Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-08-15 3:02 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:

On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding?

Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again.


I have nothing to add to this except to say that this is a pure and 
noble goal, and I salute you.



- mhoye
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)

[Cameron Kaiser]

On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding?

Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again. While most 
of it is the same, there's quite a lot of value-added stuff (JIT, 
AltiVec) and some things I turned off (plugins, webapprt), and I don't 
know how much of a change would invalidate the use of the trademark.


Also (likely when Electrolysis becomes mandatory), we'll have to fork 
one day anyway when certain dependencies mean it becomes no longer 
buildable, so this way the branding can come along.


Cameron Kaiser

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)

[Mike Hommey]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 06:57:22AM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 03:56 AM, SciFi wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > 
> > I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please.
> > 
> > 
> > If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users,
> > then also drop the 32–bit Windows users
> > and the 32–bit Linux users
> > etc etc etc etc etc.
> > 
> > I bet you’d hear a HUGE CRY from these other groups.
> 
> Dropping 32-bit Linux would be a totally reasonable proposition.

Or maybe not, depends on the numbers. For instance, close to 30% of the
x86+x86_64 Debian users are still using the x86 version.

> Sorry, but that's just not how things work. If someone wants to maintain
> a 32-bit Firefox build, like how Tenfourfox is maintaining a PPC Firefox
> build, that's fine, but it doesn't mean Mozilla should have to keep
> things working until such a group emerges.

Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding?

> > I use this iMac in 32–bit mode whenever it’s available within each app.
> > There’s no need to try 64–bit mode when the hardware is designed with no
> > more than 4–GB RAM entirely.
> > (That’s the main reason the app called SixtyFour deals with,
> >  
> >  further explanations at that site)
> 
> So this transition wouldn't affect you then, you could simply run
> Firefox as a 64-bit app. Just because you *choose* to run apps in 32-bit
> mode doesn't mean you *have* to. I am sympathetic to users that can't
> afford to upgrade their hardware, but "I want to run apps in 32-bit
> mode" isn't a compelling argument.
> 
> Right now the best data we have shows that only 1.5% of our users are
> running 32-bit Mac builds, so I think it's reasonable to drop support
> for those users once we have the other blocking issues resolved.

To clarify, it is 1.5% of Mac Firefox users, not 1.5% of Firefox users.

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)

[Ted Mielczarek]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 03:56 AM, SciFi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please.
> 
> 
> If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users,
> then also drop the 32–bit Windows users
> and the 32–bit Linux users
> etc etc etc etc etc.
> 
> I bet you’d hear a HUGE CRY from these other groups.

Dropping 32-bit Linux would be a totally reasonable proposition.
Dropping 32-bit Windows would not--we haven't shipped an official 64-bit
Windows release yet, and a huge percentage of our users are using 32-bit
Windows, so they can't run a 64-bit Firefox. It's not the same issue at
all. Apple has shipped support for 64-bit applications since OS X 10.5,
and has actually dropped support for 32-bit in recent releases.

> So I don’t want us poor Mac users to be slighted, either.
> 
> I guess I need to be their ‘voice’ in this discussion.
> 
> So I request Mozilla to at least continue supporting the 32–bit Mac users
> until
> and only until
> a third–party group can deal out working code for them
> as mentioned earlier in this thread.
> This will also be applicable to other Firefox–based apps
> that are presently available for Mac users
> such as Thunderbird, SeaMonkey,
> etc.

Sorry, but that's just not how things work. If someone wants to maintain
a 32-bit Firefox build, like how Tenfourfox is maintaining a PPC Firefox
build, that's fine, but it doesn't mean Mozilla should have to keep
things working until such a group emerges.

> I use this iMac in 32–bit mode whenever it’s available within each app.
> There’s no need to try 64–bit mode when the hardware is designed with no
> more than 4–GB RAM entirely.
> (That’s the main reason the app called SixtyFour deals with,
>  
>  further explanations at that site)

So this transition wouldn't affect you then, you could simply run
Firefox as a 64-bit app. Just because you *choose* to run apps in 32-bit
mode doesn't mean you *have* to. I am sympathetic to users that can't
afford to upgrade their hardware, but "I want to run apps in 32-bit
mode" isn't a compelling argument.

Right now the best data we have shows that only 1.5% of our users are
running 32-bit Mac builds, so I think it's reasonable to drop support
for those users once we have the other blocking issues resolved.

-Ted
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)

[SciFi]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256





Hello,


I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please.


If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users,
then also drop the 32–bit Windows users
and the 32–bit Linux users
etc etc etc etc etc.

I bet you’d hear a HUGE CRY from these other groups.

So I don’t want us poor Mac users to be slighted, either.

I guess I need to be their ‘voice’ in this discussion.

So I request Mozilla to at least continue supporting the 32–bit Mac users
until
and only until
a third–party group can deal out working code for them
as mentioned earlier in this thread.
This will also be applicable to other Firefox–based apps
that are presently available for Mac users
such as Thunderbird, SeaMonkey,
etc.


so that’s my main 2–coins–worth here


Me ??? —

I’ve tried describing my situation in various bugreports,
so here it is again —

I only have this computer,
it is a model “iMac6,1”, described here,


So fortunately I have a 64–bit–capable iMac
since it contains a Core–2–Duo CPU
and SL/10.6 does run apps in 64–bit mode when available,
yet this model has 32–bit EFI/BIOS
and SL/10.6 knows it must use 32–bit kernel code here
and knows how to deal with interfacing such different code/data/etc bases,
akin to the early MacPro towers.

I’ve elected to stay at Snow–Leopard (OSX–10.6.8)
for fear of losing PowerPC support in some apps that have yet to be made into 
Intel® code,
and also because I can’t really afford to purchase a full official copy of 
10.7/Lion assuming it’s still available
(more on my financial situation below).

anyway

I use this iMac in 32–bit mode whenever it’s available within each app.
There’s no need to try 64–bit mode when the hardware is designed with no more 
than 4–GB RAM entirely.
(That’s the main reason the app called SixtyFour deals with,
 
 further explanations at that site)

And I know it’ll use 64–bit numbers when the code is written properly
during access of data files
and such
so that the proper offset math etc is used.
That–right–there does not really depend on the ‘bitness’ of the CPU
AISI.


I’m going to get even–more personal now.


Why am I stuck with this model?

I am on Disability with No End in Sight.

I can’t afford any other machinery, period.
Unless someone would help me with acquiring a Grant
or Donation of proper (and newer) equipment
etc.

I had limited help with certain fellow humans who could drive me to places and 
help purchase needed items.
I have already lost several older PowerMac machines, among almost everything 
else (especially: attempted ownership of a gas–electric hybrid car [was trying 
to Go–Green at the time]).
I picked this iMac model during a time of no local Apple® store.
This town only had a local CompUSA™ store dealing with Apple® gear, before they 
closed down,
and this model was in stock at the time.
It was a rush job, at that; no mail–order was possible until I get set at my 
(now current) living quarters.


I would gladly install a whole–open–source system here if at all possible,
but I need help here.
I’ve tried various boot discs burned from ISO images at their public sites,
mainly FreeBSD, Tails, and such, so far.
I haven’t found any that would work 100%,
seems they would get ‘stuck’ when the boot process needs input from the 
keyboard and/or mouse.

I know about UEFI, and that we’d need 32–bit access to the EFI/BIOS routines.


So I’ve decided to get a complete whole computer
which will run F/OSS systems,
but now I can’t afford to do that
unless I get help with getting a Grant or Donation etc.

Back to Square One — I must keep this iMac going, or lose my primary method of 
communication (including ordering food etc).

My main paid job was directly involved with IBM mainframes and state–wide wired 
private network.
I had a side project to try building puny PCs to run F/OSS systems and apps.

And now I see that “they” want me to Fail even with the equipment I use at home 
here.

I cannot win for losing … as the saying goes.

So I must now pull–out all the ‘stops’ and get this story to the masses to read 
and digest, please.

I’ve been very concise here,
maybe expand on it is needed thru more discussion if possible.

Thank you.

(the pseudo–scrambled email addy is placed there generated by the GMane.org 
system,
 I understand it does work, and can be used for private emails to me,
 also I’ll try monitoring this maillist thru GMane.org as well)




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVyuhDAAoJEKkeWNKet7+KVIYIAJIuWLO5qmIl8zu9Qe2SySKC
H+wtOOFcqzYG2P2w7bF9XSPi/HLTWPrjd2F/dk50/WMBrjn5Vbvm1Cs0Fi2czZdv
CKrfsKL0sT4obggNI1mdcNxBJzktEnu/pYS3MCNAl7upXLFFhSAA4P+gL0qt/vZb
BZbkF930BiCAlMxxDA8TfbNmkVy369yzOORDTrkWPmd4fPa2EsC83Z/2dQyLi6R+
vl8hpDXqA48nIsEhoy45koY5qBwO8Dh9BbefCA8L/zi/DGkjqom+ZbMSdDlodS6R
FrirdozyUcpZMiPtdhn3/1ISXDinm1z/sbS0jTPWkOk5gxvoBLeAhGFhCCx1xQE=
=masY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Syd Polk]

Just got number from Brendan Colloran. On 2/15/15, there were 14772800 active 
users using x86_64 on Mac for FF, and 224400 using x86. x86 then is 1.5% of the 
active users. Seems like a safe bet to drop 32-bit support.

Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk





> On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Hubert Figuière  wrote:
> 
> On 06/08/15 09:31 PM, Syd Polk wrote:
>> If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), 
>> no.
> 
> But these system aren't supported by MacOS X 10.7 or later.
> 
> Also the 32-bits kernel is used for older machine that have a 64-bits
> CPU but not 64-bits UEFI firmware and gets restricted to 32-bits kernel
> - like the early Core2 Duo systems. You don't notice but this is done
> transparently to the user.
> 
> 
> Hub

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Robert Strong]

I believe the blocklist ping also has it and I know metrics used the
blocklist ping instead of the update ping in the past.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ben Hearsum  wrote:

> On 2015-08-06 10:10 AM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
> > Hubert Figuière wrote:
> >> But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
> >> unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
> >> machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
> >> build of Firefox.
> > Yes, this is the point here -- some percentage of those Snow Leopard
> > (10.6) users are probably on 32-bit hardware. Is there a way to tell how
> > many? If we can't tell, is there a way to add some flag to telemetry
> > data that would provide this info, so we can make an informed decision?
> >
>
> I don't think dataviz has this info, but it's in the update ping. If
> someone wants to do analysis, I can send them a week's worth of update
> server http logs to poke at.
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Ben Hearsum]

On 2015-08-06 10:10 AM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
> Hubert Figuière wrote:
>> But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
>> unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
>> machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
>> build of Firefox.
> Yes, this is the point here -- some percentage of those Snow Leopard
> (10.6) users are probably on 32-bit hardware. Is there a way to tell how
> many? If we can't tell, is there a way to add some flag to telemetry
> data that would provide this info, so we can make an informed decision?
> 

I don't think dataviz has this info, but it's in the update ping. If
someone wants to do analysis, I can send them a week's worth of update
server http logs to poke at.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Hubert Figuière]

On 06/08/15 09:31 PM, Syd Polk wrote:
> If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), no.

But these system aren't supported by MacOS X 10.7 or later.

Also the 32-bits kernel is used for older machine that have a 64-bits
CPU but not 64-bits UEFI firmware and gets restricted to 32-bits kernel
- like the early Core2 Duo systems. You don't notice but this is done
transparently to the user.


Hub
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Syd Polk]

If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), no.

Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk





> On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:53, Kearwood Kip Gilbert  wrote:
> 
> 32-bit OSX kernels can indeed run 64-bit applications on 64-bit
> hardware.  It's not just running the 32-bit code in the fat binaries.
> 
> - Kearwood "Kip" Gilbert
> 
> On 2015-08-05 4:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Matthew N. wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:
> If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
> relevant unless I'm missing something.
 My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
 require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
 course.)
>>> All of our supported versions of OS X can run on 64-bit hardware[1]
>>> though AFAICT.
>>> 
>>> [1] "Platforms: IA-32, x86-64[2]"
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard
>> Snow Leopard boots with a 32-bits kernel on many types of machines. At
>> the time it was released essentially only Xserves would boot the 64-bits
>> kernel by default. One factor is whether the EFI firmware is 32 or 64
>> bits.
>> 
>> Now, looking around, there are claims that 64-bits applications can run
>> on the 32-bits kernel, but I'm dubious of that fact. It may well be that
>> people /think/ they're running 64-bits applications, but like Firefox,
>> they might just have been universal binaries and they were actually
>> running the 32-bits part. It would be worth checking, though.
>> 
>> Mike
>> ___
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> 
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Kearwood "Kip" Gilbert]

32-bit OSX kernels can indeed run 64-bit applications on 64-bit
hardware.  It's not just running the 32-bit code in the fat binaries.

- Kearwood "Kip" Gilbert

On 2015-08-05 4:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Matthew N. wrote:
>> On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:
 If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
 relevant unless I'm missing something.
>>> My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
>>> require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
>>> course.)
>> All of our supported versions of OS X can run on 64-bit hardware[1]
>> though AFAICT.
>>
>> [1] "Platforms:  IA-32, x86-64[2]"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard
> Snow Leopard boots with a 32-bits kernel on many types of machines. At
> the time it was released essentially only Xserves would boot the 64-bits
> kernel by default. One factor is whether the EFI firmware is 32 or 64
> bits.
>
> Now, looking around, there are claims that 64-bits applications can run
> on the 32-bits kernel, but I'm dubious of that fact. It may well be that
> people /think/ they're running 64-bits applications, but like Firefox,
> they might just have been universal binaries and they were actually
> running the 32-bits part. It would be worth checking, though.
>
> Mike
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Benoit Girard]

Is this the data for people who are running only the latest release or some
arbitrary Firefox releases where FHR/data collection is enabled? I ask
because this data doesn't include any 10.4 and 10.5 usage so it's not an
overall population snapshot. Sampling the crash data (very noisy I know)
puts 10.5 at ~3% of our OSX users and 10.4 at ~1% of our OSX users. Of
course those users are stranded on some outdated and insecure Firefox build
so wouldn't be impacted by this discussion,

My point is that we need more context to these numbers if we're going to
make a decision based on them.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Syd Polk  wrote:

> So, in March of 2015, these were our usage stats:
>
> 32.20%  10.10 (14.0.x) (Yosemite)
> 27.98%  10.9 (13.0.x) (Mavericks)
> 19.22%  10.6 (10.0.x) (Snow Leopard)
> 11.06%  10.7 (11.0.x) (Lion)
> 9.53%   10.8 (12.0.x) (Mountain Lion)
>
> I have requested a more modern run from Brendan, who gave Clint Talbert
> and me these numbers. Let’s see what current data tells us. I am also
> curious if we can tell 32 vs. 64-bit in our numbers.
>
> Syd Polk
> sp...@mozilla.com
> +1-512-905-9904
> irc: sydpolk
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 2015, at 16:49, Eric Shepherd  wrote:
> >
> > Syd Polk wrote:
> >> I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6.
> Last time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I
> don’t think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7
> has that problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users.
> > Those are worthwhile stats to double-check.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Eric Shepherd
> > Senior Technical Writer
> > Mozilla 
> > Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/ 
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy 
> > Check my Availability 
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Syd Polk]

BTW, 10.7 also had a 32-bit version, and ran on 32-bit machines.

Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk





> On Aug 6, 2015, at 09:10, Eric Shepherd  wrote:
> 
> Hubert Figuière wrote:
>> But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
>> unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
>> machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
>> build of Firefox.
> Yes, this is the point here -- some percentage of those Snow Leopard
> (10.6) users are probably on 32-bit hardware. Is there a way to tell how
> many? If we can't tell, is there a way to add some flag to telemetry
> data that would provide this info, so we can make an informed decision?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Eric Shepherd
> Senior Technical Writer
> Mozilla 
> Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
> Check my Availability 
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Eric Shepherd]

Hubert Figuière wrote:
> But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
> unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
> machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
> build of Firefox.
Yes, this is the point here -- some percentage of those Snow Leopard
(10.6) users are probably on 32-bit hardware. Is there a way to tell how
many? If we can't tell, is there a way to add some flag to telemetry
data that would provide this info, so we can make an informed decision?

-- 

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla 
Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
Check my Availability 
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Hubert Figuière]

On 06/08/15 01:34 AM, Matthew N. wrote:
> On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:
>>> If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
>>> relevant
>>> unless I'm missing something.
>>
>> My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
>> require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
>> course.)
> 
> All of our supported versions of OS X can run on 64-bit hardware[1]
> though AFAICT.
> 
> [1] "Platforms:IA-32, x86-64[2]"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard

But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
build of Firefox.


Hub
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Ted Mielczarek]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 06:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote:
> Assuming our FHR data is gathering correct data:
> 
> 1.5% of our OS X users are on x86. (There is no date on the dashboard 
> I'm looking at)
> 
> If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is 
> relevant unless I'm missing something.

Thanks, that's very useful! I'd be interested to see exactly what we're
capturing there, but that can only be an upper bound on the number of
users affected. (It's possible to force an application to run as 32-bit
even if you have a 64-bit capable machine, so we may be overcounting
some users in that way.)

-Ted
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Ted Mielczarek]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Syd Polk wrote:
> I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last
> time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t
> think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has
> that problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users.

Why do you think that? 10.6 can run 64-bit binaries just fine. Just look
at any of the "OS X 10.6 debug" rows on Treeherder. Our OS X debug
builds are 64-bit only.

-Ted
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Ted Mielczarek]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 07:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:
> > If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant
> > unless I'm missing something.
> 
> My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
> require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
> course.)

Apple shipped Mac OS X with system libraries as universal binaries, so
they supported both 32 and 64-bit binaries. (I believe they stopped
shipping 32-bit libraries at some point, however.)

-Ted
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Mike Hommey]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Matthew N. wrote:
> On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:
> >>If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
> >>relevant unless I'm missing something.
> >
> >My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
> >require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
> >course.)
> 
> All of our supported versions of OS X can run on 64-bit hardware[1]
> though AFAICT.
> 
> [1] "Platforms:   IA-32, x86-64[2]"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard

Snow Leopard boots with a 32-bits kernel on many types of machines. At
the time it was released essentially only Xserves would boot the 64-bits
kernel by default. One factor is whether the EFI firmware is 32 or 64
bits.

Now, looking around, there are claims that 64-bits applications can run
on the 32-bits kernel, but I'm dubious of that fact. It may well be that
people /think/ they're running 64-bits applications, but like Firefox,
they might just have been universal binaries and they were actually
running the 32-bits part. It would be worth checking, though.

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Matthew N.]

On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:

If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant
unless I'm missing something.


My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
course.)


All of our supported versions of OS X can run on 64-bit hardware[1] 
though AFAICT.


[1] "Platforms:	IA-32, x86-64[2]" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Martin Thomson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N.  wrote:
> If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant
> unless I'm missing something.

My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.  64-bit apps
require a 64-bit OS.  (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of
course.)
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Matthew N.]

Assuming our FHR data is gathering correct data:

1.5% of our OS X users are on x86. (There is no date on the dashboard 
I'm looking at)


If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is 
relevant unless I'm missing something.


Matthew N. (:MattN)

On 2015-08-05 3:02 PM, Syd Polk wrote:

So, in March of 2015, these were our usage stats:

32.20%  10.10 (14.0.x) (Yosemite)
27.98%  10.9 (13.0.x) (Mavericks)
19.22%  10.6 (10.0.x) (Snow Leopard)
11.06%  10.7 (11.0.x) (Lion)
9.53%   10.8 (12.0.x) (Mountain Lion)

I have requested a more modern run from Brendan, who gave Clint Talbert and me 
these numbers. Let’s see what current data tells us. I am also curious if we 
can tell 32 vs. 64-bit in our numbers.

Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk






On Aug 5, 2015, at 16:49, Eric Shepherd  wrote:

Syd Polk wrote:

I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last time 
we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t think that 
very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that problem as 
well, but it is a very small percentage of users.

Those are worthwhile stats to double-check.

--

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla 
Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/ 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy 
Check my Availability 




___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Syd Polk]

So, in March of 2015, these were our usage stats:

32.20%  10.10 (14.0.x) (Yosemite)
27.98%  10.9 (13.0.x) (Mavericks)
19.22%  10.6 (10.0.x) (Snow Leopard)
11.06%  10.7 (11.0.x) (Lion)
9.53%   10.8 (12.0.x) (Mountain Lion)

I have requested a more modern run from Brendan, who gave Clint Talbert and me 
these numbers. Let’s see what current data tells us. I am also curious if we 
can tell 32 vs. 64-bit in our numbers.

Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk





> On Aug 5, 2015, at 16:49, Eric Shepherd  wrote:
> 
> Syd Polk wrote:
>> I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last 
>> time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t 
>> think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that 
>> problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users.
> Those are worthwhile stats to double-check.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Eric Shepherd
> Senior Technical Writer
> Mozilla 
> Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/ 
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy 
> Check my Availability 

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Eric Shepherd]

Syd Polk wrote:
> I don't think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last 
> time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don't 
> think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that 
> problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users.
Those are worthwhile stats to double-check.

-- 

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla 
Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
Check my Availability 
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Syd Polk]

I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last time 
we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t think that 
very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that problem as 
well, but it is a very small percentage of users.

Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk





> On Aug 5, 2015, at 16:09, Mike Hommey  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:22:10AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system
>>> work, being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as
>>> much machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build
>>> for each architecture. I think it's time to make a plan to retire
>>> them and ship single-architecture 64-bit only builds.
>>> 
>>> As far as I know, there are two main blockers here: 1) Users with
>>> 32-bit Apple hardware that can't install a 64-bit OS will become
>>> unsupported. I don't have data on how many users this is, but I
>>> suspect we can determine this from Telemetry. It's my understanding
>>> that the last 32-bit only Apple hardware that was sold was in late
>>> 2006, so it's nearly 9 years old at this point.  2) Currently
>>> watching Netflix in Firefox on OS X requires the Silverlight plugin,
>>> which is 32-bit only, so we need to ship a universal build for this
>>> to work. I believe that we are planning to ship an EME CDM that will
>>> work with Netflix in the near future, so this should make this a
>>> non-issue.
>>> 
>>> For comparison, Chrome dropped support for 32-bit OS X late last
>>> year in Chrome 39[1]. If we have a plan to support Netflix without
>>> Silverlight, and we are OK with unsupporting however many users are
>>> stuck on 32-bit only Apple hardware, I think we should make a plan
>>> to switch our official builds to 64-bit only. Does anyone have any
>>> concerns I've missed?
>>> 
>>> -Ted
>>> 
>>> 1.
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/article/2849225/chrome-for-os-x-turns-64-bit-forsakes-early-intel-macs.html
>> 
>> These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've
>> already decided that  #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can
>> proceed as soon as #2 is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't
>> come soon enough given the impact to build system complexity and
>> overhead in automation.
> 
> ... until Apple announces ARM64-based Macbooks. 
> 
> Mike
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Mike Hommey]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:22:10AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek  wrote:
> > 
> > Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system
> > work, being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as
> > much machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build
> > for each architecture. I think it's time to make a plan to retire
> > them and ship single-architecture 64-bit only builds.
> > 
> > As far as I know, there are two main blockers here: 1) Users with
> > 32-bit Apple hardware that can't install a 64-bit OS will become
> > unsupported. I don't have data on how many users this is, but I
> > suspect we can determine this from Telemetry. It's my understanding
> > that the last 32-bit only Apple hardware that was sold was in late
> > 2006, so it's nearly 9 years old at this point.  2) Currently
> > watching Netflix in Firefox on OS X requires the Silverlight plugin,
> > which is 32-bit only, so we need to ship a universal build for this
> > to work. I believe that we are planning to ship an EME CDM that will
> > work with Netflix in the near future, so this should make this a
> > non-issue.
> > 
> > For comparison, Chrome dropped support for 32-bit OS X late last
> > year in Chrome 39[1]. If we have a plan to support Netflix without
> > Silverlight, and we are OK with unsupporting however many users are
> > stuck on 32-bit only Apple hardware, I think we should make a plan
> > to switch our official builds to 64-bit only. Does anyone have any
> > concerns I've missed?
> > 
> > -Ted
> > 
> > 1.
> > http://www.computerworld.com/article/2849225/chrome-for-os-x-turns-64-bit-forsakes-early-intel-macs.html
> 
> These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've
> already decided that  #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can
> proceed as soon as #2 is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't
> come soon enough given the impact to build system complexity and
> overhead in automation.

... until Apple announces ARM64-based Macbooks. 

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Eric Shepherd]

Gregory Szorc wrote:
> These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've 
> already decided that  #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can proceed as 
> soon as #2 is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't come soon enough 
> given the impact to build system complexity and overhead in automation.
While I'm never happy to leave old stuff behind, I agree that this makes
sense. When that decision is made, it may be worth making a call-out to
the community to (a) let them know well in advance, and (b) offer the
opportunity for volunteers to start their own project to maintain a
32-bit Intel build if they really want it (similar to the TenFourFox
project).


-- 

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla 
Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
Check my Availability 
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Gregory Szorc]

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek  wrote:
> 
> Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system work,
> being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as much
> machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build for each
> architecture. I think it's time to make a plan to retire them and ship
> single-architecture 64-bit only builds.
> 
> As far as I know, there are two main blockers here:
> 1) Users with 32-bit Apple hardware that can't install a 64-bit OS will
> become unsupported. I don't have data on how many users this is, but I
> suspect we can determine this from Telemetry. It's my understanding that
> the last 32-bit only Apple hardware that was sold was in late 2006, so
> it's nearly 9 years old at this point.
> 2) Currently watching Netflix in Firefox on OS X requires the
> Silverlight plugin, which is 32-bit only, so we need to ship a universal
> build for this to work. I believe that we are planning to ship an EME
> CDM that will work with Netflix in the near future, so this should make
> this a non-issue.
> 
> For comparison, Chrome dropped support for 32-bit OS X late last year in
> Chrome 39[1]. If we have a plan to support Netflix without Silverlight,
> and we are OK with unsupporting however many users are stuck on 32-bit
> only Apple hardware, I think we should make a plan to switch our
> official builds to 64-bit only. Does anyone have any concerns I've
> missed?
> 
> -Ted
> 
> 1.
> http://www.computerworld.com/article/2849225/chrome-for-os-x-turns-64-bit-forsakes-early-intel-macs.html

These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've already 
decided that  #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can proceed as soon as #2 
is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't come soon enough given the 
impact to build system complexity and overhead in automation.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

[Ted Mielczarek]

Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system work,
being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as much
machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build for each
architecture. I think it's time to make a plan to retire them and ship
single-architecture 64-bit only builds.

As far as I know, there are two main blockers here:
1) Users with 32-bit Apple hardware that can't install a 64-bit OS will
become unsupported. I don't have data on how many users this is, but I
suspect we can determine this from Telemetry. It's my understanding that
the last 32-bit only Apple hardware that was sold was in late 2006, so
it's nearly 9 years old at this point.
2) Currently watching Netflix in Firefox on OS X requires the
Silverlight plugin, which is 32-bit only, so we need to ship a universal
build for this to work. I believe that we are planning to ship an EME
CDM that will work with Netflix in the near future, so this should make
this a non-issue.

For comparison, Chrome dropped support for 32-bit OS X late last year in
Chrome 39[1]. If we have a plan to support Netflix without Silverlight,
and we are OK with unsupporting however many users are stuck on 32-bit
only Apple hardware, I think we should make a plan to switch our
official builds to 64-bit only. Does anyone have any concerns I've
missed?

-Ted

1.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2849225/chrome-for-os-x-turns-64-bit-forsakes-early-intel-macs.html
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform