-Original Message-
From: dev-platform [mailto:dev-platform-
bounces+rstrong=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Kaiser
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2014 6:47 PM
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
Mike Hommey schrieb
Mike Hommey schrieb:
The only way to generate them is to run firefox. Well, there are other
ways, but I don't think adding parts of the js engine and gecko to the
installer is really a great idea.
Could the installer run the Firefox binary in some mode that would just
generate those files and
Mike Hommey schrieb:
Note a significant amount of the omni.ja and browser/omni.ja data is
used for jsloader/jssubloader data: 4744949 and 1560499 bytes from those
files are that. These jsloader/jssubloader data are there for startup
benefits on Firefox first run (if the data wasn't there, it
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, but I'm questioning the fact
that download size would be affecting our growth. If the download size
of our competitors is not affecting theirs, why would it affect ours?
(and
Le 15/10/2014 04:09, Mike Hommey a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Coming from a country with typically slow Internet connections, I strongly
disagree. We should absolutely strive to be better than the competition by
providing a smaller download size.
:46:43 AM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, but I'm questioning the fact
that download size would be affecting our growth. If the download size
of our
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann chofm...@mozilla.com wrote:
Now that we have a strategy for putting developer tools in there own release
What's that strategy? It could be very bad for us if Dev Tools didn't
just work for Web devs because they downloaded a non-developer
build, when
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 01:25:02PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann chofm...@mozilla.com wrote:
Now that we have a strategy for putting developer tools in there own release
What's that strategy? It could be very bad for us if Dev Tools didn't
just
Robert Strong wrote:
Another example, if the omni.jar is not compressed the installer can compress
it about as well as if they were individual files and the minimal compression
currently used by omni.jar makes it so the installer is not able to compress
the omni.jar nearly as well which
Gregory Szorc wrote:
If you treat all files from those two archives as a single compression
context
Aha, this was the bit I was overlooking. Sorry for the confusion.
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
)
/divdivTo: chofm...@mozilla.org /divdivCc: Kyle Huey
m...@kylehuey.com,Chris More cm...@mozilla.com,dev-platform
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org /divdivSubject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox
full installer /divdiv
/divOn Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann chofm...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Now
On 10/15/14 3:25 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann chofm...@mozilla.com wrote:
Now that we have a strategy for putting developer tools in there own release
What's that strategy? It could be very bad for us if Dev Tools didn't
just work for Web devs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/14/2014 02:09 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
The simplest way to break the installer down is by the files in
it.
e.g. http://khuey.pastebin.mozilla.org/6781501
For future reference:
mozilla@KHUEY-19294 /c/dev/scratch $ wget
On 2014-10-13 8:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note a significant amount of the omni.ja and browser/omni.ja data is
used for jsloader/jssubloader data: 4744949 and 1560499 bytes from those
files are that. These jsloader/jssubloader data are there for startup
benefits on Firefox first run (if the
On 10/13/2014 9:25 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
Going forward, it would be interesting to see a dashboard track Firefox
installer size every day (or show every changeset's delta on Treeherder).
We used to have http://arewesmallyet.com -- I found references to it as
late as a year ago but it seems
On 10/13/2014 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
For example, the win32 installer for Firefox 32 is 34MB.
Remember the days when Asa would jump all over people for breaking the
5Mb barrier? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Download_Size
-Dan Veditz
___
dev-platform
...@mozilla.com, dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:27:52 AM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
On 10/13/2014 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
For example, the win32 installer for Firefox 32 is 34MB.
Remember the days when Asa would jump all over people
On 10/14/14 2:20 AM, Robert Strong wrote:
* (Countries' average) Internet speed dramatically affected conversion
rates: 70% success in the fastest countries and 30% in the slowest
countries.
Note that these conversion rates are from download to hitting the first
run page and there are several
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB. That's
almost a 200% increase. I did an A/B test last year when the installer
was 22MB and there was a
-
From: Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org
To: Chris More cm...@mozilla.com
Cc: Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com, dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:53:34 PM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very
...@mozilla.com
Cc: Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com, dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:53:34 PM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Gregory Szorc wrote:
If you are looking for ideas on how to reduce download size, the way
omni.ja is included in the installer could be reduced by 4+ MB. Both
omni.ja and browser/omni.ja are zip archives, where each file has a
separate compression context. If you treat all files from those
-
From: Justin Dolske dol...@mozilla.com
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:34:53 PM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
On 10/14/14 2:20 AM, Robert Strong wrote:
* (Countries' average) Internet speed dramatically affected conversion
.
Robert
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com
To: Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk, dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:31:54 PM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
On 10/14/14 5:12 PM, Neil wrote:
Gregory Szorc wrote
On 2014-10-14, 7:25 PM, Chris More wrote:
Great question and we've discussed the same thing last year. Last year, Chrome
was about the same size if not slightly bigger and that looks to be the same
case now. It is still worthwhile to understand about our installer size, the
driver of growth
On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB. That's
almost a 200% increase. I did an A/B test last year when
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB.
On 2014-10-14, 10:09 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org
To: Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
Cc: Chris More cm...@mozilla.com, dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, Daniel
Veditz dved...@mozilla.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:09:30 PM
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full
On 2014-10-14 10:14 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-14, 10:09 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, but I'm questioning
the fact
that download size would be affecting our growth. If the download size
of our competitors is not affecting theirs, why would it
On 10/13/14 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
Does anyone know or could any of you create a breakdown of the major blocks of
the Firefox installer and each of their respective sizes or percentage of the
whole?
For example, the win32 installer for Firefox 32 is 34MB. The Firefox Growth
team [1] like
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Chris Hofmann chofm...@mozilla.com wrote:
one thing to add on Kyle's analysis and numbers is to zip all the files back
up individually, then measure the size of each, since text files are likely
to have a higher compression rate than binary.
Pretty much
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 05:09:41PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Chris More cm...@mozilla.com wrote:
Does anyone know or could any of you create a breakdown of the major blocks
of the Firefox installer and each of their respective sizes or percentage
of the
On 10/13/14 5:42 PM, Andreas Gal wrote:
I looked at lzma2 a while ago for FFOS. I got pretty consistently 30% smaller
omni.ja with that. We could add it pretty easily to our decompression code but
it has slightly different memory behavior.
This was discussed in the Including Adobe CMaps
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 05:39:31PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 10/13/14 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
Does anyone know or could any of you create a breakdown of the major blocks
of the Firefox installer and each of their respective sizes or percentage of
the whole?
For example, the win32
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 05:37:23PM -0700, Chris Hofmann wrote:
On 10/13/14 5:09 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Chris More cm...@mozilla.com wrote:
Does anyone know or could any of you create a breakdown of the major blocks
of the Firefox installer and each of their
On 10/13/14 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
I am imagining a pie chart of the the current installer and then a
table of the name of each component, their size (KB or MB), and any
additional meta data.
Pie charts are usually not all that useful in this kind of analysis;
but one is attached based
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 10/13/14 5:42 PM, Andreas Gal wrote:
I looked at lzma2 a while ago for FFOS. I got pretty consistently 30%
smaller omni.ja with that. We could add it pretty easily to our
decompression code but it has slightly
On 10/13/14 5:16 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
On 10/13/14 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
Why am I asking this?
The win32 Firefox full installer continues to grow (see attachment)
each release and it has been on an increasing growth since Firefox
29. Like anything on the web, the time it takes to
On 10/13/14 5:37 PM, Chris Hofmann wrote:
and from last year Firefox installer size: How big is too big? - 2013
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.planning/installer$20size/mozilla.dev.planning/hPgUBzweL70/NeOjEf0hsh0J
That thread about installer size was regarding the
40 matches
Mail list logo
