FAQ - Why is my firefox 3.5 still called Shiretoko? - Alexander Sack (asac)'s software site

Tuesday, July 7. 2009

Posted by asac (Alexander Sack) in Ubuntu Mozillateam at 12:28 | Comments (28) | Trackbacks (0)

FAQ - Why is my firefox 3.5 still called Shiretoko?

Jaunty:

11:11 < asac> we only use official branding for our default browser
11:11 < asac> (default for jaunty is 3.0)
11:11 < asac> also we explicitly want both to be installable side by side
11:11 < asac> and same branding would make them indistinguishable on your desktop
11:11 < asac> another point to consider is that branding is part of top-level UI
11:11 < asac> and changing (top-level) UI is not something we do in stable/security updates anyway

Karmic:

12:12 < asac> we only use official branding for our default browser
12:12 < asac> good news is that firefox 3.5 will become our default browser in karmic soon
12:12 < asac> - which is when we will do the branding switch
12:12 < asac> if you are curious, there is a blueprint for transitioning to firefox 3.5 by default
12:12 < asac> it is called desktop-karmic-firefox-3.5 and has lots of TODO's
12:12 < asac> wanna help? join #ubuntu-mozillateam on freenode!

Update: firefox 3.5 is not called Shiretoko in karmic anymore. Thx!

Update: please read http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/161-FAQ-Why-is-my-firefox-3.5-still-called-Shiretoko.html#c927 before commenting on this post.

(See: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-firefox-3.5)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

huh… ive install my firefox manually, n i hv pure 3.5, not shiretoko. not development version but final – 3.5 – version ^_

#1 TMUkmkd (Homepage) on 2009-07-07 12:59 (Reply)

But the problem is that I can’t download add-ons, and even translations, if the browser is called Shiretoko instead of Firefox. Any way to fix that?

#2 Pol on 2009-07-07 13:54 (Reply)

Are you sure this is still the case in the current version in jaunty-updates/-security? We had a bug in the beta package, but we fixed that in this upload. Please try again.

#2.1 asac on 2009-07-07 14:12 (Reply)

Confirmed in fresh package installs

CODE:

Get:1 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-updates/universe firefox-3.5-branding 3.5+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 [156kB]
Get:2 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-updates/universe firefox-3.5 3.5+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 [929kB]
...
Setting up firefox-3.5-branding (3.5+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1) ...
Setting up firefox-3.5 (3.5+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1) ...

#2.1.1 Hasteur on 2009-07-07 14:59 (Reply)

confirmed that its fixed or still broken?

#2.1.1.1 asac on 2009-07-07 15:34 (Reply)

I have reinstalled it and deleted the config files so that it searched again for my plugins… and the same thing has happened. For example, it is unable to find the spanish language add-on.

I’m using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1) .

Maybe I’m doing something wrong?

#2.1.1.1.1 Pol on 2009-07-07 17:01 (Reply)

i find many extensions in tools -> addons -> Get Extensions

I just think there is no spanish translation extensions registered in their database.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 asac on 2009-07-07 17:56 (Reply)

Could be… I don’t know how do language extensions work.

By the way, I’ve realized that the rest of the extensions are working normally for me since I reinstalled firefox -> only translations are missing !

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Pol on 2009-07-07 19:29 (Reply)

I’ve used Ubuntuzilla to update my Firefox to 3.5 on 2 machines, and it worked just fine.

#2.2 Eriq Jaffe on 2009-07-07 15:12 (Reply)

[code]also we explicitly want both to be installable side by side
{/code]

So, since each may have it’s own set of bookmarks, history, passwords, extensions, etc., will they combine correctly when it is rebranded?

#3 Emil on 2009-07-19 07:43 (Reply)

run /usr/lib/firefox-3.5.1/ffox-31-beta-profile-migration-dialog to see the question that we asked when ffox 3.0 became the default (you were able to run it side by side with ffox 2); we will do something similar for this transition.

#3.1 asac on 2009-07-20 09:43 (Reply)

We don’t want them to be installed side-by-side. How do we install 3.5 to REPLACE 3.0? There is no logical reason to have 3.5 as a completely separate program with its own profiles and a different name, which doesn’t integrate well with the desktop, and that then has to be "migrated" for the next release. Developers might want to run them side-by-side, but users do not.

If you install Firefox 3.5 ("Shiretoko") and then open a link, it opens in Firefox 3.0. This is not at all user-friendly or logical.

How do we replace 3.0 with 3.5? There should be a package that does this, which removes 3.0 in the process. Then there can be a separate package for the (very small number of) people who want to run them both at once.

#4 Grr on 2009-08-03 16:42 (Reply)

In Linux (Ubuntu) I went to Preferred Applications and reset my main browser from Firefox to Firefox-3.5 (or whatever it is) and now all links open in Shiretoko. I know Windows has a similar program for doing that. Later I may have to reset it back to Firefox when it gets rebranded back.

#4.1 Emil on 2009-08-04 05:26 (Reply)

This is really a problem – Shiretoko is the browser i have; it id’s itself as NOT firefox, so (for example) I cannot join webinars ("IE or Firefox only supported!"), I cannot run some jquery demos (same reason)—- if this is called one thing, but identifies itself as another (unknown) browser to a server, it is a big functional problem.

#5 Yarko on 2009-08-19 19:36 (Reply)

This does not seem like a sensible move on the developers part. All you have done is to create mass confusion on the part of the users.

This lack of insite has created several problems. I will try to illustrate them briefly.

1. The browser has two names "Firefox 3.5" and "Shiretoko."
2. You have used Mozilla’s code name "Shiretoko" for a release version of Firefox 3.5.
3. The icons used are the same that Mozilla uses for its pre-release software.
4. The release of Firefox 3.5 did not follow the standard progression that users have come to expect.—If a user "upgrades" a program it should not run under a different name.

Just imagine the surprise your dad would have if he downlooaded a Firefox "upgrade" and when it runs it says it is Shiretoko.

What is the first thought that a user will think?
"Gee, there must be something wrong. I downloaded an upgrade for Firefox. It is called ‘Shiretoko’ now ? Did I get the right software. Why has the Firefox logo changed? Maybe I need to fix it, maybe somehow it is pointed to the wrong repository. Maybe a developer made a mistake and released pre-release software.

This needs to be fixed soon.

#6 Barry on 2009-08-22 14:19 (Reply)

Post # 6 is right on the money! If you hold back users from updating then you are certainly not leading edge, user friendly…

"We will decide what is best for you!" but hey all my friends using windows get to use private browsing mode for all their porn, opps, I means private stuff…

I think this show how out of touch Linux is with the main stream. I run it on a variety of computer and discourage most people who ask about it from using it if they are not technically savvy as I do not want to become their computer support.

#6.1 SoundStrange2Me on 2009-09-07 22:01 (Reply)

This is why linux can’t go mainstream, its simply not end-user oriented. How can a bunch of developers come up with such a ludicrous conclusion and call Ubuntu "linux for human beings" it should read "linux for Human geeks"!

#7 ghanaGeek on 2009-08-27 01:01 (Reply)

The naming is a real issue and Ubuntu mozilla-team is not really focusing on end user usability side at all! Usability, where is it???

Hey, Ubuntu slogan "Linux for human beings": Try to follow it rather than specifying code namings for stable Firefox. Give me one good reason why "Shiretoko" is better naming than "Firefox 3.5"? I can’t find any…

#8 Timo (Homepage) on 2009-08-31 08:26 (Reply)

I totally agree, this is insane!

Just while I thought Ubuntu would REALLY be user-friendly, they come up with this! I can see anybody’s confusion when they think they upgrade to firefox 3.5. I think most of the people I recommended Ubuntu to will swiftly migrate back to windows

#9 Eymey on 2009-09-05 01:29 (Reply)

Please do not mix things up. Users that installed ubuntu jaunty, get a really stable user experience. Our promise is to not get upgrade them automatically to new major upstream versions. So everyone except those tech savy folks that really want it now will stay with firefox-3.0 until they upgrade to karmic. Once they upgrade to karmic they will get firefox 3.5 using the proper firefox branding.

If its so important for you to get the official branding, just upgrade to karmic. The stability is probably similar to what you would get in a distro where you get always upgraded to the latest major versions. Try it and then decide if thats the stability you want. If it feels to you lik it might be unstable, then you are in fact someone who wants the stable user experience approach as we deliver it in ubuntu.

Once you understand that and understand why we dont upgrade users to new major upstream versions in a stable ubuntu release, you will understand why your complains and concerns about us not being user friendly are way off.

We are so user friendly because we do not update users to the next major versions of any major desktop component. That’s what distribution upgrades are for. When karmic gets out, users can upgrade to it and get a great and stabilized user experience for a properly branded firefox 3.5.

Thx for listening!

#9.1 asac on 2009-09-05 14:39 (Reply)

I don’t see any comment here that suggest automatically upgrading
jaunty users to firefox-3.5.

This is about users of a stable Ubuntu release, that find a package
named firefox-3.5 in their package manager, and installs it. Should
they not expect a normal firefox 3.5?

There is absolutely nothing in the package description that suggest
that they are installing a development version. The package is not
named shiretoko-3.5. So the Shiretoko "branding" is very confusing,
for no good reason at all. The shiretoko user-agent will even break
some websites that work fine with the official one.

Telling people to upgrade to Karmic, an alpha release, to get a good
firefox-3.5 is just stupid.

#9.1.1 paran on 2009-09-11 02:14 (Reply)

Firefox 3.5 is a stable release, and Ubuntu provides no way to install it without hosing the system. In any other OS, it’s trivial to upgrade to the latest stable version, but not in Ubuntu. Firefox is certainly my most-used app, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that. This is a major usability fail. Preventing users from installing the latest versions of software for 6 months does not make a "stable user experience". It makes a crappy user experience.

Using "firefox-3.0" for the executable and "Shiretoko" for the menus confuses people. Websites say they aren’t compatible with my browser. Clicking a link in any program other than Shiretoko opens the link in Firefox 3.0, not 3.5. AptURL links and other desktop integration features don’t work. Middle-clicking a link constantly gives an error telling me I pasted something that is not a link. Ubiquity is broken because it tries to load commands from both ~/.mozilla/firefox and ~/.mozilla/firefox-3.5. etc etc etc

I wonder if Google’s Chrome OS will finally get things right. I’d happily abandon Ubuntu if there were a better alternative available.

#9.1.2 Sigh on 2009-09-20 17:01 (Reply)

I must say I am unpleasantly surprised by this attitude. The "user is an idiot, we know best" approach is exactly why I left Windows/Microsoft …
As far as the branding – I had a stable and proper Firefox 3.5.2 version, with absolutely no problem, until it was completely messed up by your update. Now, when I try to go to one of the online banking sites, I get a message that this browser is not supported, and have to go through a few more clicks to override this warning. This is insane! Are you trying to scare users away?

#9.1.3 DaveGK on 2009-09-25 20:49 (Reply)

Maybe then that is the confusion – for other platforms (e.g. Fedora-10, Windows) Firefox 3.5 is the "normal" upgrade; so when I ask if I want to use 3.5 in my ubuntu, I assume the same is true there. It is not clear why this is "tech saavy" option on jaunty, and "normal Firefox upgrade" elsewhere in the universe.

Perhaps this is at the core of the problem.

#10 Yarko on 2009-09-05 16:03 (Reply)

I don’t really care that it’s called Shiretoko (although I agree with everyone here who says that it’s moronic), but I do care that it presents its User Agent as something different from a normal install of Firefox 3.5. Because of this it breaks on many websites where it should actually work fine. Huge mistake!

Side-note: I went to www.firefox.com and was able to install the real/properly branded Firefox 3.5 from there. However, I notice that the version from firefox.com does not have smooth fonts like the Shiretoko version. Any ideas why?

To the developers: I appreciate that you are trying to make things "esay/consistent" to the end user, but if you are preventing the user from easily upgrading to a new (non-beta!) version of the most popular browser out there, then you have failed completely at your task. If your solution is to upgrade to the next version of the OS, then you have failed completely at your task. As others have mentioned, this is a no-brainer on any other OS. Sorry.

#11 Bill on 2009-09-23 19:20 (Reply)

The Linux/Unbuntu upgrade model is completely whacked! We have to wait for an entire new OS release to get the latest version of stuff, even stuff that will be very old and stale by that time? But I don’t want to upgrade my OS often, that always leads to issues (ex. driver modules stop working, VMWare stops working, etc. etc.). I am running XP on another computer here and virtually all software for Windows works on it, and I can upgrade to the latest version of anything at any time.

I am so sick of Linux that when my current project for school is finished I will probably swear off it forever.

#12 Brad Aisa on 2009-10-04 09:04 (Reply)

Interestingly, in Windows the 64-bit version of Firefox is branded "Shiretoko," but it is an unofficial, not-supported-by-Mozilla application. It is updated frequently, alongside the official 32-bit releases of Firefox, but add-ons and 32-bit plugins (such as Adobe Flash Player) won’t work. Link associations (opening links from within emails, documents, etc.) also fall apart. The plus side is that the performance on a 64-bit machine excels.

#13 Alex (Homepage) on 2010-01-08 15:35 (Reply)

I know this is a technical subject…

But when doing this, did you ever consider the final normal user??

A relative (who I recently convince of moving to Ubuntu) has to call me because HIS browser has disappeared. For the health of the Ubuntu ecosystem this kind of things should me more carefully considered.

#14 David Castañeda on 2010-01-08 18:17 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Textile-formatting allowed Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry