Linux Mint Forums

Actually firefox is a good example, if you want the latest version, you can either install the existing firefox-3.5 package, or you can enable mozilla's ppa (https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-d ... rchive/ppa), no need to go to their website and risk a phishing attack, as well as keeping the automatic updates. If your underlying reason for updating only your browser is security, I explain this aspect briefly at the bottom of the post, see http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=32809 for more info.

If your underlying reason for updating only your browser is security

Nope, it isn't.

First underlying reason is, that I have to test Websites on the latest stable release of a browser (as most of the users are windows users who update immediatley).
Second underlying reason is, that I work pretty much within the browser, and 3.5.3 (the really offical latest stable release, not the 3.5.5 one in the ppa) is much faster than 3.0.x specially concerning ajax-driven webapps.
Third underlying reason specially for ff3.5 is, that I want/have to test the new standards and functionalities (like embedding ogg directly, without a plugin).

But: This is my taste, and I can live with a manual update of my browsers, as I know how to do it
I never intended to express criticism on the release cycle and guidlines which linuxmint sticks to! For most users ff 3.0 is quite ok. For most webdevelopers, well, we can live with ff 3.0 quite good, as long as we have to live with ie6.

to go to their website and risk a phishing attack

? how should this phising attack lookalike?
I go to http://www.mozilla.org (i do not type 'firfox' to google, and continue to the first result). As browsers are my daily bread, I know how the mozilla website should look. I am able to check md5sums.

Downloading the latest "stable" version from Mozilla wasn't actually stable at all, and I had also lost the ability to manage the package via apt/synaptic, because I had compiled it from source. In my experience with several Jaunty variants over the last few weeks, FF 3.0 is better than FF 3.5.

I use Firefox 3.5 on several boxes (linuxmint, opensuse, fedora, windows xp/vista/7) since months and I can't see any problems. Even one of my customers is running on firefox on about 15 workstations since months, and they are not complaining about unstable systems!

But I did not compile the browser myself (i trust in mozilla;) ).
The only software i am compiling myself is software like eaccelerator, php, unrtf, catdoc, ... as i have there my modified make scripts.

As you said, it's your personal taste.

I think his post was aimed more generally at the user community as a whole - you're a web developer. 95% or more of the potential new Linux users aren't and in fact, they're likely not particularly computer savvy like some of us are.

But: This is my taste, and I can live with a manual update of my browsers, as I know how to do it

It works for you and that's great. But in general, there's a reason we have packages and tools to manage those packages - installing stand-alone software can become quite unmanageable in Linux (at least in my limited experience) if you don't really know what you're doing. It really comes down to increasing the user base - Linux needs to be more and more user-friendly if it ever wants to be considered "mainstream".

As browsers are my daily bread, I know how the mozilla website should look. I am able to check md5sums.

Again, your personal experience is likely quite different than most. A good portion of Linux "converts" might have never used Mozilla or Firefox. Furthermore, I'd venture to guess that 9 out of 10 home Windows users have never HEARD of MD5, SHA1, or checksums in general. His suggestion, I'm certain, pertained to average user community and not you specifically - a potential phishing attack is another risk of the AVERAGE user following your method.

I use Firefox 3.5 on several boxes (linuxmint, opensuse, fedora, windows xp/vista/7) since months and I can't see any problems. Even one of my customers is running on firefox on about 15 workstations since months, and they are not complaining about unstable systems!

But I did not compile the browser myself (i trust in mozilla;) ).
The only software i am compiling myself is software like eaccelerator, php, unrtf, catdoc, ... as i have there my modified make scripts.

Since discovering Webkit, I won't be going back to Firefox. It's just plain slow. But that's another discussion altogether.

I have tried Firefox on Mint 7, Mint 5, Fedora 11, Windows 2000 and XP, and Xubuntu 9.04. Firefox 3.5.x ONLY works well on Windows. I've had numerous issues on Linux, regardless of distro, from annoyances to full-on crashes. I've found that using the "official" version of Firefox for whatever distro I'm working with gives me a much more stable and fast browser. I trust in the people that build and test the OS than I do Mozilla. The folks that make Ubuntu and Mint have THOROUGHLY tested FF 3.0.x while Mozilla seems to be spending most of their development resources trying to garner more Windows users. That's just the way I see it.

Hi everyone!

I'm one of those users who had to stick with Felicia when Gloria came out, because ATI decided not to support 3d graphics in linux anymore... So, chances are, I'll be using Felicia even after Helena has been out etc... for as long as I can...

Since I'm not the only one in such a situation, I'd like to suggest to the Linux Mint team to consider offering some upgrades or some Mint PPAs for the (let's say) Top 15 software applications, such as Rhythmbox, Deluge, VLC etc...

They are already doing so for Firefox, Opera and some others so it shouldn't be much of a work for a few more apps, and it would make a world of a difference for newcomers or "trapped" users like me...

I have a general feeling that Mint PPAs is somewhat inevitable, and it would be the best and easiest way to make Linux Mint look a lot more reliable, professional and noob friendly... I definitely vote for this...

Anyway, nice work guys... Mint ROCKs!!

The "normal" open source drivers for ATI will soon be on pair with the restricted drivers

Glad to hear that!

Thanks for mentioning Husse...

indeed, see here for more info: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=31845 I haven't bothered to check out karmic yet, but basically my advice on the ATI front is keep checking with each new Mint release to see if it's good enough for you (been fine in Gloria for me). I've been keeping an eye on http://www.phoronix.com which has had a few more updates on the same ATI issue, in time for Helena+1 so if Helena is not good enough, then just wait another 6 months and I doubt you'll have any issues.

EDIT: p.s. any other ATI comments should probably go in the ATI thread so as not to confuse people.

Husse wrote:The "normal" open source drivers for ATI will soon be on pair with the restricted drivers

ATI support in Xubuntu Karmic is already INFINITELY better. I can actually watch Youtube videos without performance issues, using the LIVE CD.

So yeah, we just need to be patient. The open source drivers continue to improve at a great rate.

Thanks guys!

I read through the links and I'm currently downloading Karmic for a quick test...
I'll be posting in the ATI thread anything I find... (It's a thread with a great opening post, by the way!)

Let's put it this way - I've had enough success so far with Flash and Firefox in 9.10 that I haven't installed Midori yet.

i realize this is an old posting from 2009 but i read and had to put in my two cents, so here goes. interesting topic, of which I will say this. After hundreds, or even thousands of people, have personally involved their own personal time of hundreds and even thousands of hours creating code, for something that is absolutely free, I will not complain that I don’t have the newest and the greatest apps to go with the software. Instead I wish to thank each and every one of you that supplied the code and the time of your own free will, to create something that is better than any thing that ever will or ever has come out of Redmond. To even think of complaining that I don’t have this or don’t have that is rude at best, heartless at worst. You’ve freed me from the tyranny of the Great Northwest, and for that I am eternally grateful. Thank you Linus Benedict Torvalds, thank you to the thousands of people since his first beginnings, and last, but certainly not least, thank you Linux Mint.

Fred wrote:if we could just get people to search and read before asking the same questions over and over.

If this site had a search engine that actually worked, you might be justified in your claim. Even the simplest searches I've tried--where the key word or phrase is in the subject title itself--do not take me to the appropriate thread. Even when I test this out, where I know a subject's title precisely, searching for the word or phrase therein, fails. Always.

And that is why you get the same questions over and over again, more than one would expect. IOW, this is not due to a member being lazy, ignorant, or just plain rude. It is the failure of a search engine to even have the most rudimentary searches succeed. I have seen this in many message boards across cyberspace, and wonder why this is!

I'm using a using a distro-based package website too but i'm considering to get an alternative

Ahhhh. Opinions.
FF4 Has it final release set for this coming Tuesday.
Lets see how long it takes to hit the repos.

Sometimes packages have seemingly recursive dependencies (adding X makes Y uninstallable, Y is waiting for X).

This means the new version of X will break the old version of Y, but there's also a new version of Y that needs the new version of X.

As soon as all other dependencies are solved, the two packages can be hinted to go in together.

And the newer package version will become available for installing.

I hope this clears everything up?

vrkalak wrote:Sometimes packages have seemingly recursive dependencies (adding X makes Y uninstallable, Y is waiting for X).

This means the new version of X will break the old version of Y, but there's also a new version of Y that needs the new version of X.

sounds like a time travel paradox from an old star track episode

I am new to Mint, just installed V. 10 2 days ago. It loads Firefox 3.6.10. I have been using Firefox 4.01 in PuppyLinux. It informed me several weeks ago that the update was available, one click to download, confirm that I wanted to install and the job was done. .
Now Mint 10 has me in 3.6.10 and no notice that an upgrade is available. I opened Package Manager and it did not show that a 4.01 Pkg is available. What am I missing?
John, Newly Minted

Just add this to your ppa,s
Does NOT work in natty or mint 11.

i was trying to update the mozilla firefox to version 5.0 (3.6 sounds like stone age now lol) but if i dont have the correct file i cant..is this correct?
i downloaded the package from its site, but it simply wont appear in the update manager..
guess i have to wait, or try with wine?

Downloading a package just installs the app, there won't be any updates available.
To get updates you have to add a ppa, read this article: http://www.webupd8.org/2011/06/install- ... .html#more