Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 12 Released — Introduces Silent, Chrome-like Updater
MrSeb writes "Firefox 12 has been officially released, with only one major new feature: A silent, background updater. Now you will have to approve the Firefox Software Updater when you first install Firefox, but after that the browser will update silently — just like Chrome. In other news, the Find feature now reliably centers the page on any matches — hooray!"
Here are the release notes, the list of bug fixes, and the download page.
I suppose if you believe Mozilla knows what's best for us then this is a good thing. If you don't........
I'm very happy to hear about the find feature properly centring. It irks me when I search for something and then have to look over an entire page of text trying to figure out were on the page the key word is. This will save me a lot of time in the long run.
We already can't use chrome where I work due to the difficulty of wrangling then push updates. Bussinesses can't tolerate the lack of control of external root access to their computers. Even without root access pushed updates are a bussiness intelligence leak vector. while one can cabble work arounds to this, assuring thaey are intact on every computer is a hassle.
There is of course a raging debate if it's better to be up to date by default or to manage the bussiness approved updates. One can see benefits from both.
What would really help here is some third party paid seal of approval that bussinesses could contract to be the gate keeper on vetting third party updates.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As long as I can opt-out of the silent updates, I see no problem with this. The quicker we can get users to update, the better. Developers, on the other hand, need stability and control.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Firefox was unique because it gave control to the user with their add-ons. It's my computer. I won't tolerate software that changes without my permission.
Great, now our plugins will break and we won't know what to blame.
No, that just makes it an exploit target now. What idiot possibly thought that a program running with service-level permissions that bypasses UAC was a good idea?
I don't give a crap about new features and I haven't had plugin issues in a very very long time. I just want bug/security fixes and the latest standards support. Speed improvements are certainly welcome though.
For something as important as a web browser the updates have to be automatic and in the background. Most users are so afraid of doing anything to their computer they never install updates and then we end up with a bunch of vulnerable web users (who are also holding back newer web features).
Yes, it does require a bit more care on the part of the vendor to make sure they don't automatically break everyone's computer but that is a necessary risk.
>>>Yes, it does require a bit more care on the part of the vendor to make sure they don't automatically break everyone's computer but that is a necessary risk.
So instead of worrying a virus might sneak-in and break my machine (that's happened like twice in 10 years), instead I have to worry that the developer will do it for me (which seems to happen a lot). No. Thanks.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Yes, it does require a bit more care on the part of the vendor to make sure they don't automatically break everyone's computer but that is a necessary risk.
Which means there is absolutely no way Mozilla should be doing this. They've proven reliably that they can not be trusted to release an update that doesn't break massive amounts of stuff people care about because of their own ignorant engineering and 'I'm right your wrong' management morons. Yes, I'm talking to you Asa. They are doing exactly what drove them bankrupt the last 2 times they've failed.
No intelligent person wants a Mozilla auto-update so they can wake up tomorrow with a browser that looks different just because one fuck inside Mozilla thinks X group of users don't matter ... ignoring the fact that he just said the majority of his user base doesn't matter.
If you haven't had plugin issues in a very long time then you don't use plugins or your definition of 'long time' is done on swatch time or something stupid as the rest of the world regularly complains about Mozilla stupidity with plugins, yes, even after all the crap they did to auto-patch plugins.
Its mind blowing that you think Mozilla is in any way qualified to do auto updates for anything, thats a really dumb thing to allow them to do.
Under the old system, where UAC would ask about the potentially bricking updates, how would an end user tell a bricking update from a non-bricking update?
Firefox is still the only browser I can open a 100 tabs
Whenever I see someone mention 100 tabs, I wonder exactly wtf they're doing.
You know, these things called bookmarks make it so you don't have to have every page you (in)frequently visit open all the time.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Define "break computers" because if you mean "makes the computer unusable" then yes it does, which is why I switched to Comodo Dragon. You see what I found is that starting with FF V5 the CPU spikes would literally make the entire PC unresponsive, at least with some of the low power machines i have to support. Its a browser guys, a minute plus 100% CPU spikes is simply unacceptable, maybe they did something that makes the compiler not like AMD, as I don't seem to notice this problem being QUITE as bad on P4s, but in any case that's what it does. And a few hours? I've been waiting since FF 5 for this problem to be ironed out and no joy. I've tried regular FF, FF ESR, and Pale Moon and ALL have this same bug which tells me it is somewhere in the core FF code.
And as for your assertion that they will get a bug automatically simply by using an old browser that would possibly be true IF they didn't have an AV or were using one that doesn't scan pages before load like MSE, but since there are several free AVs out there that not only scan the page before load but sandbox the entire browser to protect the system if they are using one of those, both Avast and Comodo CIS just to name two free ones I know about, then that risk is virtually non-existent as it would have to both defeat the scan before loading AND jump the sandbox, no small task.
Personally I think its Gecko as you didn't really hear the complaints until they tried to bolt all the Chrome goodies onto gecko and i honestly think the old gal just can't take it. I mean sure there were memory leaks but after they finally manned up and admitted it with FF 3 they were making progress with them but then it seemed that Chrome came out and started gaining and since then its been nothing but a "me too!" fest and FF has suffered for it. All I know is I can fire up FF 3.6 and its usable on my low power devices, fire up FF 11 and its stuttering and CPU slamming and "senior moments" will make you want to pull an Elvis with the PC.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.