What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
141 Comments
- palmer, on 10/12/2007, -11/+139And of course, people who pointed this out earlier today were modded down by the usual 'tards.
- Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53No. There's nothing wrong with the software, it just makes Mozilla's life more difficult to have so many people downloading it before it's officially released.
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51Not it hasn't. Just because it's on a server doesn't make it a release.
Edit: Just to clarify, they're still indending to release on Tuesday, as far as I can understand. - xXShadowstormXx, on 11/08/2007, -7/+44Don't bury me too hard for asking a question, but does this mean I have to uninstall my 2.0 version that I got from ftp.mozilla.com and revert back to 1.5 for the time being?
Honest question here. - dioxmat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35More links on the subject:
http://cbeard.typepad.com/mozilla/2006/10/quick_update.html
http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/10/23/its_not_like_were_ashamed.html - comrade693, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41If you had read the story, you would know that you are wrong.
- JaytB, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35I never realized this. When it was posted on Digg I immediately downloaded it and installed it without further thinking. Seemed logical that it could have been available on the Mozilla servers just a couple of days before release. Whether or not it's the final version is not the point but I never thought I would actually hurt Mozilla with this action. It's good to read an article like this to make people aware. I know I am after reading this.
- justdave, on 11/08/2007, -2/+32There's nothing wrong with it if you already downloaded it. The problem is that Mozilla survives on donated bandwidth from a few hundred mirror sites, and it takes time to distribute the files to all those mirrors. The files *have* to be posted early in order to make sure all the mirrors have it by the time the download links are posted. There are millions of people using Firefox. There's no single download server that can handle the kind of traffic it generates when everyone tries to update at once. That's why the official download links redirect you to a mirror that still has bandwidth available to spread the load around and make sure everyone can download it quickly. The problem is when people post direct links to a specific mirror to high-traffic sites like digg. You've effectively just killed that mirror, and potentially caused the donor of that mirror to un-donate their bandwidth because their site gets killed. And yes, that includes sites like releases.mozilla.org, which is a DNS round-robin pointing at a bunch of donated bandwidth on third-party sites. The fancy links that send you to somewhere that still has bandwidth available that go on the front page of mozilla.com when it's *officially* released can't be posted until enough mirrors have the files to handle the traffic of 10-15% of the internet showing up to click the download link.
And yes, if you already downloaded 2.0rc3, it's the same file, with a different filename. You don't have to download it over again, you already have it. - sho222, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Spread Firefox!!! NO! Wait... stop spreading firefox... wait until tomorrow.
- dgritsko, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37burying your comment while using firefox 2
- TheBritishGuy1, on 11/08/2007, -3/+28Ironic how I just read that article on Firefox 2... I feel dirty :O
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ccmphtml/ccimages/w7105.jpg
- dpknc84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I can't believe people are screaming at Mozilla so much for providing this software free of charge. So what if they are trying to get a point across?? Deal with it and just respect that come tomorrow everything will be official and you can continue to use one of the best browsers out there, ever.
And no, the customer is not always right like someone said on mozillazine. Customers can be extroadinarily stupid and stubbornly opinionated. - psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12All RCs of every release of Firefox ever have always said the final version. It wouldn't be much of a candidate for release if they had to re-release it to fix the name.
- TennBikeBerk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Firefox is open-source and worked on by members of the public - how are they supposed to maintain this community connection without hosting intermediate builds of it on their FTP servers?
- comrade693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10They certainly don't control the mirrors that people generously donate bandwidth for and host the files for them.
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Umm, that's pretty much exactly what all of the linked pages have said. You're sharp.
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -4/+11lol, I've been using Firefox 2 for about 2 months. And so you all now, swordfish is right, its RC3.
- beltzner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The internet can be so frustrating it's hard not to laugh. Looking through these Digg comments, as well as the comments that have been left on our blogs, I see reactions that I simply cannot understand.
When did Paul, Chris or I ever say "we don't want people downloading our software before it's been released?" If that was the case, we wouldn't post nightly or hourly builds.
When did this become us "berating users" or being angry at people for using Firefox 2 before it was ready?
This has always been about us asking our community to respect the fact that we make builds available as part of our development process BEFORE they are considered to be "released". We do it for every milestone, the final milestone is no different. All we're asking is that you don't call it final until it's actually final. That way people who do want to wait for the final release can do so, and you (you Internet warrior, you!) can get the jump and use the PRE-RELEASE software. We love the fact that you love our software. We really, really, do.
This has been about us waking up on Monday after working all weekend to make sure the release is available on the release date, and after co-ordinating website changes that will launch, and getting those changes tested and translated, and finding Slashdot and Ars Technica (two respected technology news sites) declaring that we'd released Firefox 2 and somehow forgotten to tell anyone about it. It's about our mirrors getting unexpectedly whacked as tens of thousands of people who trust these sites to provide accurate reports come to get official builds through links that aren't load-balancing, and aren't perhaps even pointing at the appropriate locale. It's about helping the people who don't read Digg comments, but rather are just trying to get connected with the latest official final releases from Mozilla. Help us to help them, is what we're asking.
Thanks for your attention and time. - pookpooi, on 11/08/2007, -9/+15Mozilla completely hate digg effect.
- coder_cotton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+72.0 final and 2.0RC3 both are the same build, 20061010
- comrade693, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Clearly, you didn't read the article that is linked, now did you?
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There is nothing wrong with using RC versions, if anything you can help the community by reporting bugs and the like, as well as suggestions.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think the point is that if ftp://foo.com is listed on Digg, then all of the traffic is directed to the one sever instead of the nice network of mirrors that they set up and it kinda ticks off the nice guys a foo.com who were not expecting to get dugg. It is also possible that they add something last minute that would not be in the version that you downloaded early. It is a perfectly reasonable request. Don't peak at your Christmas presents!
- Hoov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Haha intarnet detective on the loose.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Easy solution: use torrents.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6captinherb,
had the same issue-i re-downloaded it and installed again, and then it worked fine, bookmarks and all. I couldn't add bookmarks the first time I installed it. - DooDooFace, on 11/08/2007, -2/+5Wake me up at 3.0
- RobotII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The Customer" is always right.
"A customer" might not be. - gotamd, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4No, and that's one thing they forgot to mention. If you're downloading it from a place like FileHippo that's advertising Firefox 2.0 as being released then most of this argument is mute. AFAIK, the Digg story (on the front page at least) linked to FileHippo, not Mozilla and not an "official" mirror. There are many other unofficial sites now mirroring 2.0 as well.
- succubuskiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think he has a raging clue in >>>>> that direction. lol..
- SubWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Read the stories, people, you might understand their angle, instead of just ***** all over the fact it was on a public ftp server.
Do you really think your average computer user - not a geek - just a regular joe, knows anything about FTP? I mean even using it in FireFox itself.If the link hadn't been posted on /., Digg, etc, the issues of mirror overload and last-minute-changes needed wouldn't have existed in the first place.
I hear it now - "But public FTP..." - go read http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/10/23/its_not_like_were_ashamed.html if you haven't already. Read up on how mirroring works, too, you'll see that it was done this way on purpose. - pexor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yah I got all excited earlier then hovered over the link, saw garbage, then used the Firefox update feature, got nothing, and decided to wait. That was just too shady to fall for. After you browse enough porn, checking the status before clicking is second nature.
- webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I found the Mac version on MacUpdate.com. Shows it was added on Oct 23. I haven't installed it. Perhaps, I can wait until morning and download from mozilla. Can there be any harm in installing the file I got from MacUpdate?
- icexe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3very valid point in the article, i didn;t realize i could really be hurting Firefox adoption rather than helping it in this case. i especially think this point is worth repeating for those who didn't RTFA:
"When you download a build, there could be various content, including certain parts of help, that are not yet ready. When you tell your friends to go download Firefox 2 before we announce it's ready, you're subjecting them to a degraded user experience, which could push them to go back to... other browsers." - Majken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So a fair number of people came in to irc with this issue, and it was infact a problem with the install and the bookmarks weren't actually missing.
http://digg.com/software/Your_bookmarks_aren_t_lost_they_re_just_hiding - pevensen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I didn't think it was released, since my beta didn't automatically update to the released version.
- Pignanelli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My version of Firefox started refusing to 'Save Page As'. (I have to open up Explorer to save a page.) Hoped 2.0 would fix that, but... no joy.
Please advise if you can. - Majken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2totorototoro: you said the bookmarks came back without having to restore them?
For others having the same issue, to avoid having to uninstall reinstall several times: uninstall then delete the folder firefox installed to, (usually in program files on windows) and then reinstall. This will remove any old install files that are causing issues with the new install. - Majken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It's not the idea that people are accessing Firefox 2 early, it's that others are "announcing" it as officially released, which isn't true, and puts an artificial load on the servers. Many people are downloading it that would have waited for an official announcement when the servers were ready for the load.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New interfaces are rarely good. The old firefox interface was fine so theres no need to change. MS only changed IE7's interface so that it is dissimilar to FF enough so 5 years from now people will avoid switching.
- emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6i've got some flavor of it on my computer, but I'm looking forward to the real thing
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is an issue we're seeing unfortunately too often. Most of the time it is being caused by a pc restart or crash. If you're seeing this without restarting your pc PLEASE REPORT IT to bugzilla.mozilla.org and use a summary similar to "bookmarks missing after update, without restarting." As far as we know this doesn't occur without a restart, so if it is happening we'll want to know ASAP.
What happens is the os is terminating firefox before it is done writing to some files. These files then become corrupt and all the data is gone. Most of the files that can be affected don't hold crucial data, but this is why 1.5 had bookmark backups implemented. The corrupted file needs to be deleted and Firefox will replace it with a new one.
If your search plugins are missing and you can't add new bookmarks, or your toolbar customizations keep resetting on start, your localstore.rdf is corrupt: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Localstore.rdf this article explains how to reset it.
To restore your bookmarks, read this article: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Lost_bookmarks . If you restore with a backup but the bookmarks are still missing, try restoring from an earlier backup as firefox has backed up since the corruption. - justdave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4>> So "preed" is saying that they have zero control or don't know how to close
>> an ftp server from public access? Astonishing to say the least.
The zero control thing is exactly it. It's all donated bandwidth from all over the place, the servers aren't controlled by Mozilla. That's how open source works. People contribute to the distribution process just like they contribute to the code.
Mozilla can certainly monitor those sites to make sure they have the correct thing available for download on them, but trying to coordinate getting all of those sites to remove access restrictions at the same time is about as easy as trying to get the files to all of them at the same time. i.e. you can't. Same reason the files get posted early, to make sure they all have them by release time.
>> Well obviously. They do have control over their own domain and ftp sever, which BTW is still open.
Nope, that's not Mozilla's servers either, just their domain name. And Firefox isn't the only product. It would be quite unfair to cut off access to the current 1.5.0.7 release in order to keep people away from 2.0 wouldn't it? :) - 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16Dude needs to STFU and stop whining. If they don't want it out in public it wouldn't be on an open ftp server for all to download.
"Now, before you suggest it, it's not as easy as putting in .htaccess restrictions, or setting the permissions on the files so people can't download them."
So "preed" is saying that they have zero control or don't know how to close an ftp server from public access? Astonishing to say the least. - thepxc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've been running 2.0RC3 for a while (since 2.0Beta1) now... it's pretty stable anyway.
- Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That isn't really any different from looking in the ftp, which the article just said not to do.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3There's ways Mozilla could have guarded against this. A lot of their users are geeks and we're bound to go snooping.
- ntufar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Mozilla foundation earns millions from Google search box we all use:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/14/google_mozilla_tax/
They know that FireFox 2.0 is a highly anticipated release. They should have put that money to good use and have been ready for the rush and prepare for surge in bandwidth usage. -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 