flawless and now are pissed that
| you lost your browser session?
|
|
everyone repeat after me.
1. BACKUP all work before proceeding with an upgrade.

Hi Steve
your calling for everyone repeating after you ...
... is the wrong attitude !

Well, If Foxmarks fails to install with a too new FF release, I can
understand ...
... but I do not understand why it shall not work with the previous
stable version anymore !!

Here is a snip of Mozilla's support to me - Please READ carefully:

X-X Yeah, I don't quite understand why Ubuntu is punishing its users by
X-X installing Firefox 3 by default; very few add-ons are ready for use
on
X-X that platform.
X-X
X-X The download error you're experiencing under Firefox 2 is likely due
to
X-X a corrupt Firefox profile; downgrading a profile from Firefox 3 to
X-X Firefox 2 is quite likely to cause problems. You can find more
X-X information about how to create a new profile here:

XX http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Managing+profiles

Please take notice what the given link shows.
It starts with Windows instructions and clicking on Linux ...
... it still show the same Windows instruction. ;-((

This happens with FF2 & FF3 on two systems !! ;-((

Well, I would not mind if installation would work properly:
With a proper installation i / one can easily downlaod the stored
bookmarks from Foxmarks ! ;-)

Like this indeed, without the bookmark getting sync'ed it becomes a
fatal and vital case !!!

Cheers, svobi

NoOp

2008-04-25 17:39:52 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
X-X Yeah, I don't quite understand why Ubuntu is punishing its users by
X-X installing Firefox 3 by default; very few add-ons are ready for use
on
X-X that platform.
X-X
X-X The download error you're experiencing under Firefox 2 is likely due
to
X-X a corrupt Firefox profile; downgrading a profile from Firefox 3 to
X-X Firefox 2 is quite likely to cause problems. You can find more
XX http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Managing+profiles
Please take notice what the given link shows.
It starts with Windows instructions and clicking on Linux ...
... it still show the same Windows instruction. ;-((

It's a problem with the web page.

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
This happens with FF2 & FF3 on two systems !! ;-((

It happens in any browser - it's a web page problem.

To start the profile manager:

firefox -P

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 12:31:24 UTC

Post by steve
|> Yes, and it really bothers me! None of my Add-ons works anymore,
|> sound does not work and after installing FF2---yes, it had to be
|> reinstalled, because it was removed by the upgrade---the previous
|> session with about 30 opened webpages with very important research
|> content couldn't be restored.
|
| Whatever the issues with FF3 vs. FF2, are you saying that you upgraded
| while the browser was running with 30 important pages open? And you
| expected that all would work absolutely flawless and now are pissed that
| you lost your browser session?
|
|
everyone repeat after me.
1. BACKUP all work before proceeding with an upgrade.

Yes, you're right. See my answer to Mario.

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Kristian Rink

2008-04-25 12:46:23 UTC

Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:55:35 -0400

Post by steve
| Whatever the issues with FF3 vs. FF2, are you saying that you
upgraded | while the browser was running with 30 important pages
open? And you | expected that all would work absolutely flawless and
now are pissed that | you lost your browser session?
|
|
everyone repeat after me.
1. BACKUP all work before proceeding with an upgrade.

Of course. :) But then again, to me this doesn't explain why, on a Long
Term Support system, the default browser to be installed is a beta
release of a modular, extensible application like Firefox. Knowing that
(a) a lot of users rely upon plugins, extensions and the like, (b)
quite some of these are likely not to work with a beta version (if
they're upgraded to FF3 at all, but that's possibly another story), to
me this seems like just begging for trouble, knowing in advance
that this will damage a lot of things to many. Maybe this is the one
badness that one will remember about the release of 8.04. You're right,
backing things up before doing an upgrade is one thing. Dapper has had
Firefox 1.5 in it, preferring stability to "up-to-date" software. I
don't completely understand why this philosophy seems to have been
abandoned on the way to Hardy...

Cheers,
Kristian

--
Kristian Rink * http://zimmer428.net * http://flickr.com/photos/z428/
jab: kawazu at jabber.ccc.de * icq: 48874445 * fon: ++49 176 2447 2771
"One dreaming alone, it will be only a dream; many dreaming together
is the beginning of a new reality." (Hundertwasser)

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 13:16:41 UTC

Post by Kristian Rink
Of course. :) But then again, to me this doesn't explain why, on a Long
Term Support system, the default browser to be installed is a beta
release of a modular, extensible application like Firefox. Knowing that
(a) a lot of users rely upon plugins, extensions and the like, (b)
quite some of these are likely not to work with a beta version (if
they're upgraded to FF3 at all, but that's possibly another story), to
me this seems like just begging for trouble, knowing in advance
that this will damage a lot of things to many. Maybe this is the one
badness that one will remember about the release of 8.04. You're right,
backing things up before doing an upgrade is one thing. Dapper has had
Firefox 1.5 in it, preferring stability to "up-to-date" software. I
don't completely understand why this philosophy seems to have been
abandoned on the way to Hardy...

I think some wrong decision takes place from time to time. They are not
perfect. :-)

I suppose one can uninstall Firefox 3 Beta, delete the Firefox
configuration directory from the user's home directory, install Firefox
2.0.0.x from universe repository and run it.

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 13:44:04 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
I suppose one can uninstall Firefox 3 Beta, delete the Firefox
configuration directory from the user's home directory, install
Firefox 2.0.0.x from universe repository and run it

Actually, one can simply install FF2 and keep using it, even switch
between 3 and 2 at will. I know svobi has experienced problems with
that, but AFAICT that's unusual. For me, e.g., it just worked.

Kristian Rink

2008-04-25 13:53:16 UTC

Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:44:04 +0200

Actually, one can simply install FF2 and keep using it, even switch
between 3 and 2 at will. I know svobi has experienced problems with
that, but AFAICT that's unusual. For me, e.g., it just worked.

I have seen some smaller woes, nothing really worth mentioning. But it
somehow made me think... So far it seemed Ubuntu pretty much cared
about the user, about being, well, friendly and helpful and not in your
way. Firefox 3 being quietly installed as default which, in turns,
quietly takes control of your profile without asking or preventing any
negative experiences is not that helpful, given that in worst
cases I have experienced my profile not being usable anymore with
Firefox 2 after having just once launched FF3 on such a machine...

Cheers,
Kristian

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 12:27:40 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
In any case, I would like to see if anyone has/had any troubles with
Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Ubuntu 8.04 final.

You can always install Ubuntu 7.10 which works very well, was released
before 6 months and is very stable.

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 12:59:57 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
In any case, I would like to see if anyone has/had any troubles with
Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Ubuntu 8.04 final.

You can always install Ubuntu 7.10 which works very well, was released
before 6 months and is very stable.

I chose Ubuntu because I want to use new software and a well
preconfigured system---otherwise I was very satisfied with Debian. I
don't have the time to reinstall Gutsy and configure everything
again on Gutsy which wasn't that stable on my machine with
completely new hardware.

Please don't misunderstand me. There's no need for anybody to stand
up for Ubuntu. Ioannis asked for experiences with FFB5 on Ubuntu and
I answered to his question---urgently annoyed =|. With an increasing
lack of time my requirements to software/OS seem to change.[1]

Best
Christoph

[1] There are four Ubuntu machines I have to administrate: My
desktop machine, my wife's and my laptop and my office PC. I'm not
an administrator, just a scientific and typesetting *user* with a
need for efficient and suitable tools (on recent hardware).
Upgrading those four machines and fixing new problems takes me about
two days. That's just too much. Maybe it's necessary! But I'll give
MacOS X a try even if I really don't like proprietary software (my
most important tools will still be FOSS even on MacOS X).

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Shannon McMackin

2008-04-25 15:30:52 UTC

Post by Christoph Bier
[...]

Post by Felipe Figueiredo
Also note, as I and others mentioned, that you were wrong when you said
the beta was included *instead* of the stable, so this is actually a
non-issue.

While upgrading FF2 was removed! I could reinstall it ... but see below.

Post by Ioannis Vranos
I do not agree with this view. When something is Beta, it is Beta.

I'm surprised about Ubuntu's decision, too!

Post by Ioannis Vranos
In any case, I would like to see if anyone has/had any troubles with
Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Ubuntu 8.04 final.

I may not be the 1st to say this, but why upgrade when in the middle of
"important" work. It could've waited until the work was done.

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 16:16:30 UTC

[...]

Post by Shannon McMackin

Post by Christoph Bier
Yes, and it really bothers me! None of my Add-ons works anymore,
sound does not work and after installing FF2---yes, it had to be
reinstalled, because it was removed by the upgrade---the previous
session with about 30 opened webpages with very important research
content couldn't be restored. I'm that displeased with this upgrade
again---previous upgrades took me so much time, too---that I'll
check out Mac OS X now---after 10 ten years of Linux ... As a former
Debian user I was really pleased by the birth of Ubuntu and spread
it where it was possible. But an upgrade shouldn't be that time
consuming for users. YMMV
Best
Christoph *maybe overreacting*

I may not be the 1st to say this, but why upgrade when in the middle of
"important" work. It could've waited until the work was done.

Yes, you are right. There are other reasons for thinking about a
differnt OS. I really was overreacting ...

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

NoOp

2008-04-25 17:23:48 UTC

I wonder if the old profile is still there. Can you look in
~/.mozilla/firefox and see if you have multiple profile folders?

Christoph Bier

2008-04-25 19:32:31 UTC

I wonder if the old profile is still there. Can you look in
~/.mozilla/firefox and see if you have multiple profile folders?

It's still there and there a multiple profile folders. It uses the
correct profile (tested with firefox-2 -P).

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

NoOp

2008-04-25 19:50:16 UTC

I wonder if the old profile is still there. Can you look in
~/.mozilla/firefox and see if you have multiple profile folders?

It's still there and there a multiple profile folders. It uses the
correct profile (tested with firefox-2 -P).

And :-)

When you open the old profile were the sessions restored? I have this
"feature" turned off on mine so I can't advise further; however when I
have multiple tabs open for research, I save them as a bookmark set
(Bookmarks|Bookmark All Tabs). That way, I just reopen the bookmark &
all tabs get restored.

Christoph Bier

2008-04-26 10:18:58 UTC

I wonder if the old profile is still there. Can you look in
~/.mozilla/firefox and see if you have multiple profile folders?

It's still there and there a multiple profile folders. It uses the
correct profile (tested with firefox-2 -P).

And :-)
When you open the old profile were the sessions restored?

No.

Post by NoOp
I have this
"feature" turned off on mine so I can't advise further; however when I
have multiple tabs open for research, I save them as a bookmark set
(Bookmarks|Bookmark All Tabs). That way, I just reopen the bookmark &
all tabs get restored.

Since I migrated from the Mozilla Suite to Firefox my bookmarks are
muddled and I stopped using them until I will have the time to
repair the chaos ...

Best
Christoph

--
+++ Typografie-Regeln: http://zvisionwelt.de/downloads.html (1.6)

Senectus .

2008-04-24 14:59:55 UTC

I've been using 8.04 since the beta, and am very much impressed with
the improvements of Firefox.
In my experience it's faster and more stable than ver2!

Only downside is that there are not a lot of compatible extensions,
tool bars etc for it. (I miss my mouse gestures!!)

--
Ubuntu Hardy 8.04
The less you know, the more you believe. - Bono
The more you know the less you need to say. - Jim Rohn
http://outcampaign.org/

Avi Greenbury

2008-04-24 15:15:27 UTC

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:49:39 +0300

I found FF 3b5 to be considerably more stable than FF2 under 7.10.
With whatever point release of FF2 I had before, I'd have apparently random, and certainly not requested, exiting of Firefox, or lockups that required killing from the command line. No crashes yet with FF 3b5.
FF 3b5 is certainly not noticeably less stable under 8.04b that 7.10, but I've not had cause to measure it.

In short, I've had no problems with the beta of FF3, and I imagine it's increased stability over FF2.x is a part of the reason it's in 8.04

--
Avi Greenbury

DigitalPig

2008-04-24 15:23:50 UTC

Because the idea of Ubuntu I think. In opensource community, beta does
*NOT* mean something with a lot of bugs. In contrast, beta means there
is a lot of improvements and the developers want people to install and
try. Some times it's only because of the software development policy. For
example, Debian has a very long testing period of beta to make sure that
everything works fine on all architectures. Sometimes it is almost
perfect on i386, but not enough reports from the situation on the sparc
machine. They will keep the distribution as "test". But in fact, it is
already usable in i386.

I think same thing happens here. Firefox is a cross-platform and huge
software. The testing needs to cover all platforms with many OS and
machines. There are very unlikely big bugs existing now. You can try it
out if you like pursuing the latest functions.

--
DigitalPig
E-mail: digitalpiglee AT gmail DOT com
ALL WE SEEN IS ILLUSION.

*Fudan University Macromoleculer Science Forum*
http://fudanmacro.com

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-24 16:08:38 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Why this Beta was chosen to be
included in Ubuntu 8.04 instead of the stable version?

Well, there is no newer version, or else it would have been included.
The official release notes state that an upgrade to the final FF3 "may
be considered" after release.
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/804

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-24 23:32:53 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Why this Beta was chosen to be
included in Ubuntu 8.04 instead of the stable version?

With Hardy 8.04RC, FF3 and the need of Foxmarks one runs into
problems ! ;-(

Foxmarks told me, it's for an older version and I installed FF2 parallel
to the existing FF3.

Now I am also having problems installing all needed extensions into
FF2 !!
It brings an installation failure and points to -203 !?

Accordingly to Mozilla support it shall be a FF profile error and
I will have to do some further tests today to try overcoming:

If impossible/unable: Hardy 8.04 is not my candidate with FF3 !!! ;-(

Take care before you run into this problem.
Cheers, svobi

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 04:39:55 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
With Hardy 8.04RC, FF3 and the need of Foxmarks one runs into
problems ! ;-(
Foxmarks told me, it's for an older version and I installed FF2
parallel to the existing FF3.

Can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking in FF3?

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-25 08:58:58 UTC

Can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking in FF3?

Hi Mario,
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(

I am believing that the decision combining FF3 & 8.04 isn't effectively
a good idea !

8.04 is released now ...
... and runs with FF3 as Beta stuff and some even not really adjusted
extensions !! ;-((

IMHO they should have stayed with FF2 and change to FF3 when NO more
Beta. ;-|

Even a complete UN-installation of FF3 doesn't help !!! ;-(((

I have absolutely no idea how and what to do ...
... the same comes from Mozilla support. :...-|

Cheers, svobi

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 09:31:58 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
Can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking in FF3?

Hi Mario,
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(

OK, but ?can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking
in FF3? :)

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
I am believing that the decision combining FF3 & 8.04 isn't effectively
a good idea !
8.04 is released now ...
... and runs with FF3 as Beta stuff and some even not really adjusted
extensions !! ;-((

As frequently discussed already, it was probably the only possible
decision, as Mozilla will stop security support for FF2 during the life
time of 8.04 (LTS!)

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
IMHO they should have stayed with FF2 and change to FF3 when NO more
Beta. ;-|

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/804 says:
-----
Other known issues
Firefox 3
* Ubuntu 8.04 includes Firefox 3.0 beta 5. This was felt to be the
best option despite its pre-release status, in light of the
extended support lifetime of Ubuntu 8.04 and the importance and
complexity of Firefox security updates. Further release
candidates and the final release may be considered for
post-release updates.
-----

So, the final FF3 /will/ make it into 8.04, once it is done.

Also, your bookmark thingy has a beta program in place, according to
their blog. You might want to try and get the beta version for FF3.

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 12:24:47 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
As frequently discussed already, it was probably the only possible
decision, as Mozilla will stop security support for FF2 during the life
time of 8.04 (LTS!)

Yes, but they could update/migrate to FF3 final when it would be
available, and that would be before the cease of security support for FF2.

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-25 13:00:56 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
As frequently discussed already, it was probably the only possible
decision, as Mozilla will stop security support for FF2 during the life
time of 8.04 (LTS!)

Yes, but they could update/migrate to FF3 final when it would be
available, and that would be before the cease of security support for FF2.

Ioannis is correct and I second that too !! ;-)
Cheers, svobi

Avi Greenbury

2008-04-25 14:35:29 UTC

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:00:56 +0800

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Yes, but they could update/migrate to FF3 final when it would be
available, and that would be before the cease of security support for FF2.

Ioannis is correct and I second that too !! ;-)
Cheers, svobi

Given Firefox's tradition of broken extension compatability between major releases, I'd much rather a 'surprise' upgrade to Firefox happened when I'm expecting big upgrades (i.e. when I upgrade the OS) than a passing apt-get upgrade.

--
Avi Greenbury

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 14:47:53 UTC

Post by Avi Greenbury
Given Firefox's tradition of broken extension compatability between
major releases, I'd much rather a 'surprise' upgrade to Firefox
happened when I'm expecting big upgrades (i.e. when I upgrade the OS)
than a passing apt-get upgrade.

Seconded. One other thing that some people seem to forget: you are not
forced to upgrade at all. You can also wait until the final FF3 is in
8.04 and then upgrade. To give users a better chance to make an informed
decision, there maybe should exist a link to the release notes and the
upgrade notes in the update-manager GUI

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 13:37:49 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Yes, but they could update/migrate to FF3 final when it would be
available, and that would be before the cease of security support for FF2.

They cannot change the default browser from FF2 to FF3 after the distro
was released. They /can/ update from FF3 beta to the final.

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-25 14:54:36 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Yes, but they could update/migrate to FF3 final when it would be
available, and that would be before the cease of security support for FF2.

They cannot change the default browser from FF2 to FF3 after the distro
was released.

Why?

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 15:06:32 UTC

Why?

Because it is against all Debian and Ubuntu traditions, which exist for
a reason: when making such a big change like FF2 to FF3, there WILL be
some issues. Whenever you make the switch, unless you wait for months
after FF3 going stable, some extensions WILL not have updated yet.

You cannot force those issue on people through a simple, "normal"
upgrade during the lifetime of Ubuntu 8.04, as they would not expect it.
Ubuntu guarantees that after release there are only security updates and
updates for major issues, and that the functionality will not change.

When making a big distro upgrade like 6.06 to 8.04, people are prepared
to deal with some issues (or should be, we all know from recent
discussions that some are not)

Florian Diesch

2008-04-27 01:00:58 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
As frequently discussed already, it was probably the only possible
decision, as Mozilla will stop security support for FF2 during the life
time of 8.04 (LTS!)

Yes, but they could update/migrate to FF3 final when it would be
available, and that would be before the cease of security support for FF2.

They have to support the version that is installed at release
time. That's what LTS is about.

IMHO there was no good solution for this problem and Ubuntu has just
chosen the least bad.

Florian

--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-27 20:26:03 UTC

Post by Florian Diesch
They have to support the version that is installed at release
time. That's what LTS is about.

Don't they require the latest updates to be installed first, before
providing their support?

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-27 21:03:57 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
Don't they require the latest updates to be installed first, before
providing their support?

? So?

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-25 12:46:59 UTC

Hi Mario
Thanks for your feedback !

Post by Mario Vukelic
Other known issues
Firefox 3
* Ubuntu 8.04 includes Firefox 3.0 beta 5. This was felt to be the
best option despite its pre-release status, in light of the
extended support lifetime of Ubuntu 8.04 and the importance and
complexity of Firefox security updates. Further release
candidates and the final release may be considered for
post-release updates.
-----

Well, at the time when this decision was done it may have been best !
What we indeed have now shows exactly: It's truly not best !!
FF 3 may be quite OK but with its extensions NOT being up-to-date ...
... its a cripple !!!

Post by Mario Vukelic
So, the final FF3 /will/ make it into 8.04, once it is done.
Also, your bookmark thingy has a beta program in place, according to
their blog. You might want to try and get the beta version for FF3.

Sure one day we may have FF5 with beta 3 ;-D

Well, you already pointed few times to be a beta tester ! ;-)
Well, the beta tester club seems to be very exclusive and exquisite !?
Well, I tried to apply and got some words to wait for an
invitation ! ;-(

Positive indeed was Mozilla's support:
It was quite prompt and helpful multiple times but not successful:

I am already testing with FF3 Beta 5 and FF2 on 8.04-RC and now LTS.

Like this 8.04 with FF3 plus FF2 is really no choice ...
... so 7.10 and FF2 has to do until time is really ready for
8.04 with a properly working FF3 and all its extensions.

Cheers, svobi

Shannon McMackin

2008-04-25 15:50:07 UTC

Can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking in FF3?

Hi Mario,
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(
I am believing that the decision combining FF3 & 8.04 isn't effectively
a good idea !
8.04 is released now ...
... and runs with FF3 as Beta stuff and some even not really adjusted
extensions !! ;-((
IMHO they should have stayed with FF2 and change to FF3 when NO more
Beta. ;-|
Even a complete UN-installation of FF3 doesn't help !!! ;-(((
I have absolutely no idea how and what to do ...
... the same comes from Mozilla support. :...-|
Cheers, svobi

Even if they waited until FF3 was gold, don't you think the same thing
would've happened. FF2 to FF3 is a dramatic change and I doubt any
extensions suitable for FF2 would work for FF3. Some may be lucky, but
others obviously not...

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-25 15:59:21 UTC

Post by Shannon McMackin
FF2 to FF3 is a dramatic change and I doubt any
extensions suitable for FF2 would work for FF3. Some may be lucky,
but others obviously not...

I'm not a big extension user, but all reports I have read stated that
the extension API did not change that much, and that most extensions do
work after disabling the compatibility checks (but Svobi seemingly does
not want to hear about it)

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 00:23:22 UTC

Post by Shannon McMackin
FF2 to FF3 is a dramatic change and I doubt any
extensions suitable for FF2 would work for FF3. Some may be lucky,
but others obviously not...

YES, Mario, I do not want to hear it !!!
Ja, Mario, ich will das nicht hoeren !!!

I want to get rid of this stupid Beta FF3 on my / our Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
and use FF2 only UNTIL FF3 is NO MORE beta !!
Ich will weg von dieser bloeden Beta FF3 in meinem/unseren Ubuntu 8.04
LTS
und, bis FF3 NICHT mehr Beta ist, NUR FF2 einsetzten !!

Unfortunately it seems impossible since FF3, according to Mozilla
support, corrupts the extension data !
Leider scheint das unmoeglich, weil FF3, gemaess Mozilla Support,
Extension-Dateien korrumpiert !

Understood ?
Kapiert ?

I appreciate competent assistance and opinions and love to learn. ;-)
We know Murphy's law: Everybody and for a long time will suffer about
this. ;-(

Sorry to say so and this ;-((

Cheers, svobi

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 00:35:33 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Unfortunately it seems impossible since FF3, according to Mozilla
support, corrupts the extension data !

I am not sure I understand what you say. If you follow the procedure I
mentioned in another message of mine, FF3 Beta is removed, FF2 is
installed, and everything should work OK including the add ons for FF2.

I mention again the procedure here:

OS: Ubuntu 8.04 after a fresh clean installation, otherwise backup your
Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks first.

How to migrate to stable firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) from
firefox 3 Beta, until firefox 3 final becomes available.

1. i) Run System::Administration::Synaptic Package Manager.

ii) Press the Search button and type firefox.

iii) By selecting the "Mark for complete removal" boxes, uninstall
the "firefox", "firefox-3.0" and its dependencies packages.

iv) Install "firefox-2" and "firefox-2-gnome-support" packages.

2. Delete the .mozilla directory under your home directory (in my case
/home/john). If you are using nautilus, activate the View::Show Hidden
Files menu item, to do this.

3. Restart Ubuntu 8.04.

Now Firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) is ready to be used from the
menu Applications::Internet.

If it doesn't run at the first attempt, press Alt-F2 and type firefox-2
and press Run.

If anyone has any problems, reply to this message.

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 00:49:06 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Unfortunately it seems impossible since FF3, according to Mozilla
support, corrupts the extension data !

I am not sure I understand what you say. If you follow the procedure I
mentioned in another message of mine, FF3 Beta is removed, FF2 is
installed, and everything should work OK including the add ons for FF2.
OS: Ubuntu 8.04 after a fresh clean installation, otherwise backup your
Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks first.
How to migrate to stable firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) from
firefox 3 Beta, until firefox 3 final becomes available.
1. i) Run System::Administration::Synaptic Package Manager.
ii) Press the Search button and type firefox.
iii) By selecting the "Mark for complete removal" boxes, uninstall
the "firefox", "firefox-3.0" and its dependencies packages.
iv) Install "firefox-2" and "firefox-2-gnome-support" packages.
2. Delete the .mozilla directory under your home directory (in my case
/home/john). If you are using nautilus, activate the View::Show Hidden
Files menu item, to do this.
3. Restart Ubuntu 8.04.
Now Firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) is ready to be used from the
menu Applications::Internet.
If it doesn't run at the first attempt, press Alt-F2 and type firefox-2
and press Run.
If anyone has any problems, reply to this message.

Hi Ioannis
There are warnings of deleting these /home/"john" data !?
I may save and then delete these and retry once more ?
Cheers, svobi

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 01:13:59 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
I am not sure I understand what you say. If you follow the procedure I
mentioned in another message of mine, FF3 Beta is removed, FF2 is
installed, and everything should work OK including the add ons for FF2.
OS: Ubuntu 8.04 after a fresh clean installation, otherwise backup your
Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks first.
How to migrate to stable firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) from
firefox 3 Beta, until firefox 3 final becomes available.
1. i) Run System::Administration::Synaptic Package Manager.
ii) Press the Search button and type firefox.
iii) By selecting the "Mark for complete removal" boxes, uninstall
the "firefox", "firefox-3.0" and its dependencies packages.
iv) Install "firefox-2" and "firefox-2-gnome-support" packages.
2. Delete the .mozilla directory under your home directory (in my case
/home/john). If you are using nautilus, activate the View::Show Hidden
Files menu item, to do this.
3. Restart Ubuntu 8.04.
Now Firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) is ready to be used from the
menu Applications::Internet.
If it doesn't run at the first attempt, press Alt-F2 and type firefox-2
and press Run.
If anyone has any problems, reply to this message.

Hi Ioannis
There are warnings of deleting these /home/"john" data !?
I may save and then delete these and retry once more ?
Cheers, svobi

More precisely, /home/john/.mozilla

You get the same warnings when you try to delete any directory/folder.
If you use the "Move to Trash" option, you get no warning.

NoOp

2008-04-26 01:29:26 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Hi Ioannis
There are warnings of deleting these /home/"john" data !?
I may save and then delete these and retry once more ?
Cheers, svobi

More precisely, /home/john/.mozilla
You get the same warnings when you try to delete any directory/folder.
If you use the "Move to Trash" option, you get no warning.

And this is *still* not a good idea. As I said: just rename it to
/home/<username>/x.mozilla-x if you want to not use the existing
.mozilla directory.

That way if you screw something up you can just rename it back to
/home/<username>/.mozilla

Why do you keep insisting that the directory be deleated rather than
renamed, or at least backed up?

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 01:36:08 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
More precisely, /home/john/.mozilla
You get the same warnings when you try to delete any directory/folder.
If you use the "Move to Trash" option, you get no warning.

And this is *still* not a good idea. As I said: just rename it to
/home/<username>/x.mozilla-x if you want to not use the existing
.mozilla directory.
That way if you screw something up you can just rename it back to
/home/<username>/.mozilla
Why do you keep insisting that the directory be deleated rather than
renamed, or at least backed up?

What can someone screw up after deleting .mozilla?

Felipe Figueiredo

2008-04-26 01:46:00 UTC

Post by NoOp
Why do you keep insisting that the directory be deleated rather than
renamed, or at least backed up?

What can someone screw up after deleting .mozilla?

[This is a perfectly good anecdotal example on why people should beware of
which HOWTOs they follow]

It has already been told here, in response to *your* posts on this and the
other related thread, that this directory stores several kinds of
information and configurations, and for more programs than just Firefox.

If you don't know what you're doing, why are you writing HOWTOs instead of
reading them?

FF

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 01:59:11 UTC

Post by NoOp
Why do you keep insisting that the directory be deleated rather than
renamed, or at least backed up?

What can someone screw up after deleting .mozilla?

[This is a perfectly good anecdotal example on why people should beware of
which HOWTOs they follow]
It has already been told here, in response to *your* posts on this and the
other related thread, that this directory stores several kinds of
information and configurations, and for more programs than just Firefox.
If you don't know what you're doing, why are you writing HOWTOs instead of
reading them?

Few messages ago in this thread, I mentioned:

"OS: Ubuntu 8.04 after a fresh clean installation, otherwise backup your
Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks first".

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 05:56:28 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
"OS: Ubuntu 8.04 after a fresh clean installation, otherwise backup
your Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks first".

Yes but this is the case for you, not for everyone. Your original howto
did not say, "only do this if you have a fresh installation with no
important data in .mozilla, such as ..."

Charly Avital

2008-04-26 06:57:53 UTC

Hi,

This is update to the message I posted on 4/24/08, immediately after
downloading (update-manager -d) all the packages, without problems.
The only problem at the time what that I was not getting any traffic
from the list. After switching from digest mode to current mode,
everything went back to normal.

System Monitor indicates:
Ubuntu 7
Ubuntu
Release 8.04 (hardy)
Kernel Linux 2.6.24-16-generic
Gnome 2.22.1
The new desktop now sports a The Heron.
I don't understand why the "Ubuntu 7".

During installation, I had warning (about openoffice.org
writer2latex.
The critical warning was:
"upgrade aborts now, system could be in unusable state, recovery will
run now (dpkg --configure -a).

I have now a working 8.04. I am almost sure it is lacking X-server,
because the virtual software under which Ubuntu is running uses a
version that is not compatible with 8.04, according to the virtual
software technical People (Parallels 3.0 build 5584), who are working on
a updated build that might be available end June, May 2008. I have no
problem with that, my experience with Parallels is that it's better to
give them ample time to update/test new builds.

I ran $ sudo dpkg --configure -a. The output indicated that a certain
extension was added to openoffice. I have tested openoffice, not in
depth, it seems to be working correctly, no crashes.

Since then I have run the same command line a few times, the output is
always a return to the prompt, therefore I reckon there's nothing more I
can do about this.

Synaptic Package Manager indicates that FF 3.0b5 is installed. But in
fact I am still running 2.0.0.12.

Heron, in spite of whatever component(s) it is lacking, is running well
and stable. Faster and more stable that Gutsy 7.10.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Charly
MacOS X 10.5.2 - Ubuntu 8.04 (under virtual ware) - GnuPG 1.4.9 - gpg2
2.0.9 - Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (20080227) - Enigmail 0.95.6

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 02:39:22 UTC

Hi Ioannis
There are warnings of deleting these /home/"john" data !?
I may save and then delete these and retry once more ?
Cheers, svobi

More precisely, /home/john/.mozilla
You get the same warnings when you try to delete any directory/folder.
If you use the "Move to Trash" option, you get no warning.

Of course, Ioannis ! ;-)
I didn't mean these system warnings ...
... I more meant some human voices / warning to delete these !! ;-))

Myself I wouldn't delete the folder:
Each profile creates an own entry and these entries I think to
delete !?

Thanks for efforts and cheers,
svobi

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 11:37:10 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
OS: Ubuntu 8.04 after a fresh clean installation, otherwise backup your
Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks first.
How to migrate to stable firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) from
firefox 3 Beta, until firefox 3 final becomes available.
1. i) Run System::Administration::Synaptic Package Manager.
ii) Press the Search button and type firefox.
iii) By selecting the "Mark for complete removal" boxes, uninstall
the "firefox", "firefox-3.0" and its dependencies packages.
iv) Install "firefox-2" and "firefox-2-gnome-support" packages.
2. Delete the .mozilla directory under your home directory (in my case
/home/john). If you are using nautilus, activate the View::Show Hidden
Files menu item, to do this.
3. Restart Ubuntu 8.04.
Now Firefox 2.0.0.x (currently 2.0.0.14) is ready to be used from the
menu Applications::Internet.
If it doesn't run at the first attempt, press Alt-F2 and type firefox-2
and press Run.
If anyone has any problems, reply to this message.

Hi Ioannis
There are warnings of deleting these /home/"john" data !?
I may save and then delete these and retry once more ?
Cheers, svobi

More precisely, /home/john/.mozilla
You get the same warnings when you try to delete any directory/folder.
If you use the "Move to Trash" option, you get no warning.

Of course, Ioannis ! ;-)
I didn't mean these system warnings ...
... I more meant some human voices / warning to delete these !! ;-))
Each profile creates an own entry and these entries I think to
delete !?

The approach of the procedure I provided, is to have only one version of
Firefox running, the stable one, so as to avoid possible conflicts
between the Beta and the Stable, add-ons included.

Also I do not think many people want to run both versions side by side.
Either they will stick with the Beta and what it means (possible bugs,
add-ons not working, hacking it to make things work etc), or the Stable
version alone.

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 06:01:54 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
YES, Mario, I do not want to hear it !!!
I want to get rid of this stupid Beta FF3 on my / our Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
and use FF2 only UNTIL FF3 is NO MORE beta !!

Who prevents you from launching FF2 instead of FF3?

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Unfortunately it seems impossible since FF3, according to Mozilla
support, corrupts the extension data !

Is that so? Do you have a link to the bug report? Just asking to learn,
because it's the first time I hear that, for most people it seems to
work fine. Is this the case only with your bookmark extension?

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 06:32:21 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
YES, Mario, I do not want to hear it !!!
I want to get rid of this stupid Beta FF3 on my / our Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
and use FF2 only UNTIL FF3 is NO MORE beta !!

Who prevents you from launching FF2 instead of FF3?

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Unfortunately it seems impossible since FF3, according to Mozilla
support, corrupts the extension data !

Yes, Mario
My bug report has a # !

A handful answers always came from the same person !!

Well, for me it's not fatal nor vital ...
... since it's only the test environment and $
I am very very happy I didn't rush with my PROD system !!! ;-D

Sometime later next week I will give another try a clean install
of 8.04 LTS and I will see how I get along with all these current
experience and knowledge.

Will get back to this after my try again ! ;-)

Hava nice weekend,
cheers, svobi

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 06:37:39 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
Is this the case only with your bookmark extension?

Hi Mario,
Sorry, I overlooked your last question in my reply:

No, NONE of the 7 liked / needed / wanted extensions are
abending with the same installation failure and -203 !

Of course, if according to Mozilla's Support explanation, something
with the extension file has gotta corrupted !?

However, thanks for your assistance and concerns.
Schoenes Wochenende, svobi

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 06:47:24 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
No, NONE of the 7 liked / needed / wanted extensions are
abending with the same installation failure and -203 !
Of course, if according to Mozilla's Support explanation, something
with the extension file has gotta corrupted !?

I see. Hmmm, and you have no backup, right (sorry, I forgot, too many
threads about this going on)

It's not the usual behavior, though. Bad luck :(

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 07:08:44 UTC

I see. Hmmm, and you have no backup, right (sorry, I forgot, too many
threads about this going on)
It's not the usual behavior, though. Bad luck :(

Ciao Mario
No, a backup isn't needed here !

it's was a test installation with Hardy 8.04-RC and from begin there
were problems ...
Since using Foxmarks all systems I use, are having the same
bookmarks ! ;-)

If I am on a strange system anywhere:
Accessing my Foxmarks account brings my bookmarks everywhere !! ;-))

Comfortable and smart ...
... as long Foxmarks can be installed !!! ;-|

So, I stop for now and enjoy the festive weekend with some parties. ;-D
Schoenes Wochenende und erhol Dich gut vom Mailing-Stress.
Cheers, svobi

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 07:24:02 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
So, I stop for now and enjoy the festive weekend with some
parties. ;-D

Have fun!

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Schoenes Wochenende und erhol Dich gut vom Mailing-Stress.

LOL. Ich m?sste mal gesund werden ...

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 06:48:45 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
Is this the case only with your bookmark extension?

Hi Mario,
No, NONE of the 7 liked / needed / wanted extensions are
abending with the same installation failure and -203 !
Of course, if according to Mozilla's Support explanation, something
with the extension file has gotta corrupted !?
However, thanks for your assistance and concerns.
Schoenes Wochenende, svobi

OOPpss ...

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
No, NONE of the 7 liked / needed / wanted extensions are
abending with the same installation failure and -203 !

Correct would be:
No, ALL of the 7 liked / needed / wanted extensions are
abending with the same installation failure and -203 !

Sorry for the confusion caused ;-(
Cheers, svobi

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 07:05:50 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
No, ALL of the 7 liked / needed / wanted extensions are
abending with the same installation failure and -203 !
Sorry for the confusion caused ;-(

I understood as much :)

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 00:11:39 UTC

Post by Shannon McMackin

Can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking in FF3?

Hi Mario,
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(
I am believing that the decision combining FF3 & 8.04 isn't effectively
a good idea !
8.04 is released now ...
... and runs with FF3 as Beta stuff and some even not really adjusted
extensions !! ;-((
IMHO they should have stayed with FF2 and change to FF3 when NO more
Beta. ;-|
Even a complete UN-installation of FF3 doesn't help !!! ;-(((
I have absolutely no idea how and what to do ...
... the same comes from Mozilla support. :...-|
Cheers, svobi

Hi Shannon
You are correct and do agree with you !

8.04 is LTS and FF3 is Beta ...
... all future downloads will now face the problem we are discussing
endlessly here !!

It will lead to a bad and disappointing impression to Ubuntu !!! ;-((

Cheers, svobi

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 00:24:34 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
Hi Shannon
You are correct and do agree with you !
8.04 is LTS and FF3 is Beta ...
... all future downloads will now face the problem we are discussing
endlessly here !!
It will lead to a bad and disappointing impression to Ubuntu !!! ;-((

However luckily there is a fix. Remove Firefox 3 Beta completely,
install the Firefox 2 stable, and erase the Firefox 3 Beta settings by
erasing .mozilla in the home folder of the user.

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 00:45:09 UTC

However luckily there is a fix. Remove Firefox 3 Beta completely,
install the Firefox 2 stable, and erase the Firefox 3 Beta settings by
erasing .mozilla in the home folder of the user.

Hi Ioannis,
All this I have done already and with NO success ! ;-(

If you have ready my postings you know that Mozilla Support checks ...
... not successfully since a week !! ;-((

At present situation: I stay with 7.10 & FF2 for my prod system !!! ;-)

Cheers, svobi

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 05:58:19 UTC

Post by Ioannis Vranos
However luckily there is a fix. Remove Firefox 3 Beta completely,
install the Firefox 2 stable, and erase the Firefox 3 Beta settings by
erasing .mozilla in the home folder of the user.

Are you stupid or are you a troll, intent on harming other users? Stop
making this WRONG recommendation already. In how many threads do we have
to tell you this?

Mario Vukelic

2008-04-26 06:50:25 UTC

Ugh, please excuse the rudeness. I had a bad night :(

David Vincent

2008-04-26 15:34:14 UTC

Post by Mario Vukelic
Ugh, please excuse the rudeness. I had a bad night :(

we all have 'em. you're excused.

- -d

NoOp

2008-04-25 18:08:27 UTC

Can't you simply disable the extension compatibility checking in FF3?

Hi Mario,
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(

So file a bug so that it can be fixed! After you attempt to install
Foxmarks in FF2:

Tools|Error Console|click on the file line below "installLocation has no
properties" & note the line number. Attach that file to your bug report
(both launchpad & to the Foxmarks develper.

SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux

2008-04-26 00:39:37 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(

So file a bug so that it can be fixed! After you attempt to install
Tools|Error Console|click on the file line below "installLocation has no
properties" & note the line number. Attach that file to your bug report
(both launchpad & to the Foxmarks develper.

Hi NoOp
As mentioned many times in my messages ...
... Mozilla Support has gotta everything a week ago and
I have gotta some feedback from them too !!

Had applied for beta test but the club seems full house and exquisite:
One has to wait to be invited !? ;-p

Seems somewhat messy !? ;-|

Cheers, svobi

NoOp

2008-04-26 02:01:45 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(

Hi NoOp
As mentioned many times in my messages ...
... Mozilla Support has gotta everything a week ago and
I have gotta some feedback from them too !!
One has to wait to be invited !? ;-p
Seems somewhat messy !? ;-|
Cheers, svobi

"Mozilla support" is the same as here - all volunteer responders.

You can still file a bug with Ubuntu.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/
https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox

You can also file a bug with Mozilla:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

*And* you can file a bug with the bookmark extension via:
http://www.foxmarks.com/
http://wiki.foxmarks.com/wiki/Foxmarks:_Reporting_a_Bug

Point being is that if you think you have found a valid issue, file a
bug report. You can start as many threads as you wish here, go on, and
on, and on, about not being able to run your non-Ubuntu Firefox
extension on this list or elsewhere, but none of that matters if the
folks that work on the code don't see your issue.

I've already shown you (in another post) how to install your extension
in FF2 on Hardy, so still file a bug and report how it was resolved.
That way the developers may be able to modify their code so that others
do not experience the same problem in the future. You've now learned
something... pass it along.

Ioannis Vranos

2008-04-26 11:32:22 UTC

Post by SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux
It's even more worse: I am UN-able to install Foxmarks to FF2. ;-(

"Mozilla support" is the same as here - all volunteer responders.
You can still file a bug with Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
http://www.foxmarks.com/
http://wiki.foxmarks.com/wiki/Foxmarks:_Reporting_a_Bug

There has been some dispute between Mozilla and Debian in the past. I am
p[osting this link here, because I am not sure Mozilla will accept any
bug reports:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=74

Oliver Grawert

2008-04-26 12:19:00 UTC

hi,

Post by Ioannis Vranos
There has been some dispute between Mozilla and Debian in the past. I am
p[osting this link here, because I am not sure Mozilla will accept any
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=74

thats a pretty unrelated bug about trademark issues in debian which dont
exist in ubuntu, ubuntu works closely together with teh mozila folks o
its patches.

ciao
oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20080426/d8b00265/attachment.pgp>

NoOp

2008-04-27 18:23:31 UTC