Slashdot Mirror
Like Google's Chrome, Mozilla To Silently Update Firefox 4
CWmike writes "Taking a page from rival Google's playbook, Mozilla plans to introduce silent, behind-the-scenes security updating to Firefox 4. The feature, which has gotten little attention from Mozilla, is currently 'on track' for Firefox 4, slated to ship before the end of the year. Firefox 4's silent update will only be offered on Windows, Mozilla has said. Most updates will be downloaded and installed automatically without asking the user or requiring a confirmation. 'We'll only be using the major update dialog box for changes like [version] 4 to 4.5 or 5," said Alex Faaborg, a principal designer on Firefox, in the 'mozilla.dev.apps.firefox' forum. 'Unfortunately users will still see the updating progress bar on load, but this is an implementation issue as opposed to a [user interface] one; ideally the update could be applied in the background.' Unlike Google, Mozilla will let users change the default silent service to the more traditional mode, where the browser asks permission before downloading and installing any update."
I don't know about you, but IMHO, Firefox is suffering from it's increasing popularity. At least since Version 3.
... silent updates suck.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I like that a lot of what makes Firefox different from Chrome is due to the "we'll let users decide how they want it" approach instead of just telling them how it's going to be done.
Mozilla is stealing our freedoms with communist security updates!
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I get more complaints from family and friends about "slow computers" than anything else, and usually these are all about silent background updates in the end. It's damned near impossible to explain to someone that's not computer literate what and update is, how it's affecting their computer, why it's necessary that the update gets installed, etc. They don't even know what Firefox is ("You mean my Internet?") much less any of the other things. Even my wife struggles to comprehend why there's always an update running; she tends to think I'm lying or dismissing her concerns. Every single application running on her computer does silent background updates:
Windows
Office
AntiVirus/Firewall Software
Adobe Flash Player
Adobe Reader
Sun JRE
Nero
Skype
etc.
Even tiny little apps from the vendor do this... Volume control, display control, trackpad control, blah, blah...
Another background process running automatic updates each and every icon in the tray and for each and every folder and application in the Start menu, as well as for browser plugins, third party configuration tools/extensions, drivers, etc.
At the very least they should try to display a notification somewhere on the screen saying "Updating XYZ, may slow your computer..." each time they do this, rather than silently saturating an internet connection (as 10 different updaters are in competition with one another), a CPU, and/or a hard drive's activity.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
This is problematic on slow links where every byte is precious (dial-up)
This is problmeatic on expensive links where every byte costs money (satellite, cellular)
This is problematic in managed environments where the end user does not have write-permission to the filesystem containing the software
I hope it can be disabled.
I think it's a fine. Most users don't need or want that updating status or whatever because it confuses them.
If you are more savvy then you can turn on the notifications and see everything it's doing. Seems perfectly acceptable to me.
I wonder if there will be some way to enable this silent update on other OS's though. Seems stupid to assume Linux users are more savvy than Windows users. I have many non-tech people running Linux (and loving it).
At the risk of being /. assassinated, I have to say that I agree with this. Particularly because it is possible to disable such a feature.
Non-techie people don't get a thing about browsers, updating, security, etc. The medium-techie usually want to be all updated, so will update to even RCs and Betas if they find them out. Techie guys, us, do whatever they want, but I believe that they want to be in control and know what's going on -- thus, they'll disable such feature.
But especially for the non-techies, this is a way of getting free security upgrades. The upgrades will probably be carefully chosen so that there are no compatibility issues -- and if there are, non-techie to medium-techie users won't care that much.
All in all, it is good for people who don't care, and enables us who care to keep things the way we want it.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
Nah, little Snitch will tell me. I really do hate that Google Chrome feature; just when I least expect it one of the Google background processes is for no apparent reason trying to connect to certain sites. Makes me wary, even if for the right reasons some software tries to sneak in any update without telling me. Even Apple gives me more freedom there.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
This is not necessary. Linux distributions come with package managers and update systems that take care of upgrading everything on your system including your browser.
This kludge is only brought to the Windows version, because there is no coherent system to update third party software and the popups got old.
So much for rolling out Firefox for Enterprize.
I have installed by the Administrator account and then Unpriv users can't do updates, it requires manual intervention.
So instead we'll get "couldn't silently update" dialog boxes !
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
So far computers aren't intelligent, nor smarter than their users (despite opinions to the contrary), they generally pick the worst time to try to do updates.
There currently isn't a way for a computer to predict when it's getting in your way (hint, right at boot-up is the worst time, as I turned on the computer to get something done). Until then, there should be a clear indication it WANTS to update, with user ability to postpone for a specified period without distraction/interference.
Computers and other tools/appliances should never do something without the users/owners knowledge, or they become untrustworthy.
Ever watch someone turn on their computer to show you something? They have a task, start the machine, load the browser, get to Youtube, find the video, click play.
On my system, it comes out of hibernation, Firefox is already running, new tab, search, play. All auto-updating is turned off.
On most systems, after the OS boots, some things auto-update, some things ask to update. The user clicks cancel on all the permissible updates, but their system is bogged down the the hidden updates. Their browser takes inordinately long to load, they bitch about it. When their browser is finally up, they, oh wait, now browser updates. Okay NOW we can try to load Youtube, only our network connection is being interfered with and it doesn't play smoothly.
The Twitter post of mine that got the most reaction was how to disable Window's update nag box--it can wait until the TV show is over, or whatever the user needs/wants to do.
A better method would be for the OS to have an updating control, like on the Windows task bar, with progress meters for various software, with controls to aborting, pausing without anything hidden/secretive/subversive/untrusted.
Sure, give the users the ability to have background updates for those who prefer it, even provide an OS control so that you don't have to tell each individual piece of software that's your preference, that would be great. Thankfully Firefox is not inhibiting user control--yet (or I'd be seeking an alternative browser).
No computer software should behave like it knows what I want (or need) more than I do. A computer is only useful when it's doing what *I* desire it to, anything more is interfering, and the presumed benefit is outweighed by not being able to realize that benefit.
I'd love to be able to actually deploy and maintain Firefox in the large enterprise that I work in. Users want it. Unfortunately, users don't have admin rights, and Mozilla makes applying updates and configuring the browser from a central location difficult and has a history of not thinking about and actively shooting down any proposals which would potentially benefit system administrators trying to support Firefox.
I don't get why they don't get it.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Most users need to know when something has changed so they can associate any potential breakage with the correct event.
The more computers act like magical black boxes, the harder it becomes using them.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
If things break, users probably won't be able to fix them without calling someone for help. It's easy enough to check whether there has been an update.
My mom, for example, frequently fails to tell me of important events like software updates when things stop working. Instead she just tells me that "the Internet stopped working today" and other vague things like that. I have to dig to find out that she upgraded such and such, or disabled this or that.
So I say either you are savvy enough to turn off silent updates, or at least check to see if there's been an update, or you aren't savvy enough for knowledge of updates to be useful to you directly.
on Windows, Mozilla has said.
Nothing to see here, move along..
How stupid! Show the user the dialog box, and put a checkmark on it which says (approx) "Don't notify me of these updates anymore, just do them."
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
Just take a hint from the silent updates that Windows does;
Do you want Firefox to be updated automatically?
(x) Yes, check for updates and install automatically (recommended).
( ) No, notify me but I will decide to install updates myself.
( ) Do not check for updates (not recommended).
Note: with automatic updates, you will still be asked for permission to instal major updates.
The protocol could also require signed updates
Signed with a certificate issued by whom, purchased with what money? A company like Mozilla Corp could afford it, just as it can afford the Authenticode certificate to digitally sign Firefox Setup, but individual hobbyist developers of freeware and free software likely can't spare 200 U.S. dollars per year plus whatever their state charges to form a business entity.
"And I hope it can be disabled"
Read the summary.
Who exactly is running their web browser with the privileges required to install an update?
Virtually everyone.
People ignore update dialogs. Why do you think they wouldn't ignore that, too?
Can you name five security updates in the last two years that actually broke functionality for you? Not that my installation base is that huge, but I can think of maybe two updates out of hundreds where some level of functionality was actually lost to the average user.
Hmm, install Linux distro of choice? All updates (OS, Firefox, etc) handled by _one_ system, can show you a little icon/notification when there are new upgrades, easy to choose when to upgrade, etc.
Dilbert RSS feed
I have to say no to this, It should not be on by default. As much as everyone loves foxfire they make mistakes updates brick computers and so on. If we have no clue there was an update before the computer acts up this is a bad thing. We all ask what was the last thing you did? correct? It can be an option but thats it, an option.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Silent updates is the reason why I received a 30 euro phone bill for a few minutes.
I was on holiday, and let a friend use my laptop and telephone to send an important email (it was party invitation, nothing more important than that). And of course... I forgot to displace all things that would silently try to update whatever they could when a network connection was found. Withing a short time, a few megabyte was downloaded. And mobile data from a foreign country is more expensive than HP ink.
So please mozilla, provide a nice toggle though the preferences screen to change this, an not through a about:config option.