158
Announcing Faster, Lighter Firefox Downloads for Linux with .tar.xz Packaging! (blog.nightly.mozilla.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/linux@lemmy.ml
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PushButton@lemmy.world 64 points 3 weeks ago

Wow, they are going to zip it with a different algo. That's fucking amazing!

Faster installation, I don't know what I will do with all that extra time!

Plus, faster downloads, that's even more free time.

Mozilla really know how to innovate.

Best company evvvvaaarrr

[-] Engywuck@lemm.ee 41 points 3 weeks ago

Give 2 millions bonus to that CEO!

[-] intelisense@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago

Well, now you mention it, the motivation here may be to reduce their bandwidth costs? Probably not 2 million, but every € counts...

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 17 points 3 weeks ago

It's a little boring but not bad news. Why the hate?!

[-] 30p87@feddit.org 39 points 3 weeks ago

Who's not using a package manager? Except for LFS, for which you should compile it yourself.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 16 points 3 weeks ago

Most normal users do not do this. But there might be special packages with special setups, like scripts downloading and installing from Mozillas download links. Or package creators themselves might use it. Or maybe you are a developer, in which case such direct downloads would be helpful for testing and comparing stuff. I also assume most people do not care or notice any difference with this change. Still its an improvement without much drawback and thats always good, even if its only a few people benefiting of it.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, particularly for downloading Firefox Nightly, these self-contained archives are extremely helpful.

[-] 30p87@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

And sometimes -bin AUR packages (and of course some normal packages, behind the scenes) use those packages as base. Even though I prefer normal or -git packages.

[-] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 weeks ago

NixOS packaging pipeline will benefit from this

[-] Frellwit@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

On Ubuntu I use the tar.bz2 version to not have to deal with snaps or extra repositories. Also on Debian Stable to get the latest version.

[-] Wilmo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I use the flatpak on Fedora but have used the tar version in the past because the package managed version is hijacked with stupid Redhat marks and homepage that loves to return after being removed randomly.

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 weeks ago

If you don't want to deal with snaps being forced down your throat, why are you still on Ubuntu?

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

I don't. I have installed Firefox manually for many years across several distros now, albeit for different reasons. For example:

  • Debian only has Firefox ESR in the Bookworm repo. I want the latest mainline version.

  • Bazzite only offers it via Flatpak, which breaks functionality I need such as native messaging.

I see no problem installing it manually. It keeps itself updated and has caused me zero problems.

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 5 points 3 weeks ago

I highly suggests all Ubuntu users to use the vanilla Firefox version downloaded from Mozilla. It's way better because it's not a Snap package.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 26 points 3 weeks ago

The .tar.xz format decompresses more than twice as fast as .tar.bz2, allowing you to get up and running in no time

$ time tar xjf firefox-134.0b3.tar.bz2 

real    0m9.045s
user    0m8.839s
sys     0m0.450s

$ time tar xJf firefox-135.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.xz                                                

real    0m4.903s
user    0m4.677s
sys     0m0.510s

Nice! Presumably it'd be twice as fast if disk was infinitely fast or something. Unfortunately by testing this I've already used up a hundred times more time than I'll ever save as a result of it.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

I am curious too. You tested two different versions, one beta and the other current nightly (different content). It's okay for a quick test, but you can actually have a much closer test. Both nightly and only one day difference:

I run this quick test multiple times and on average these are typical results (don't forget to delete the unpacked folder between each runs):

$ time tar xjf firefox-135.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2

real    0m5,784s
user    0m5,700s
sys     0m0,371s

$ time tar xJf firefox-135.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.xz

real    0m1,699s
user    0m1,621s
sys     0m0,315s
[-] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago

On my system that consistently gets results around 10s and 5s so the difference is sort of interesting. Mine's a Ryzen 3600, maybe newer CPU features are of substantial benefit to xz.

[-] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 weeks ago

Fixing their damn sandbox would be something truly useful.

Implementing a fork server so Flatpak AND Android Firefox can stop being fucking insecure for no reason.

[-] Unknown1234_5@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Why do they not just ship normal packages (.deb, .rpm, etc.) or an official flatpak that functions properly?

[-] d_k_bo@feddit.org 14 points 3 weeks ago

The Flatpak is official.

[-] Unknown1234_5@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

But it doesn't work properly.

[-] Wilmo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

How doesn't it work properly for you?

[-] Unknown1234_5@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Doesn't go full screen on media correctly. Leaves the media the same size and adds massive grey bars to the receiving screen space. Interestingly, the flatpaks of every Firefox-based browser I've tried do the same.

[-] exception4289@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Certainty, this is a you problem.

All this under wayland?

[-] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Has no filesystem sandbox whatsoever. They just pretend it is fine, causing uBlue devs and others to think it is okay to remove native Firefox

[-] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 weeks ago

I think the "etc" shows how f***ed up it might be to package for every single distro. Releasing a tar with no extra bloat and letting each community doing its own things over it is probably one of the best approaches?

[-] Unknown1234_5@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

But it makes finding a properly functioning official package more difficult for newer users, and really the etc. was superfluous. You only really need .deb, .rpm, and whatever arch uses. There is a flatpak, but it doesn't work properly.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I think, you've answered your own question? There's a lot of different formats for Linux. Getting them all correct and working on the different distributions is significantly trickier than just bundling a self-contained archive.

Having said that, they do actually provide a DEB repo since a few months ago: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-firefox-linux#w_install-firefox-deb-package-for-debian-based-distributions-recommended

[-] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago

They officially publish the snap, the flatpak and a deb in an apt repo.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Interesting, I always assumed they would be using a pretty optimal algorithm with their .tar.bz2 format, because they obviously benefit quite a bit from smaller downloads. Good to know that .tar.xz is actually better.

[-] olympicyes@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

XZ is quite slow for compression when single threaded. When run in parallel it uses a significant amount of RAM. It creates some of the smallest files and is fast to decompress compared to other well-compressed alternatives.

Source: https://linuxreviews.org/Comparison_of_Compression_Algorithms

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks. 🙂

[-] DrDystopia@lemy.lol 1 points 3 weeks ago

🤷

[-] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Btw how are they the only ones hopping on to XZ?? Like, everyone is switching to zstd currently.

[-] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk -1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, use the format that was almost backdoored a few months ago! I'm sure it has a very strong development team behind it! /s

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

I would call it the format that has the most eyes on it now.

[-] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk -3 points 3 weeks ago

My point is that it had an overworked maintainer who was easily persuaded into giving the project to someone else. I highly doubt it has gotten a solid team behind it now.

[-] nef@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

It wasn't "easy" at all, they had to put in over 2 years of useful contributions before there was chance to insert the malware. If you're worried just stay on an older version, it should still open new files perfectly fine.

[-] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

It was easier than taking over zstd for sure

[-] nef@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 week ago

Yes, projects backed by multi-billion dollar companies do tend to be more resistant to that kind of attack.

this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
158 points (96.5% liked)

Linux

48700 readers
1844 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz