[HN Gopher] Firefox Developer Edition and Beta: Try Out Mozilla'...
___________________________________________________________________
Firefox Developer Edition and Beta: Try Out Mozilla's .deb Package
Author : feross
Score : 51 points
Date : 2023-11-30 20:03 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hacks.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (hacks.mozilla.org)
| superkuh wrote:
| If you want to be able to edit your add-ons/extensions you'll
| want the unbranded builds instead: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-
| ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...
|
| Just watch out that Mozilla has disabled updates in these builds
| so you have to manually download for each new version/security
| fix.
|
| The normal Firefox releases (except for the unstable
| alpha/aurora/developer version) don't allow you to edit your
| extensions without getting permission for each change from
| Mozilla's security theater automated signing portal.
| Grimburger wrote:
| >Mozilla has disabled updates in these builds so you have to
| manually download for each new version/security fix
|
| Super easy and totally reasonable, thanks Mozilla
| sgift wrote:
| wth? Why would you do this, Mozilla? My Windows Nightly
| updates all the time and it works well?! (same for dev, which
| I used before)
| Tsiklon wrote:
| That direct download is literally just a binary - no
| repository is setup.
| sgift wrote:
| Ah. Thanks. That clears it up, my fault.
| dissident_coder wrote:
| so if I want to avoid godawful snaps on Ubuntu with minimal fuss
| I need to use one of these?
| mcpherrinm wrote:
| You can install it from their binary releases:
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w...
|
| I think if you do the "system" install, it won't be able to
| update itself, but the user install will be able to.
| morsch wrote:
| There's also a PPA:
| https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa
|
| Though you'll have to convince Ubuntu to prefer that instead
| of the snap. It's not hard, certainly easier than installing
| Debian which is probably still what I should have done. I
| think I used this guide:
| https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-
| firefox-d...
|
| Though what that doesn't tell you is that the snap install
| has its own profile folder location. So before you switch to
| one of the other install variants, note the location in
| about:support and make a copy of the folder. Running _snap
| remove firefox_ will actually create a backup of the folder
| (unless you add _--purge_ , so don't), which really saved my
| ass.
| dissident_coder wrote:
| thanks, I'll give the user install a try
| mkasberg wrote:
| That would do it, or do this:
| https://www.mikekasberg.com/blog/2022/03/21/how-to-fix-firef...
| sgift wrote:
| Does this work? Coworker of mine tried to replace the snap and
| said that Ubuntu removed the non-snap and installed the snap
| again. Or does it work because it's beta/dev?
|
| (To add to this: Snap can go and die in the deepest layers of
| hell. What an awful "we have to be special" piece of
| 'technology')
| crosser wrote:
| This will make mozillateam's repo preferred over default
| "snapified": $ cat
| /etc/apt/preferences.d/firefox-ppa-pin-400 Package:
| \* Pin: release o=LP-PPA-mozillateam Pin-
| Priority: 900
| cardanome wrote:
| Yeah, or you switch over to Linux Mint and get a snap-free
| Ubuntu-based distro.
| esaym wrote:
| Like 7 years ago I just went to https://www.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/new/ and hit "Download". I got like a tar archive
| that I uncompressed into ~/firefox. Made a short cut to it on
| my tool bar. It has been auto updating fine ever since.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| I did that as well, but it also means that the binaries can
| be modified by an exploit (running as a regular user). It's
| not a huge difference with the deb, but still, it's a small
| additional layer of security.
| davisr wrote:
| That's a pretty lousy take. Obviously, stuff that executes
| as your user act on your user data. Why would you even have
| a line of code that you don't trust on your machine?
| `chown` it if you care that much.
|
| Also, to the parent comment -- you should be putting stuff
| in ~/.local anyway, not in the top-level home directory.
| WallyFunk wrote:
| Skip Snaps and just run the AppImage for Librewolf here[0]. I
| like the way Librewolf removes all the telemetry crap and
| hardens the browser.
|
| [0] https://librewolf.net/installation/linux/
| gumballindie wrote:
| You can easily remove snapd:
|
| https://www.baeldung.com/linux/snap-remove-disable
|
| Or use one of the 500 linux distros out there or build your
| own.
|
| Linux doesnt force you to use one path. My reply is not meant
| to sarcastic I am just bringing to your attention that you
| absolutely have alternatives, because linux is cool - ubuntu
| included.
| perihelions wrote:
| Related thread from a couple weeks ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38097858 ( _" Mozilla treats
| Debian devotees to the raw taste of Firefox Nightly
| (theregister.com)"_, 103 comments)
| tentacleuno wrote:
| Is there a clear guide as to what differs between Developer
| Edition and regular Firefox? The home-page for the Developer
| Edition project seems to mostly cite the inclusion of devtools,
| though these are of course present in the standard version.
| ghqst wrote:
| Developer edition is dark mode by default and updates way more
| often than standard Firefox.
|
| Besides that I'm not really sure.
| highwind wrote:
| > All the latest developer tools in beta, plus experimental
| features like the Multi-line Console Editor and WebSocket
| Inspector. (from https://www.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/developer/)
|
| This is the biggest difference: Beta dev tool and experimental
| features.
| jtvjan wrote:
| That must be pretty outdated, because I'm on Firefox ESR and
| I have used the multi-line console editor and WebSocket
| inspector.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| The multi-line console editor is already on stable for me, at
| least. It's quite good; definitely recommend trying it out.
| superkuh wrote:
| Originally it was called the "alpha" build if that wording
| makes more sense to you. Over the years it's been renamed to
| "aurora" and now finally "developer". But the gist is that it
| is an alpha with all that implies. I would not use developer
| for my daily driver.
| ascorbic wrote:
| It tracks the beta channel, and has a few different defaults.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I use the two just for mental separation between work and
| personal. You can use tab containers etc but it's nice have a
| different icon and app.
| pacifika wrote:
| I thought they were going the snap route because it saved
| packaging time but now they're introducing another .deb? Perhaps
| a change of strategy?
| shmerl wrote:
| Nice!
|
| Where can the .deb files for beta be seen in a browsebale repo?
|
| This one can't be browsed: https://packages.mozilla.org/apt
|
| UPDATE:
|
| Found it here:
| https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/121.0b5/lin...
|
| UPDATE 2:
|
| Hmm, the annoying thing is that beta package creates firefox-beta
| symlink instead of firefox symlink.
|
| Also, why is it packaged in /usr/lib/firefox-beta?
|
| /usr/lib is a weird location for it. Keeping it in /opt makes
| more sense.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-30 23:01 UTC)