[null_ptr]

I think the stub is for an improved experience for the average user with slow internet access. You're likelier to download and run a 1MB file and then wait for the install to finish, than you are to wait for a 25MB file to finish downloading in the first place.

(I wonder if they push the stub so as to collect more (system) information without having to say that it's Firefox itself that's collecting that information.)

[levosmetalo]

Wrong, the stub is an annoying experience if you are behind a company firewall, or with slow connection. And the point about bandwidth saving doesn't make sense either, since instead of putting Firefox installer in a file share and be done, now I have to put there a stub, instruct everyone how to bypass the proxy, if possible, and then everyone has to download it again and again.

[kevingadd]

A stub can save bandwidth by only downloading the components needed for your system, instead of having to pack in every possible optional dependency.

The alternative, expecting all users to know precisely which components they need, is absurd and never works. And we all know you can't reliably do configuration detection in a web page to that extent either.

[Yoric]

Well, in that case, you can easily put (or link to) the full download, can't you?

Or am I missing something?

[Aldo_MX]

You are missing his point that it's not easy to find.

"Systems & Languages" doesn't tell me anything about being able to find the offline installer there. Either changing the phrasing to something more explicit like "Other downloads", and/or adding a title attribute explaining what can you find there could be a good improvement.

Also, giving a hint at the "thank you" page (ex. Having trouble? Try the offline installer) would be a nice addition.

[Yoric]

Well, if I understand his post correctly, his process was "putting Firefox installer in a file share and be done." Well, this process still works.

> You are missing his point that it's not easy to find [...]

That, on the other hand, is a valid point.

[Aldo_MX]

Well, to be honest, I completely ignored the "putting Firefox installer in a file share and be done" part, because there are infinite reasons why an offline installer is needed (and also because I already saw people killing themselves in this discussion).

Entering in much detail of a specific use case is not really a helpful way to leave feedback, but it's understandable since users have the perception that their use case is completely ignored/forgotten.

[Yoric]

If you feel like this, you should really file a bug (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org). If you need help with the intricacies of our bugzilla, ping me (I'm Yoric on irc.mozilla.org or irc.freenode.net).

[agumonkey]

When chrome got released, the instantaneous feel of downloading a stub which then pull the rest was enjoyable. I understand your points, but it's not 100% annoyance, it has a little value.

[qwerty_asdf]

I think it's mostly a tactic to mitigate, prevent, defend against denial of service, since the Mozilla user base is absolutely gigantic.

My suspicion is that it's essentially a "security through obscurity" tactic, so that the majority of users are left with no choice but the "smart" installer, which offers greater control for load balancing heavy duty traffic during peak download periods.

See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5613152

[3825]

Sorry for the trouble you had to go through. If you have access to an FTP client, you can go to ftp://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest

or you can go to http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases... from a traditional web browser as well

Cheers!

[jeff18]

Mozilla uses Akamai as their CDN. As big as Mozilla is, a Firefox release probably is not even visible on a bandwidth graph.

[Yoric]

> I wonder if they push the stub so as to collect more (system) information without having to say that it's Firefox itself that's collecting that information.

That sounds rather unlikely.

[TeMPOraL]

Should be not too hard to verify.

[kunai]

Yeah, that is if you have dial-up. Even the slowest DSL is enough for 768KBps.

[Yoric]

That really depends on the country you live in.