Why does this system requirements page specify RAM for Windows and Mac,
but not for Linux? It mentions different packages for different
distributions, but couldn't it give the requirements for the tar.bz2 ?
they can't be that much different.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/120.0.1/system-requirements/

Richmond wrote:
> Why does this system requirements page specify RAM for Windows and Mac,
> but not for Linux? It mentions different packages for different
> distributions, but couldn't it give the requirements for the tar.bz2 ?
> they can't be that much different.
>
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/120.0.1/system-requirements/

My guess would be that the system's 'overhead' is more predictable for
Win & Mac because they have pretty much 'fixed' DEs; whereas a linux
system could possibly be 'lean and mean' w/o even a window manager, much
less a desktop environment of which there are a number of varieties of each.

You could run the Ffx off a lean kernel and no DE or WM from the command
line on very little ram, if you weren't trying to do too much at one
time w/ the browser. That is the browser itself would be the consumer
of the ram.

Perhaps that Mac requirement of 512meg was based on Ffx being run from
the command line or somesuch.

--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> Richmond wrote:
>> Why does this system requirements page specify RAM for Windows and Mac,
>> but not for Linux? It mentions different packages for different
>> distributions, but couldn't it give the requirements for the tar.bz2 ?
>> they can't be that much different.
>>
>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/120.0.1/system-requirements/
>
> My guess would be
>
AND...

That page sounds very 'whiney' on Moz part about being frustrated w/ the
'difficulty' of providing a 'conventional' package for the varieties of
linux, which is in evidence in Ub's decision to snap Firefox instead of
doing it the conventional .deb way.

I can see that problem getting worse and worse.

--
Mike Easter

On 12/15/23 08:49 PM, this is what Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Richmond wrote:
>>> Why does this system requirements page specify RAM for Windows and Mac,
>>> but not for Linux? It mentions different packages for different
>>> distributions, but couldn't it give the requirements for the tar.bz2 ?
>>> they can't be that much different.
>>>
>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/120.0.1/system-requirements/
>>
>> My guess would be
>>
> AND...
>
> That page sounds very 'whiney' on Moz part about being frustrated w/ the 'difficulty' of providing a 'conventional'
> package for the varieties of linux, which is in evidence in Ub's decision to snap Firefox instead of doing it the
> conventional .deb way.
>
> I can see that problem getting worse and worse.
>
Yes, with snap, flatpak and debs, how much really can each take? Too many variables.
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> writes:

> On 12/15/23 08:49 PM, this is what Mike Easter wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>> Why does this system requirements page specify RAM for Windows and
>>>> Mac, but not for Linux? It mentions different packages for
>>>> different distributions, but couldn't it give the requirements for
>>>> the tar.bz2 ? they can't be that much different.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/120.0.1/system-requirements/
>>>
>>> My guess would be
>>>
>> AND... That page sounds very 'whiney' on Moz part about being
>> frustrated w/ the 'difficulty' of providing a 'conventional' package
>> for the varieties of linux, which is in evidence in Ub's decision to
>> snap Firefox instead of doing it the conventional .deb way. I can
>> see that problem getting worse and worse.
>>
> Yes, with snap, flatpak and debs, how much really can each take? Too
> many variables.

OK but you could argue that you don't know what extensions people will
use or what websites they will visit or what other programs they will be
running, so you can never really say what the system requirements are on
any operating system. I'd say pick the default desktop for one or two
common distributions running an install from tar, e.g. Gnome on Debian.

The Seamonkey Project has managed to come up with a figure, possibly
rounded to the nearest gigabyte :)

https://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/system-requirements

Richmond wrote:
> OK but you could argue that you don't know what extensions people will
> use or what websites they will visit or what other programs they will be
> running, so you can never really say what the system requirements are on
> any operating system. I'd say pick the default desktop for one or two
> common distributions running an install from tar, e.g. Gnome on Debian.
>
> The Seamonkey Project has managed to come up with a figure, possibly
> rounded to the nearest gigabyte :)
>
> https://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/system-requirements

Let me see; I'm going to guess that you might be running a system that
has low resources. I say 'might', just because you are 'talking about'
and using (SM & Gnus nntp client) which are known to have lower resource
requirements than 'others' of their ilk such as Moz Firefox and
Thunderbird, both of which are notoriously *bloated*.

If I were using a system w/ low resources, Tb would not be my choice of
a news client which I'm using here, I would use something like Claws,
still graphical but lower resource requirement. That is what I use on
my 1 G ram RPi 3B. I also don't use Ffx there.

--
Mike Easter