Please, the article basically tells moderately experienced Linux users how to suck eggs. Completely pointless, except as a place for the Microsoft shills to voice their uninformed opinions. To the unwashed: it's not Linux's fault, it's Mozilla's! They could just as easily have neglected the Windows installer. Where would you be then? Don't know how to install a zipped package into Program Files? Tough. Don't know how to make a Start menu shortcut? Tougher. Don't know how to make a Quicklinks link? Toughest! That's basically what this article covers, but for Linux. Standard stuff, right?

But what about dependencies? Well, that's why I came across this article. I'm futzing around with libraries trying to get the thing to run on RHEL4. Mozilla delivers FF3 for Mac and Windows with libraries (libpangocairo, libcairo, gtk and all that). Yet for Linux, all you get is the naked binary. Why, I just don't know. The stupid thing is, the rpm and deb packaged versions should be delivered this way, and let the package manager sort it out. But a tarball should have all the dependencies above the kernel built in. Y'know, kinda like VMware Player?

on linux slackware we have to put firefox (which abbreviation is fx..please..not ff) on shared /usr/lib, but user can use /usr/local also (eg for the default swiftweasel 3), and need sym link to the standard /usr/bin :)

linux is for free users
users should free to know what happen with your own system (stability and security)..it's all open..your machine is yours :) no offense..

TL;DR

All those saying "this is why Linux won't be a contender" are wrong.

There are three ways of installing this software. The most obvious way being to wait until it is added to the Linux distribution used. Then installation is one click in the package manager. I use Fedora 9 on this machine: it installed a Firefox 3 beta release as part of the usual upgrade process and has since automatically updated it to the released Firefox 3.

The second way is to install it in your home directory. Mozilla chose this approach as it fits the usual use case: some Linux user wants a preview of Firefox 3 before it is shipped in their distro. The software is installed it in their home directory in a way which is easily removed when the distribution is updated to include Firefox 3.0 and which disturbs no other users.

The third way described in this article is a variation of the traditional Unix approach to third-party software. And something I thought we'd left behind when we moved to package management. The traditional approach is to install the software under /usr/local/firefox-3.0 and then use symlinks to weave those files into the operating system. For example, /usr/local/bin/firefox is a symlink to whereever in firefox-3.0 the executable is.

People who want to draw conclusions about Linux from this approach should note that Windows 3.0 was the operating system of the era when software was installed this way on Unix-like machines.

Only a foolish person would draw conclusions about Vista from their experience of Windows 3.0. Which is how you look if you draw conclusions about Linux from this out-dated technique.

I work as a C++ programmer, working in companies writing cross platform software, I'm in no way a MS fan. But who cares if the installer on Linux is or isnt a nightmare? I ran Ubuntu with FF2 and noticed every 30mins or so of surfing (on safe sites) it would crash. FF2 on XP SP2 would never crash on those same sites - it was for this reason, (other than that debugging C++ on Linux is a complete joke) I prefered using Windows. Even though I prefer the ethos of Linux.

I manage Windows and Linux environments. And all these comments saying how hard Linux is to install a package are really missing the point. 

The procedure described here is much more akin to how you would install a network application say in an environment where /usr/local is shared. For us this will be a simple matter of copying this tree to a master /usr/local and it will auto roll to several hundred machines (using rsync).

To be honest this is substantially easier than rolling an app out using SMS to a network of windows boxes.

No home user or non sysadmin would ever do this unless they have a desperate desire to play with bleeding edge software. On Linux, you should wait for your distribution to package this for you, so you can install it using your desired one click. Most are there already.

I've never seen such ill thought out opinions based on no knowledge of the technologies or the techniques involved in ux environment. Which to me comes down to "I've no idea what this is really doing, or how this should be done properly by an ordinary user, but it looks tricky so I can slag it off". 

Learn about other OS's, and come back when you can have an opinion based on knowledge. of the platform you are criticising. Take your head out of the MS sand!



that Linux bashing MS supporters can't tell their backend from their frontent.

This is why Linux hasn't replaced Windows for consumers. This procedure is about as easy & painless as do-it-yourself dentistry.

Who uses linux?

Most users use Distributions: Red Hat, Mandriva, etc. For them it is simple download from package manager. Repeat, they do not download from mozilla.

For users who use own version of linux, the the article is relevant, but 99% of people who have own version of linux, probably know the stated facts already.

OK, that looks like allot of stuff just to install a application. I might install it to check it out but I'm happy with Safari and yup OS X is based on Unix just as Linux is, no Microbloat here.

"Under Windows, you just double-click the Setup EXE, and click Next a few times. Consider yourselves laughed at. "

You mean, under Windows, you go to the mozilla website, find the Windows version, download it, double-click the setup.exe, click next a few times, telling UAC to allow it if you're on Vista and haven't disabled UAC.

In Linux, it updates itself along with everything else.

Or you can do it like this if you really must have everything the second it's released before it's been fully tested for your OS, but personally I'm not going to bother.

This is not difficult people. Now that Firefox has been out for a few days most distros have the repositories updated. For example: on Fedora 9 all you have to do is type

"yum -y install firefox" and then you're done. It can't get any easier than that. 

Not a Damn thing to click. What do you Linux bashers have to say now?

Running Kubuntu 8.04 and the firefox 3 final package was released yesterday (19th) and I have it running already. kde adept updater picked it up, and installed it with a few other updates, no restart needed (my server has had 103 days uptime, last downtime was a power failure if you don't include the restart for the major version update to 8.04). linux here on 2 systems and my mrs and son both hardly notice the difference!

I'm running FF3 on XP and it doesn't want me to bring my plugins and settings across user accounts, either. 

I've already solved the problem on my own, but why the finger-pointing? Because Linux commands look scary?

For people complaining that this is too hard, there IS a way to install stuff in Linux instead of using the command line: wait till the packages are released, which shouldn't take that much. That's why packages were developed: of course the Linux developers realized that installing via from source is a mayor PITA. Firefox 3 FINAL should be available soon in packaged form, so if you waited a few days you could just installed them using the packages by just typing one command, or by means of your favorite update manager. And for those Windows users, go and learn how to use Linux before saying anything.

for all you windows peeple cackling at this. this file would be like only recieving a .zip of the files that it takes to run ff3 and them telling you to copy them into your running system yourself.

why mozerella didnt package it into a linux installer i do not know, but it could have been.


also individual distros should pick it up and have it out in simple installer form in a matter of days (or less) i would imagine.

It takes a PHD just to install Firefox on Linux. LOL!

Wow, Linux is so easy. Bet even my Grandma could follow those instructions....with a B.Sc....I read the article twice. Didn't seem to find much Linux bashing for making a simple task like install a program a nightmare. Have to reinstall for each user? Violates Linux blah blah by putting stuff in the wrong folder. Wow, isn't Linux soooo good. If Windows make you click twice to install something, there would be a "VOLE" article about saying about how bad Windows is.

One of the beinfits of Linux, I'm told, is the open source nature and how an entire community of developers can work on it, making improvements quicker than large companies.

So, Linux people, is it so hard? Tech people can do it, but I can tell you after working all day on a computer, I don't want to spend time in command prompt.

Imagine my parents trying to do that? They can barely search in google.

When copying the plugins from usr/lib to usr/local the target paths of the totem files (which are just links) changed. I tried drag'n'drop in a root Nautilus and the terminal method, both did the same. I had to re-link them manually.

Does anyone know how to edit 'links', or copy them without them changing?
(I'm just a recently converted Win techie.)

what a pain in the backside, convoluted way to install an app. ^why linux wont cut it.

Feck me. Anytime someone claims Linux will one day rule the desktop, I point them towards articles like this.


I regret I misread the instructions slightly. They were to install in /usr/local rather than my misread /usr/lib

However, installing in /usr/local as suggested is also a big no-no. The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) expressly prohibits any directories other than the approved set listed. /usr/local/firefox volates the FHS.

My previous suggestion of /usr/local/lib is a standard location for applications. So /usr/local/lib/firefox is quite alright by the FHS

Don't you open source advocates understand that 99% of people want a GUI, and to be able to do that as part of a single click and answer installer program, or a drag, drop and edit.

They do not want to do all this and until this changes Microsoft will rule the home and sme market.

It's not all Microsofts fault

There are a number of problems with the recommended approach.

First, a better location for firefox is /usr/local/lib rather than /usr/lib. To quote the FHS, /usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts

/usr/local/lib is designed for end user execution. Arguably /usr/local/bin might be a better location, but /usr/local./lib is pretty common for applications.

Secondly, the supplied package expands to a directory tree rooted on firefox. This means that the install directory (in conformance with FHS) would be /usr/local/lib/firefox.

Thirdly, simply linking KDE/Gnome to /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox is not such a good idea. It means that the only way to access it is via KDE or Gnome.

What is much more useful is to create a link /usr/bin/firefox -> /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox Then any command line can fire up a copy of firefox without a special search path. KDE and Gnome should use the /usr/bin/firefox link for future upgrade ease.

As a final comment. Firefox 3 is a bit sucky if you ask me. The fonts are horrid and difficult to read, the new 'open all in tabs' behaviour is totally different to Firefox 2 and is just not nice to use. As for reliability - well I've had a few crashes today already,

My advice? Wait for a few bug fixes to be released and hammer mozilla about the tab behaviour till they fix it.

Under Windows, you just double-click the Setup EXE, and click Next a few times. Consider yourselves laughed at.

Why can't you click on "install" and it just does it?

And what about "update" and it just does it?

Why does every user of linux have to type more or less the same thing for these installs? It's so inefficient. It should be written once so that all users can benefit from the time saved.

A simple program that asks for where you want to place the new/update installation is all that's needed, something that can handle unpacking, grepping and all that jazz.

Is there a Linux writer out there who thinks this would help make Linux more attractive to the masses, do you want to be a bit famous, possibly make some extra money too? Please make this.

Oh yeah, why such elaborate instructions for Linux users? We know it all already. 

And you can call me "Q". Cya ... gotta get back to The Continuum.

Assuming you have multiple users, why not just create a "standard" profile and copy it to the other users? The folder to copy is the one labeled Mozilla. It is hidden so you'll need to reveal it, but that's easy. All it takes is a leeeetle reading and learning.

Better yet, why not just let people figure out for themselves after consulting the Mozilla site for instuction. People do that don't they? No, really, don't they? You know, read the instructions then begin the work. I mean, really they do, they must, they really should you know....don't they??? oh well.....Frakk.

This is why Linux won't make it. Who wants to go through this malarky just to install an app?