Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)
On 2015-08-15 3:02 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding? Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again. I have nothing to add to this except to say that this is a pure and noble goal, and I salute you. - mhoye ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)
On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding? Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again. While most of it is the same, there's quite a lot of value-added stuff (JIT, AltiVec) and some things I turned off (plugins, webapprt), and I don't know how much of a change would invalidate the use of the trademark. Also (likely when Electrolysis becomes mandatory), we'll have to fork one day anyway when certain dependencies mean it becomes no longer buildable, so this way the branding can come along. Cameron Kaiser ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 06:57:22AM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 03:56 AM, SciFi wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello, I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users, then also drop the 32–bit Windows users and the 32–bit Linux users etc etc etc etc etc. I bet you’d hear a HUGE CRY from these other groups. Dropping 32-bit Linux would be a totally reasonable proposition. Or maybe not, depends on the numbers. For instance, close to 30% of the x86+x86_64 Debian users are still using the x86 version. Sorry, but that's just not how things work. If someone wants to maintain a 32-bit Firefox build, like how Tenfourfox is maintaining a PPC Firefox build, that's fine, but it doesn't mean Mozilla should have to keep things working until such a group emerges. Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding? I use this iMac in 32–bit mode whenever it’s available within each app. There’s no need to try 64–bit mode when the hardware is designed with no more than 4–GB RAM entirely. (That’s the main reason the app called SixtyFour deals with, http://getsixtyfour.com/ further explanations at that site) So this transition wouldn't affect you then, you could simply run Firefox as a 64-bit app. Just because you *choose* to run apps in 32-bit mode doesn't mean you *have* to. I am sympathetic to users that can't afford to upgrade their hardware, but I want to run apps in 32-bit mode isn't a compelling argument. Right now the best data we have shows that only 1.5% of our users are running 32-bit Mac builds, so I think it's reasonable to drop support for those users once we have the other blocking issues resolved. To clarify, it is 1.5% of Mac Firefox users, not 1.5% of Firefox users. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 03:56 AM, SciFi wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello, I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users, then also drop the 32–bit Windows users and the 32–bit Linux users etc etc etc etc etc. I bet you’d hear a HUGE CRY from these other groups. Dropping 32-bit Linux would be a totally reasonable proposition. Dropping 32-bit Windows would not--we haven't shipped an official 64-bit Windows release yet, and a huge percentage of our users are using 32-bit Windows, so they can't run a 64-bit Firefox. It's not the same issue at all. Apple has shipped support for 64-bit applications since OS X 10.5, and has actually dropped support for 32-bit in recent releases. So I don’t want us poor Mac users to be slighted, either. I guess I need to be their ‘voice’ in this discussion. So I request Mozilla to at least continue supporting the 32–bit Mac users until and only until a third–party group can deal out working code for them as mentioned earlier in this thread. This will also be applicable to other Firefox–based apps that are presently available for Mac users such as Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, etc. Sorry, but that's just not how things work. If someone wants to maintain a 32-bit Firefox build, like how Tenfourfox is maintaining a PPC Firefox build, that's fine, but it doesn't mean Mozilla should have to keep things working until such a group emerges. I use this iMac in 32–bit mode whenever it’s available within each app. There’s no need to try 64–bit mode when the hardware is designed with no more than 4–GB RAM entirely. (That’s the main reason the app called SixtyFour deals with, http://getsixtyfour.com/ further explanations at that site) So this transition wouldn't affect you then, you could simply run Firefox as a 64-bit app. Just because you *choose* to run apps in 32-bit mode doesn't mean you *have* to. I am sympathetic to users that can't afford to upgrade their hardware, but I want to run apps in 32-bit mode isn't a compelling argument. Right now the best data we have shows that only 1.5% of our users are running 32-bit Mac builds, so I think it's reasonable to drop support for those users once we have the other blocking issues resolved. -Ted ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
