Confirmed users
1,041
edits
Talk:Support/Firefox Features/Clean install: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Talk:Support/Firefox Features/Clean install (view source)
Revision as of 02:08, 28 April 2011
, 28 April 2011→The installer is not a good option
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* We already lock down almost everything in the installation directory so there should be very few files that can be added that would affect the application. I may be mistaken but I believe the only problem area is the plugins directory at this time. | * We already lock down almost everything in the installation directory so there should be very few files that can be added that would affect the application. I may be mistaken but I believe the only problem area is the plugins directory at this time. | ||
** False. We also had a major problem a few versions ago where half-installed files from old installations caused Firefox to not start. I agree this isn't the elegant option, it's the nuclear option, but it lets users recover from anything rather than having to have us account for all the possible problems. | ** False. We also had a major problem a few versions ago where half-installed files from old installations caused Firefox to not start. I agree this isn't the elegant option, it's the nuclear option, but it lets users recover from anything rather than having to have us account for all the possible problems. | ||
*** That specific problem appears to have been addressed (do you have bug numbers?) and using it as a justification for this approach doesn't justify the approach as I see it. | *** That specific problem appears to have been addressed (do you have bug numbers?) and using it as a justification for this approach doesn't justify the approach as I see it. : [[User:Robert Strong|Robert Strong]] 19:08, 27 April 2011 (PDT) | ||
* I have had conversations with people that have stated that deleting the installation directory fixes problems but they haven't taken the time to identify the file(s) that caused the problem. If there are things we should be locking down that we aren't then we should definitely identify them and lock them down. | * I have had conversations with people that have stated that deleting the installation directory fixes problems but they haven't taken the time to identify the file(s) that caused the problem. If there are things we should be locking down that we aren't then we should definitely identify them and lock them down. | ||
** Why? I'll admit that we've been trying to fix the problem rather than ID the file causing the problem but again, it seems rather than keeping a blacklist of third party files or whatever else, we just complicate the problem. | ** Why? I'll admit that we've been trying to fix the problem rather than ID the file causing the problem but again, it seems rather than keeping a blacklist of third party files or whatever else, we just complicate the problem. | ||
*** | *** One very compelling reason is that understanding the cause of the problem can prevent the problem vs. having the user experience the problem and then have to perform steps to remedy the problem. : [[User:Robert Strong|Robert Strong]] 19:08, 27 April 2011 (PDT) | ||
* Locking down the installation directory prevents the user from experiencing problems whereas what is outlined in this feature is a method to solve problems AFTER the user is already experiencing problems. Out of those two options, making it so the user doesn't experience problems should be a MUCH higher priority as I see it. | * Locking down the installation directory prevents the user from experiencing problems whereas what is outlined in this feature is a method to solve problems AFTER the user is already experiencing problems. Out of those two options, making it so the user doesn't experience problems should be a MUCH higher priority as I see it. | ||
** I agree that locking down the installation directory is a good thing to do. That said, if we're doing that anyway, what's the harm in deleting files that aren't being used anyway. | ** I agree that locking down the installation directory is a good thing to do. That said, if we're doing that anyway, what's the harm in deleting files that aren't being used anyway. | ||
*** The harm is that adding this will take limited resources away from other work that has value vs. performing work for a problem where the root cause has not been identified. | *** The harm is that adding this will take limited resources away from other work that has value vs. performing work for a problem where the root cause has not been identified. : [[User:Robert Strong|Robert Strong]] 19:08, 27 April 2011 (PDT) | ||
* The current feature outline leverages the Windows installer which will only work on Windows whereas by locking down the installation directory further than it already is will provide benefit to all platforms. | * The current feature outline leverages the Windows installer which will only work on Windows whereas by locking down the installation directory further than it already is will provide benefit to all platforms. | ||
** On Mac, this already happens. When you drag a newly downloaded Firefox into the Applications folder, it replaces the existing one. On linux, I think the same is true, if you untar our folder into another one, it replaces everything. | ** On Mac, this already happens. When you drag a newly downloaded Firefox into the Applications folder, it replaces the existing one. On linux, I think the same is true, if you untar our folder into another one, it replaces everything. | ||