Closed grahamperrin closed 3 years ago
From https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/484#issuecomment-398047779:
… work on getting WF to pretend its v57 for the add-on store.
Maybe worth having an FAQ paragraph re: expected issues. I'll flesh this out nearer the time.
From 603, as requested (condensed or moved):
…
Risks associated with unsigned extensions should be unmistakably clear. Have a line amongst answers to FAQ.
If suggestion 1 is implemented, then an additional answer can include direction to:
In the advanced dialogue at e.g. https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/waterfox/new/?scene=1 maybe add 64-bit to the Windows Portable link.
For reference only, I don't expect fixes for problems with Disqus service …
… this is typical, Disqus repeatedly failing to show responses:
Reload (override cache) is, unfortunately, not a workaround when Disqus fails in this way. At the time of writing I have overridden the cache twice and still (as shown above), there's no trace of the response that I posted more than thirty minutes ago:
Problems involving the content delivery network(s) used by Disqus, I guess. maybe … maybe not (see below) …
Not expecting fixes for problems with Disqus service because, for example, Disqus offered no response to https://twitter.com/grahamperrin/status/1045017746004684802 (2018-09-26).
Found today:
blog.waterfox.project.org
occasional/persistent error 502 (bad gateway) for some readers:
blog.waterfox.project.org
occasional/persistent error 502 (bad gateway) for some readers:
Hi @MrAlex94 this problem has returned, for the past few days I have been consistently getting the 502 error when trying to access https://blog.waterfoxproject.org/ .
Spun off from https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/asb7hg/-/ehp16we/
Twitter's stretched representation of one of the logos that are currently used in Reddit:
@MrAlex94 if you can't easily find a Reddit-oriented fix for this, I might be able to find some points of reference elsewhere.
@laniakea64 do you have a Ray ID?
(deleted, no longer relevant)
Old and new Reddit representations of the new logo in a Waterfox tweet:
Re: the cropping in new Reddit, I don't imagine an easy fix.
(The cropping doesn't bother me; I prefer old reddit without the subreddit style.)
Fixed blog issue, was due to nginx.
Slight squashing of the logo at blog pages, for example:
From https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/1128#issuecomment-530597752
… 18.04 is sufficiently new according to system requirements for Waterfox 68.0b1 listed on https://www.waterfox.net/releases/ -
Linux Min. OS: Any modern distro
From https://www.reddit.com/comments/d38c3f/-/f03zg14/?context=3:
It seems that Alex compiled on much newer distro. …
… Shouldn't the releases page mention something different for Min. OS?
@MrAlex94
Nit
https://gist.github.com/MrAlex94 and https://github.com/MrAlex94 have outdated references to:
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
(There's a redirect to https://www.waterfox.net/.)
Thanks for the pings. Website is being re-done 👍
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:11, Graham Perrin notifications@github.com wrote:
Nit
https://gist.github.com/MrAlex94 and https://github.com/MrAlex94 have outdated references to:
(There's a redirect to https://www.waterfox.net/.)
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/582?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABECQWDYMJSARTPPU7HSV53QL5QZNA5CNFSM4FB2OF72YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD722RZI#issuecomment-536193253, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABECQWHYBABK3FJINWYE2ITQL5QZNANCNFSM4FB2OF7Q .
Thanks :+1:
Adding to the mix, partly in relation to #1174:
Things are quite scattered. At 1,600 x 900 full screen (the limit of this notebook):
If a change is not already drafted (the site redesign), consider something like this as the essence:
| Windows portable | macOS | Linux | Android
-----------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------⌍
Waterfox Classic | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | … |
-----------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
Waterfox Current | 2019.10.1 | … | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | … |
-----------------+---------- +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------⌏
A little more, still essentially a single table, with disclosure triangles:
| Windows portable | macOS | Linux | Android
---------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------⌍
Waterfox Classic | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | … |
• comparable to Firefox 56 | ◿ | ◿ | ◿ | ◿ | ◿ |
---------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
Waterfox Current | 2019.10.1 | … | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | … |
• one-line distinction | ◿ | ◿ | ◿ | ◿ | ◿ |
---------------------------+---------- +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------⌏
More (disclosed):
| Windows portable | macOS | Linux | Android
---------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------⌍
Waterfox Classic | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | … |
• comparable to Firefox 56 | ◹ | ◹ | ◹ | ◹ | ◹ |
| • requirements | • requirements | • requirements | • requirements | • requirements |
| • blurb | • blurb | • blurb | • blurb | • blurb |
---------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|
Waterfox Current | 2019.10.1 | … | 2019.10.1 | 2019.10.1 | … |
• one-line distinction | ◹ | ◹ | ◹ | ◹ | ◹ |
| • requirements | • requirements | • requirements | • requirements | • requirements |
| • blurb | • blurb | • blurb | • blurb | • blurb |
---------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------⌏
Sooner or later you'll want something important (not just the footer) below the table, so aim to keep the table reasonably shallow. Too much blurb, too deep/tall a table, will be a problem for readers who omit to scroll.
A nit, both of these have the same date. The latter should be dated 24th October:
Presence of the latter might fix #1202. I'll check in due course.
The push-back announcement https://redd.it/djceyv mentioned security advisories. So on one hand, I half-expected the second blog post to mention the relevant advisory (or advisories). On the other hand, we have links to change logs so re: https://www.reddit.com/comments/dlptsq/-/f4y81ze/ with its light humour, it should be possible to include (in the second blog post) links to the more recent logs.
Are we? Are we? ;-)
https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-2019.10-release-download/ (2019-10-23) already includes these, for 2019-10-15 tags 2019.10-classic
and 2019.10-current
:
Should also include these, for 2019-10-24 tags 2019.10-classic-1
and 2019.10-current-1
:
TIA
Nit.
Given the two most recent tags, maybe edit the two YYYY.MM.X
examples at https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/wiki/Versioning-Guidelines#addition-of-channels and https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-2019.10-release-download/
PS also, see below, https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/582#issuecomment-549589728
For reference only (beyond the control of Waterfox Project, I guess):
https://gitlab.com/commento/commento/issues/36#note_236008535
Some browsers seems to sometimes, or always, fail to scroll to Commento perma-linked areas. …
YY.MM.X
– should be YYYY.MM.X
maintainted
Oh dear https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/tainted ha ha I noticed the rogue t whilst quoting. At a glance I see no other typo.
TIA; fix at your leisure and then hide this comment as resolved.
https://www.waterfox.net/releases/
https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/582#issuecomment-541384643 above, kicking the ball around, in particular:
Too much blurb, too deep/tall …, will be a problem for readers who omit to scroll.
From https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/1227#issuecomment-546679759:
… I have to apologize. I downloaded Classic instead of Current simply because I didn't scroll further down the releases page. …
Maybe it might be a good idea to reverse the layout so that Current appears at the top?
@Telmesomething thanks, but I shouldn't reverse the layout.
If reversed, muscle memory will cause some readers to 'blindly' reach for and click the wrong link without reading a word of what's linked. Like "OK, I see an Apple, click.".
We'll see an increasing number of posts re: comparisons between Waterfox Classic and Waterfox Current so for what it's worth, I imagine a separate page for each flavour.
A current view of the home page, and a very rough mock-up:
Very rough. The essence is to have the two flavours linked from the head of the page.
I have other ideas but GitHub is not a forum for discussion so 😑 I'll save them for Reddit if/when there's an invitation to comment on planned changes to the site.
For what it's worth, I imagine a separate page for each flavour.
https://redd.it/dl9aam describes Waterfox Classic as "latest waterfox 2019.10 next gen" and may be an example of confusion arising partly from next generation appearing on the same page as Waterfox Classic:
– also partly from 2019.10 describing both Waterfox Classic and Waterfox Current.
A more recent screenshot of the page (2020-04-11) – we now have a different order, Waterfox Current first:
– and people occasionally download the wrong installer.
… other ideas … save them for Reddit …
Discussion of version IDs arose here in GitHub, so here goes …
Re: https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/1253#issuecomment-549588162
Still kicking the ball around:
page page
⌌-------------------------------------⌍ ⌌-------------------------------------⌍
| Waterfox Classic | | Waterfox Current |
| ================ | | ================ |
| | | |
| | | Beta |
| | | |
| Pre-release: 2019.11-classic-p | | Pre-release: 2019.11-current-p |
| | | |
| * note for testers | | * note for testers |
| * note for testers | | * note for testers |
| | | |
| Releases: 2019.10 | | Releases: 2019.10 |
| | | |
| * announcement (blog) | | * announcement |
| | | |
| 2019.11-classic-r1 | | 2019.11-current-r1 |
| | | |
| * not yet available | | * not yet available |
| | | |
| Features | | Features |
| ======== | | ======== |
| … | | … |
| … | | … |
| … | | … |
⌎-------------------------------------⌏ ⌎-------------------------------------⌏
pages at a later date
⌌-------------------------------------⌍ ⌌-------------------------------------⌍
| Waterfox Classic | | Waterfox Current |
| ================ | | ================ |
| | | |
| | | Beta |
| | | |
| Pre-release: expired | | Pre-release: expired |
| | | |
| Releases: 2019.11-classic-r1 | | Releases: 2019.11-current-r1 |
| | | |
| * announcement | | * announcement |
| | | |
| Features | | Features |
| ======== | | ======== |
| … | | … |
| … | | … |
| … | | … |
⌎-------------------------------------⌏ ⌎-------------------------------------⌏
pages at a later date
⌌-------------------------------------⌍ ⌌-------------------------------------⌍
| Waterfox Classic | | Waterfox Current |
| ================ | | ================ |
| | | |
| Pre-release: expired | | Pre-release: expired |
| | | |
| Releases: 2019.11-classic-r1 | | Releases: 2019.11-current-r1 |
| | | |
| * announcement | | * announcement |
| | | |
| 2019.11-classic-r2 | | 2019.11-current-r2 |
| | | |
| * announcement | | * announcement |
| | | |
| Features | | Features |
| ======== | | ======== |
| … | | … |
| … | | … |
| … | | … |
⌎-------------------------------------⌏ ⌎-------------------------------------⌏
Redirection was a workaround to #1202
https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/en38kg/waterfox_202001_is_now_available_with_all/ffejjl1/
… Waterfox Classic profile spoilt by inadvertent use of Waterfox Current.
At https://www.waterfox.net/download/ it's not immediately obvious that Waterfox Classic exists. Need to page down.
What just happened? Extensions not working? : waterfox – another case of someone (understandably) confused by gaining Waterfox Current when Waterfox Classic was required.
Given the 2 G
figure at https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/56.0/system-requirements/, is the 512 MB
figure below (bottom left) appropriate, for Windows?
Gut feeling, from use of Firefox 73.0.1 (64-bit) and Waterfox Classic on (Tier-3) FreeBSD-CURRENT, with KDE Plasma:
2 G
1 G
.Re: the requirements above and at https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/68.0/system-requirements/ you might prefer to express a minimum requirement of 512 MB
for macOS, however screenshots such as those at https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/watefox-takes-up-most-of-1-gb-of-ram-even-when-is-just-on-but-not-in-use/#post-2175298 suggest that (at least for Waterfox Classic) 512 MB
might be pushing it. Realistically, 1 GB
might be a better statement for Mac users.
Maybe Mozilla's figures are similarly questionable … that's not to invite discussion here, just saying.
Discussion, in Reddit:
@LeeBinder I think you can resolve (hide) your https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/582#issuecomment-589984251
done!
@jorg35 : why :-1: ?
64-bit requirements are not mentioned at https://www.waterfox.net/download/.
(The 64-bit nature is debatably implicit in file names e.g. waterfox-current-2020.03.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
and waterfox-classic-2020.03.1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
however IMHO requirements should be upfront, before download begins.)
Suggest installing FFmpeg on systems where it will be of benefit.
From discussions spread across the Internet – most of which focus on compatibility with legacy extensions (and will continue to do so, e.g. when historic/limited discussions are found through search engines) – many newcomers will expect an automatically-chosen download of Waterfox to be Waterfox Classic.
Instead it's Waterfox Current – but no mention of Current (we can't expect readers to observe the intricacies of a URL, foot of this window):
Related: https://old.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/fqcvpj/-/flskl3n/
Documentation. Users of Waterfox Current must not add packs from https://addons.mozilla.org/language-tools/
Cross reference:
@MrAlex94 Waterfox Classic 2020.03.1
updated to 2020.04
on Windows 10 was not followed by an automated visit to https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-2020.04-release/
An update file issue, maybe?
@MrAlex94 thanks for the reply, I'll mark this as resolved off-topic (not a web site issue).
No problem with the update to Waterfox Current on the same system. https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-2020.04-release/?upgrade appeared.
It seems later versions of Firefox load the update page whenever the DISPLAY_VERSION changes, but unfortunately Classic does not. Since it still thinks it’s 56.3, it doesn’t launch the page. It’s on the list, just been busy to get it fixed 😬
Partial background