I've been subsribed to bug #723487 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=723487) for a year and a half, and I identified a problem in the way mozilla's site deliv… (funda kabanzi)
I've been subsribed to bug #723487 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=723487) for a year and a half, and I identified a problem in the way mozilla's site delivers the linux version of firefox almost a year and a half ago, but for reasons unknown to me, no one bothered to address this problem.
Other, properly built web sites that deliver binary software packages for linux, can successfully recognise if the user downloading firefox is using a 32bit or 64bit Linux distribution, and offer the appropriate version. Try www.libreoffice.org if you think that my claims are false.
But this somehow doesn't work with mozillas website, the website recognizes that the user's operating system is Linux, but doesn't try to figure out if it's a 32bit or 64bit linux, so the users end up with 32bit builds of firefox by default, which then don't work on their 64bit sytems.
The problem is even more intensified due to the rather stupid naming convention used by mozilla - both the 32 and the 64 bit versions are simply named identicaly - for instance firefox-29.0b6.tar.bz2 for the 29 beta 6 version. Other sane software producers (libreoffice, nvidia, qt-project) names their binary packages with different names (eg. the "x86" string is used for the 32bit version, "x64" for the 64bit version) so that the users don't end up trying to use (unsucsesfully; getting a cryptic error message) the wrong version. But in mozilla's case we end up with a lot of confused users filing bug reports, like the bug I mentioned above.
So to rephrase my question - is someone willing to do something about this (the QA Mentor who commented in bug #723487 has so far proven to be completely useless)?