Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support
10.6 is the last version with Rosetta. Given how old the machines are that can run 10.6, and given how old 10.6 itself is, it is highly likely that 10.6 customers still have PowerPC apps that they run and they cannot/will not upgrade. Also, the perception of the Mac community in general is that 10.6 is the most stable release of OS X. If you have old hardware (esp. if you have Power PC apps), there is very little reason to upgrade off of 10.6 until your hardware dies. In the past, when these numbers were run, 10.6 was right on up there with the latest one or two OS X releases in Firefox usage, but 10.7 and 10.8 were almost gone. I do, however, think that supporting 10.6 is a heavy, heavy burden, as its C++ compiler is truly ancient. Just opinion, no recommendations here. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk > On Mar 10, 2016, at 17:17, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 04:01:15PM -0700, Tyler Downer wrote: >> The other thing to note is many of those users can still update to 10.11, >> and I imagine that over the next year that number will continue to go down. > > given they haven't upgraded from 10.6 - 10.8 why do you believe they are > likely to in the future? > > Trev > >> This also provides a decent workaround that our support community can >> recommend in documentation and the forums. >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Ryan VanderMeulen < >> rvandermeu...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> 25% is pretty close for 10.6-10.8 combined. However, the current proposal >>> includes security patches for nearly a year still (putting them on the >>> ESR45 train), so construing this as abandoning those users seems like it's >>> going a bit far. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:03:43PM -0500, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: >>>>> This is notice of an intent to deprecate support within Firefox for the >>>>> following old versions of MacOS: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8 >>>>> >>>>> The motivation for this change is that we have continued failures that >>>> are >>>>> specific to these old operating systems and don't have the resources on >>>>> engineering teams to prioritize these bugs. Especially with the >>>> deployment >>>>> of e10s we're seeing intermittent and permanently failures on MacOS 10.6 >>>>> that we are not seeing elsewhere. We get very little testing of old >>>> MacOS >>>>> versions from our prerelease testers and cannot dedicate much paid staff >>>>> testing support to these platforms. We also have an increasingly >>>> fragile set >>>>> of old hardware that supports automated tests on 10.6 and do not intend >>>> to >>>>> replace this. >>>>> >>>>> This will affect approximately 1.2% of our current release population. >>>> Here >>>>> are the specific breakdowns by OS version: >>>>> >>>>> 10.6 >>>>> 0.66% >>>>> 10.7 >>>>> 0.38% >>>>> 10.8 >>>>> 0.18% >>>> >>>> It's unfair to mention those populations by percentage of the global >>>> Firefox population. What are those percentages relative to the number of >>>> OSX users? ISTR 10.6 represented something like 25% of the OSX users, >>>> which is a totally different story (but maybe I'm mixing things with >>>> Windows XP). >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> ___ >>>> firefox-dev mailing list >>>> firefox-...@mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> firefox-dev mailing list >>> firefox-...@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Tyler Downer >> Project Manager, User Advocacy >> ___ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?
Just got number from Brendan Colloran. On 2/15/15, there were 14772800 active users using x86_64 on Mac for FF, and 224400 using x86. x86 then is 1.5% of the active users. Seems like a safe bet to drop 32-bit support. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Hubert Figuière h...@mozilla.com wrote: On 06/08/15 09:31 PM, Syd Polk wrote: If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), no. But these system aren't supported by MacOS X 10.7 or later. Also the 32-bits kernel is used for older machine that have a 64-bits CPU but not 64-bits UEFI firmware and gets restricted to 32-bits kernel - like the early Core2 Duo systems. You don't notice but this is done transparently to the user. Hub ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?
If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), no. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:53, Kearwood Kip Gilbert kgilb...@mozilla.com wrote: 32-bit OSX kernels can indeed run 64-bit applications on 64-bit hardware. It's not just running the 32-bit code in the fat binaries. - Kearwood Kip Gilbert On 2015-08-05 4:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Matthew N. wrote: On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote: If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant unless I'm missing something. My understanding is that OS version is all that matters. 64-bit apps require a 64-bit OS. (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of course.) All of our supported versions of OS X can run on 64-bit hardware[1] though AFAICT. [1] Platforms: IA-32, x86-64[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard Snow Leopard boots with a 32-bits kernel on many types of machines. At the time it was released essentially only Xserves would boot the 64-bits kernel by default. One factor is whether the EFI firmware is 32 or 64 bits. Now, looking around, there are claims that 64-bits applications can run on the 32-bits kernel, but I'm dubious of that fact. It may well be that people /think/ they're running 64-bits applications, but like Firefox, they might just have been universal binaries and they were actually running the 32-bits part. It would be worth checking, though. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?
BTW, 10.7 also had a 32-bit version, and ran on 32-bit machines. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Aug 6, 2015, at 09:10, Eric Shepherd esheph...@mozilla.com wrote: Hubert Figuière wrote: But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits build of Firefox. Yes, this is the point here -- some percentage of those Snow Leopard (10.6) users are probably on 32-bit hardware. Is there a way to tell how many? If we can't tell, is there a way to add some flag to telemetry data that would provide this info, so we can make an informed decision? -- Eric Shepherd Senior Technical Writer Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy Check my Availability https://freebusy.io/esheph...@mozilla.com ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?
I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Aug 5, 2015, at 16:09, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:22:10AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek t...@mielczarek.org wrote: Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system work, being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as much machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build for each architecture. I think it's time to make a plan to retire them and ship single-architecture 64-bit only builds. As far as I know, there are two main blockers here: 1) Users with 32-bit Apple hardware that can't install a 64-bit OS will become unsupported. I don't have data on how many users this is, but I suspect we can determine this from Telemetry. It's my understanding that the last 32-bit only Apple hardware that was sold was in late 2006, so it's nearly 9 years old at this point. 2) Currently watching Netflix in Firefox on OS X requires the Silverlight plugin, which is 32-bit only, so we need to ship a universal build for this to work. I believe that we are planning to ship an EME CDM that will work with Netflix in the near future, so this should make this a non-issue. For comparison, Chrome dropped support for 32-bit OS X late last year in Chrome 39[1]. If we have a plan to support Netflix without Silverlight, and we are OK with unsupporting however many users are stuck on 32-bit only Apple hardware, I think we should make a plan to switch our official builds to 64-bit only. Does anyone have any concerns I've missed? -Ted 1. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2849225/chrome-for-os-x-turns-64-bit-forsakes-early-intel-macs.html These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've already decided that #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can proceed as soon as #2 is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't come soon enough given the impact to build system complexity and overhead in automation. ... until Apple announces ARM64-based Macbooks. /speculation Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?
So, in March of 2015, these were our usage stats: 32.20% 10.10 (14.0.x) (Yosemite) 27.98% 10.9 (13.0.x) (Mavericks) 19.22% 10.6 (10.0.x) (Snow Leopard) 11.06% 10.7 (11.0.x) (Lion) 9.53% 10.8 (12.0.x) (Mountain Lion) I have requested a more modern run from Brendan, who gave Clint Talbert and me these numbers. Let’s see what current data tells us. I am also curious if we can tell 32 vs. 64-bit in our numbers. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Aug 5, 2015, at 16:49, Eric Shepherd esheph...@mozilla.com wrote: Syd Polk wrote: I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users. Those are worthwhile stats to double-check. -- Eric Shepherd Senior Technical Writer Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/ http://www.bitstampede.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy http://twitter.com/sheppy Check my Availability https://freebusy.io/esheph...@mozilla.com ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Is MOZ_SHARK still used?
We recently ran numbers on our user base (like about 3 weeks ago), and found that 10.10, 10.9 and 10.6 all had greater than 10% share of our Mac user base. 10.6 was still close to 19%. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Apr 2, 2015, at 17:45, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:54:38PM -0400, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: I don't think Shark runs on any modern macs. That's a good angle to look from: Shark has not been available since 10.7, and Instruments, which superseded it is available on 10.5 and later. So if someone is using shark, they must be doing that on 10.6 (which is still a supported platform) and could be using Instruments instead. But the population trying to profile on 10.6 must be very slim by now. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On Oct 16, 2014, at 14:49, Jeff Muizelaar jmuizel...@mozilla.com wrote: After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation schedule is not very clear. Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC 4.4 in the near term. This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? -Jeff Does MSVC 2013 run on Windows XP? We still support Win XP for the browser; do we support building on it? Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1075985 to cover the fact that steeplechase does not work with the new layout. This is more of an FYI. Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk On Sep 30, 2014, at 23:22, Robert Strong rstr...@mozilla.com wrote: The Mac package layout and signing changes merged to mozilla-central on Tuesday and the new layout will be present in the update on Wednesday. There are a couple of files still in the bundle after the first update to the new layout that will make the signature invalid. This shouldn't cause any problems since the signature is currently only checked on first launch after installing from the dmg and these files will be removed on the next update which should make the signature valid. Also, the signature should be valid when installing from the dmg as well as after each update from then on. If you find any bugs that you believe are due to these changes please file a new bug under toolkit - application update and we'll take it from there. Thanks go out to everyone involved in making this happen on such short notice! Cheers, Robert -Original Message- From: Robert Strong [mailto:rstr...@mozilla.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:07 AM To: dev-platform Subject: RE: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing Quick status update on the progress for Mac v2 signing. All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak branch. This will allow us to test installing and updating before landing on mozilla- central. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046906 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046306 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1047584 and the dependent bugs If no serious issues are found we are hoping to be able to land on mozilla- central later this week. There have been no significant deviations from what has been previously discussed in this thread and the current plan is to still target Firefox 34. We will be looking into how to get back parity on Mac to the current capabilities for distributions and administrative configurations after we finish the current work. Cheers, Robert ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
