Firefox Tinderbox Build
- Thread starter Janice
- Start date
Tinderbox builds work exactly the same way as the regular release versions do. They just aren't officially announced to the public. The latest XP-compatible Tinderbox build is 52.9.1. The last legacy version is 56.0.2, but it's only marginally better at web rendering than 52.x.x (FF56 scored merely four points higher on the HTML5 test than FF52).
If it is the same as regular release why call it by a different name Tinderbox build; just for my knowledge.
According to an ancient (2004!) thread on the MozillaZine.org forums, Tinderbox is a quick way of tracking recent changes in the source code and their effects on builds. The title "Tinderbox build" refers to a build made as part of the continual build processes that the Tinderbox machines run. Supposedly, the Tinderbox system had been decommissioned in 2014, but it's still around to this day (as of Sept.2018). Mozilla's Tinderbox build directory, which contains a plethora of information (it's quite fascinating if you have time to investigate) and a multitude of different builds for different operating systems (32-bit and 64-bit) can be found here:
https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/
Look for "mozilla-esr" and you will find many subdirectories, a true gold mine of history regarding every build of Firefox ESR all the way down to the first official series (ESR10; in terms of lineal succession, the actual first ESR was the 3.0.x/3.5.x/3.6.x series, but I digress). If you want to get right to 52.9.1ESR it can be found at this link (look for "firefox-52.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe"):
https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr52-win32/1536215521/
I cannot find anything listed on this page for the latest ESR (60.x.x), so it is presumable that the Tinderbox system may be getting retired soon. Perhaps they were keeping their old Tinderbox machines running for the sake of maintaining a secure browser for XP users. In any event Mozilla deserves a major toast...they outlasted every other major company in keeping up Windows XP support.
https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/
Look for "mozilla-esr" and you will find many subdirectories, a true gold mine of history regarding every build of Firefox ESR all the way down to the first official series (ESR10; in terms of lineal succession, the actual first ESR was the 3.0.x/3.5.x/3.6.x series, but I digress). If you want to get right to 52.9.1ESR it can be found at this link (look for "firefox-52.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe"):
https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr52-win32/1536215521/
I cannot find anything listed on this page for the latest ESR (60.x.x), so it is presumable that the Tinderbox system may be getting retired soon. Perhaps they were keeping their old Tinderbox machines running for the sake of maintaining a secure browser for XP users. In any event Mozilla deserves a major toast...they outlasted every other major company in keeping up Windows XP support.
This is an amazing amount of information. I have some idea what 'source code' and 'build' are but having difficulty understanding the rest, due to lack of knowledge. Is it possible to further explain the two sentences I have quoted please?
You say "Tinderbox machines". I am confused about why they are called machines.
Thank you
A quick Google search brought up some very valuable information on an archived Mozilla.org page (from a snapshot saved in '08):
"If you get more than 10 developers together without tools, there is going to be an explosion. Tinderbox keeps this potentially explosive situation under control.
Essentially, Tinderbox is a detective tool. It allows you to see what is happening in the source tree. It shows you who checked in what (by asking Bonsai); what platforms have built successfully; what platforms are broken and exactly how they are broken (the build logs); and the state of the files that made up the build (cvsblame) so you can figure out who broke the build, so you can do the most important thing, hold them accountable for their actions.
Tinderbox is comprised of a server with a bunch of clients running builds and reporting status via mail."
More info can be found on the page itself: https://www-archive.mozilla.org/tinderbox.html
I pray that you will find this information as edifying as I have!
"If you get more than 10 developers together without tools, there is going to be an explosion. Tinderbox keeps this potentially explosive situation under control.
Essentially, Tinderbox is a detective tool. It allows you to see what is happening in the source tree. It shows you who checked in what (by asking Bonsai); what platforms have built successfully; what platforms are broken and exactly how they are broken (the build logs); and the state of the files that made up the build (cvsblame) so you can figure out who broke the build, so you can do the most important thing, hold them accountable for their actions.
Tinderbox is comprised of a server with a bunch of clients running builds and reporting status via mail."
More info can be found on the page itself: https://www-archive.mozilla.org/tinderbox.html
I pray that you will find this information as edifying as I have!
Yes, I am getting some idea about it now except for this:
What is meant by "explosion" and "explosive situation"
Basically, if not everyone is on the same page as far as the tools they're using for developing any computer program (be it a browser or anything else), the results will be nothing short of catastrophic. Just one bug, glitch, or flaw can break the entire thing completely. Tinderbox prevents the possibility of such chaos with regards to Mozilla/Gecko-based programs (not just browsers like Firefox and SeaMonkey, but also their Thunderbird mail client; it's possible it may also be used for forks like Camino, K-Meleon, Pale Moon, etc).
Now it is all clearBrowsers like SeaMonkey, Pale Moon etc. are they all compatible with Firefox Addons? What sort of speeds can I expect from these various forks and builds?
Thank you
Some are compatible and some aren't.. It all depends on what differs from the original fork to make the add-on work. In most cases there isn't a huge difference but I do find mypal slightly faster and more compatible with videos when compared to a similar FF version.
What Lockherup said. I really can't put it much better than that, but I'd like to say a few things, at the risk of going off-topic a bit.
I am now done with Opera, and have no intentions of returning to it anytime soon. It was (and still is) a fine browser, especially for the older Pentium III/4-era computers. But it was just giving me too many problems, &had enough weird quirks to finally get on my nerves. My current setup (and this time I think I really HAVE finalized my browser combo) is Firefox 3.6.29pre (Namoroka) and K-Meleon 75.1. FF handles the basic stuff, while K-Meleon takes care of the sites it can no longer handle. I don't know what it is about Gecko browsers but they have never given me any serious problems in all the years I've been using them. This is my second straight day back on FF 3.6, & I am genuinely astonished at how stable this browser is. It is very light on RAM, still loads most sites surprisingly well, and doesn't have the rendering issues that now severely date FF 2.0 & earlier (like HTML5 symbols/emojis being rendered as question marks), or the network protocol problems of FF 2.0 ("Firefox can't connect securely - security protocol is not enabled" appears with my Gmail account after I've been logged in for a long enough time). K-Meleon, despite being forked from the heavyweight Gecko 31 code, is also lightweight in its RAM usage, and is brilliantly optimized to use as few resources as necessary.
I tried Mypal again recently (version 27.9.4 and also the latest one), and was horrified to find both using 800+ MB of RAM after they were open for a while (doing the same things in K-Meleon that I tried to do with Mypal requires less than a fraction of that RAM). As much as I like Mypal, its RAM usage was a deal-breaker, and while I like SeaMonkey it seems bloated in the same way that the old Netscape Communicator suite was(there are a lot of extra/built-in programs that, while useful, I don't have a use for right now). Ultimately, it all comes down to your personal preference, but in general it helps to stick with lightweight/older browsers. They can be a lifesaver on computers with limited memory and on newer machines with plenty to spare you free up more RAM for other tasks.
I am now done with Opera, and have no intentions of returning to it anytime soon. It was (and still is) a fine browser, especially for the older Pentium III/4-era computers. But it was just giving me too many problems, &had enough weird quirks to finally get on my nerves. My current setup (and this time I think I really HAVE finalized my browser combo) is Firefox 3.6.29pre (Namoroka) and K-Meleon 75.1. FF handles the basic stuff, while K-Meleon takes care of the sites it can no longer handle. I don't know what it is about Gecko browsers but they have never given me any serious problems in all the years I've been using them. This is my second straight day back on FF 3.6, & I am genuinely astonished at how stable this browser is. It is very light on RAM, still loads most sites surprisingly well, and doesn't have the rendering issues that now severely date FF 2.0 & earlier (like HTML5 symbols/emojis being rendered as question marks), or the network protocol problems of FF 2.0 ("Firefox can't connect securely - security protocol is not enabled" appears with my Gmail account after I've been logged in for a long enough time). K-Meleon, despite being forked from the heavyweight Gecko 31 code, is also lightweight in its RAM usage, and is brilliantly optimized to use as few resources as necessary.
I tried Mypal again recently (version 27.9.4 and also the latest one), and was horrified to find both using 800+ MB of RAM after they were open for a while (doing the same things in K-Meleon that I tried to do with Mypal requires less than a fraction of that RAM). As much as I like Mypal, its RAM usage was a deal-breaker, and while I like SeaMonkey it seems bloated in the same way that the old Netscape Communicator suite was(there are a lot of extra/built-in programs that, while useful, I don't have a use for right now). Ultimately, it all comes down to your personal preference, but in general it helps to stick with lightweight/older browsers. They can be a lifesaver on computers with limited memory and on newer machines with plenty to spare you free up more RAM for other tasks.
For personal use, what are the benifits of using this version, instead of the normal version that every one uses?
I'm not using the Firefox 52.x series anymore for the time being, but in the short time I used 52.9.1 (roughly a week) it seemed more stable than 52.9.0 (which crashed on me at least twice). It is also more secure, having been released in September versus the June release of 52.9.0. In general, there isn't a great deal of difference between vanilla 52.0 and the newest 52.9.1 version, but of course newer releases are going to have more security and stability (which is why I personally recommend 52.9.1; then again, when you know enough about tweaking browsers for privacy/security and are discerning as far as what sites you visit, you can use nearly any version of any browser out there).
You are very welcome! I'm typing this from Firefox 1.0.8 now...I didn't think it was possible to use such an ancient version of Firefox in 2018, but it actually still works surprisingly well for most sites (with some caveats since a lot of websites now use newer TLS protocols not supported in Firefox 1). Amazingly, it's capable of properly rendering GenYoutube.com (i.e., with all essential elements functional, including the search options when you look something up; the search feature doesn't work properly on any pre-11.x Opera version).
It just goes to show how ahead of the curve Mozilla was as far as standards compliance! IE6 couldn't touch it with a 1,000-foot pole.
It just goes to show how ahead of the curve Mozilla was as far as standards compliance! IE6 couldn't touch it with a 1,000-foot pole.
Attachments
I agree, it's amazing that it can do all this but I have one big thing against Firefox. As soon as you click on Firefox icon, even before the home page is fully loaded, they are allowing google to start tracking you - on a blank Home Page!! Within seconds while the home page is still getting loaded, "Self Destructing Cookies" extension comes up to tell me that google's cookies and trackers are being wiped. The only way to stop this is to disallow 3rd party cookies but how many people know to do this?
I honestly wish I knew what to tell you, Janice, but I will speak from my own realm of experience as much as I can.
I've never used the "Self-Destructing Cookies" extension, but I have heard many good things about it, and would try it out except I'm not sure if it will break my logins during a given browsing session or not (I log into Gmail each day to check my e-mails & Facebook and Twitter to stay in touch w/friends among other sites). It would also more than likely necessitate an upgrade to a newer Firefox version, which I'm not opposed to doing but don't want to do unless there is a good reason.
It's just a theory on my part, but I'd presume that Google's ability to track you could be correlated with whatever you are using as your default search engine. It's possible that swapping Google for DuckDuckGo (or whatever alternative search engine you prefer) may at least partially thwart Google's ability to track you (as an extra security measure, you could go into the options menu and remove Google from your list of available/accessible search engines). Regularly cleaning/clearing out your cache is also helpful.
Another possibility is, as I mentioned earlier, to downgrade to the oldest version of Firefox still capable of supporting all of your addons (the last version of Firefox before it started turning into a Chrome clone was 28.0, but 24.8.1ESR is also recommended if you want something slightly more up-to-date as far as security). In general, the older a browser it is, the harder it becomes for sites like Google to pull their tracking BS that they are so keen on doing nowadays. Most people would scoff at even the notion of using a browser like Netscape 3.x/4.x for ANYTHING these days, but believe it or not it's pretty much ironclad as far as security. With a good proxy (I recommend proxycrime.com or fastusaproxy.com), JavaScript/cookies/CSS turned off, & regular cache cleaning it can still be used to navigate most websites, and is all but impervious to tracking and modern-day malicious scripts. I tried it out for a while and was quite impressed--there are a few things I can't do with it (like checking e-mails or using online translator services), but having another browser on hand to pick up the slack solves that problem. Netscape is my #1 choice for Windows 3.1 users.
Despite its flaws, Firefox and other Gecko derivatives are my most highly recommended browsing choices for Windows XP users. Based on my own experiences, Firefox 1.0.8 (released in April 2006, though the engine itself dates back to November 2004) is quite possibly the oldest reliable browser one can use in 2018--it has the tabbed interface which IE6 lacked (even if you use something like SlimBrowser, you're still tethered by the Trident engine's limitations, meaning that sites that don't render as you like them to in IE6 will render no better in SlimBrowser), supports a lot of sites that several-years-newer versions of Opera have problems with (for example, logging into my Gmail account is seamless in Firefox 1, whereas even with Opera 10.10 [released in Nov. 2009!!] there are constant 'Stale Request' errors; this was fixed starting with Opera 10.5x, however, but GenYouTube.com only starts to work properly in Opera with version 11 [the first of its kind of which was released in late 2010]), and is more lightweight in RAM use than 2.x/3.x. Not to mention its astonishing versatility as far as OS compatibility...Firefox 1 (and 1.5) will work on nearly any OS you throw at it! There are a few conveniences I'd gotten used to in newer versions that FF1 doesn't have but for all the basic stuff it's still rock-solid.
I've never used the "Self-Destructing Cookies" extension, but I have heard many good things about it, and would try it out except I'm not sure if it will break my logins during a given browsing session or not (I log into Gmail each day to check my e-mails & Facebook and Twitter to stay in touch w/friends among other sites). It would also more than likely necessitate an upgrade to a newer Firefox version, which I'm not opposed to doing but don't want to do unless there is a good reason.
It's just a theory on my part, but I'd presume that Google's ability to track you could be correlated with whatever you are using as your default search engine. It's possible that swapping Google for DuckDuckGo (or whatever alternative search engine you prefer) may at least partially thwart Google's ability to track you (as an extra security measure, you could go into the options menu and remove Google from your list of available/accessible search engines). Regularly cleaning/clearing out your cache is also helpful.
Another possibility is, as I mentioned earlier, to downgrade to the oldest version of Firefox still capable of supporting all of your addons (the last version of Firefox before it started turning into a Chrome clone was 28.0, but 24.8.1ESR is also recommended if you want something slightly more up-to-date as far as security). In general, the older a browser it is, the harder it becomes for sites like Google to pull their tracking BS that they are so keen on doing nowadays. Most people would scoff at even the notion of using a browser like Netscape 3.x/4.x for ANYTHING these days, but believe it or not it's pretty much ironclad as far as security. With a good proxy (I recommend proxycrime.com or fastusaproxy.com), JavaScript/cookies/CSS turned off, & regular cache cleaning it can still be used to navigate most websites, and is all but impervious to tracking and modern-day malicious scripts. I tried it out for a while and was quite impressed--there are a few things I can't do with it (like checking e-mails or using online translator services), but having another browser on hand to pick up the slack solves that problem. Netscape is my #1 choice for Windows 3.1 users.
Despite its flaws, Firefox and other Gecko derivatives are my most highly recommended browsing choices for Windows XP users. Based on my own experiences, Firefox 1.0.8 (released in April 2006, though the engine itself dates back to November 2004) is quite possibly the oldest reliable browser one can use in 2018--it has the tabbed interface which IE6 lacked (even if you use something like SlimBrowser, you're still tethered by the Trident engine's limitations, meaning that sites that don't render as you like them to in IE6 will render no better in SlimBrowser), supports a lot of sites that several-years-newer versions of Opera have problems with (for example, logging into my Gmail account is seamless in Firefox 1, whereas even with Opera 10.10 [released in Nov. 2009!!] there are constant 'Stale Request' errors; this was fixed starting with Opera 10.5x, however, but GenYouTube.com only starts to work properly in Opera with version 11 [the first of its kind of which was released in late 2010]), and is more lightweight in RAM use than 2.x/3.x. Not to mention its astonishing versatility as far as OS compatibility...Firefox 1 (and 1.5) will work on nearly any OS you throw at it! There are a few conveniences I'd gotten used to in newer versions that FF1 doesn't have but for all the basic stuff it's still rock-solid.
Thank you for this huge amount of knowledge.
I am playing around with Firefox 35...Tried to get extension Ghostery and was told that I must have at least version 52! This is a major set back when using older versions.
I want to have a go at Netscape in my Windows XP. Do you think it is suitable for XP? If the answer is 'yes', it is confusing with terms like Browser, Navigator and Communicator. Which one of these and which version should I try out, with speed and privacy in mind. Also a safe download link please.
I am playing around with Firefox 35...Tried to get extension Ghostery and was told that I must have at least version 52! This is a major set back when using older versions.
I want to have a go at Netscape in my Windows XP. Do you think it is suitable for XP? If the answer is 'yes', it is confusing with terms like Browser, Navigator and Communicator. Which one of these and which version should I try out, with speed and privacy in mind. Also a safe download link please.
Last edited:
You are very welcome! A quick look at Mozilla's collection of archived Ghostery versions seems to indicate that it is supported all the way down to Firefox 2.0.0.x. The last version of this extension for FF2 is version 1.4.0, and it can be downloaded from this link:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/versions/?page=4
For all the basic stuff (checking e-mails, accessing the legacy/mobile Facebook/Twitter sites, looking things up on Wikipedia, etc.) FF2 is still a fine browser in 2018. The last version of Netscape (9.0.0.6) is built off of the same Gecko engine FF2 used (1.8.1), but its security is on par with Firefox 2.0.0.12 (which is more than a year behind the final FF2 update, which was 2.0.0.22pre in 2009). I am not sure if there is a FF2-compatible version for every extension you enjoy & prefer to use, but most of the popular extensions today were introduced when Firefox 2 was still receiving official updates from Mozilla, or shortly after the support period ended. Years back an unofficial version of FF 2.0.0.22pre ("Firefox 95") was released which incorporates code adding graceful fallback for sites with HTML5 elements (in other words, there is a lessened chance of most sites looking like they went through a Cuisinart). It can be downloaded here as a .zip file which must be extracted into its own individual folder (there's no folder built into the file):
http://toastytech.com/files/95browsing.html (look for "Firefox95.zip"; you may want to create and put a shortcut on the desktop)
Netscape 4.x is the oldest version I'd give any thought to using (it has a simple options menu which Netscape 3.x and earlier lack and can also render Unicode text properly), but it lacks MANY conveniences of modern browsers (such as tabs) and seemed a bit unstable when I was tinkering with it. It is perfectly usable on XP, though, and if you want to try it out you can download it here:
http://ftp.vim.org/netscape/communicator/english/4.08/windows/windows95_or_nt/navigator_standalone/ ("n32d408.exe")
I hope you will find this at least somewhat useful!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/versions/?page=4
For all the basic stuff (checking e-mails, accessing the legacy/mobile Facebook/Twitter sites, looking things up on Wikipedia, etc.) FF2 is still a fine browser in 2018. The last version of Netscape (9.0.0.6) is built off of the same Gecko engine FF2 used (1.8.1), but its security is on par with Firefox 2.0.0.12 (which is more than a year behind the final FF2 update, which was 2.0.0.22pre in 2009). I am not sure if there is a FF2-compatible version for every extension you enjoy & prefer to use, but most of the popular extensions today were introduced when Firefox 2 was still receiving official updates from Mozilla, or shortly after the support period ended. Years back an unofficial version of FF 2.0.0.22pre ("Firefox 95") was released which incorporates code adding graceful fallback for sites with HTML5 elements (in other words, there is a lessened chance of most sites looking like they went through a Cuisinart). It can be downloaded here as a .zip file which must be extracted into its own individual folder (there's no folder built into the file):
http://toastytech.com/files/95browsing.html (look for "Firefox95.zip"; you may want to create and put a shortcut on the desktop)
Netscape 4.x is the oldest version I'd give any thought to using (it has a simple options menu which Netscape 3.x and earlier lack and can also render Unicode text properly), but it lacks MANY conveniences of modern browsers (such as tabs) and seemed a bit unstable when I was tinkering with it. It is perfectly usable on XP, though, and if you want to try it out you can download it here:
http://ftp.vim.org/netscape/communicator/english/4.08/windows/windows95_or_nt/navigator_standalone/ ("n32d408.exe")
I hope you will find this at least somewhat useful!