64-bit firefox

[Ken Gunderson]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
"Mikhail T." <mi at aldan.algebra.com> wrote:

> After a rather ungratifying exchange with some of the prominent Mozilla
> project members, here is my conclusion.
> 
> The "old" firefox-1.x is not expected to run on amd64. Lucky you, if it
> does. The code for the branch was forked a long time ago (circa April
> 2004, AFAIK) and only "security fixes" get merged into it.
> 
> Do not bother submitting patches -- you will be yelled at
> unceremoniously for wasting developers' time with patches against an
> obsolete version and accused of other misdemeanors.
> 
> The upcoming version of the browser -- "Deer Park", a.k.a. 1.5 --
> currently in alpha2, is supposed to come off the trunk of their
> cvs tree, which already contains a lot of bug-fixes, including
> 64bit-specific ones, but these will NOT be merged into the firefox-1.x
> branch.
> 
> Those fixes aren't great -- "long", for example, is used in lieu of
> "intptr_t" (MSVC is not C99-compliant, so screw you), but they just
> happen to work for now.
> 
> I think, we need to concentrate on porting this new Deer Park version
> (www/deerpark ?) in preferance of the current (www/firefox). Although
> alpha, it, apparently, has a better chance of working right on our
> "unusual" set of platforms.
> 
> The 1.5 release is expected in September.
> 
> Those wanting a stabler browser right now ought to use linux-firefox,
> opera, or konqueror.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 	-mi

Use Galeon or Epiphany?  I'm of the general opinion that, while FF is a
godsend for M$ clients, it pretty much sucks on *nix.

I don't know the 64 bit status of those browsers but I suspect you'll b
get more cooperation.  Your's is far from the first complaint I've
heard regarding the FF team's arrogance.  Epiphany and Galeon are both
workable solutions, so why bother w/FF and being treated poorly?

My $0.02...  Worth about what you paid for it...

-- 
Best regards,

Ken Gunderson

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?