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.
I could do a few rounds with her for you.
Accord to their feature site, the auto-update is windows only?
Windows: Firefox is now easier to update with one less prompt (User Account Control)
So it's not really auto-update, just makes it a little nicer/easier for windows users.
Its not what it is, its something else.
but after that the browser will update silently - just like Chrome.
Chrome installs the browser into the user's folder in order to silence the UAC controls.
.
Firefox is continuing to install in the protected system area, without the benefit of the UAC warnings, bypassing any Windows security.
Will Firefox now become a new attack vector for exploits?
The developers said this move was in response to the complaints about the flurry of versions being released. But I have to say, I'd rather have fewer versions released than to have a new security exploit vector installed.
Firefox simplifies the update process for Windows users by removing the user account control dialog (UAC) pop-up while maintaining the security of your system. Once a user gives explicit permission to Firefox on their first installation, they will not be prompted again for subsequent releases.
yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong with having a service running that never prompts the user when it is doing something. Lazy devs strike again.
So then we will stop getting a post about it every 6 weeks? If version numbers don't matter like Asa claims then why such a big fuss and fanfare over their ridiculous version inflation?
You tell'em Desler!
Why in my day, you could get the most up to date software for less than 1.0! And you still had features leftover! Now, what does a 1.0 version get ya?! Nuth'in! You got to go all the way up to version 12!
This is all because we're off of the "Gold standard". You see, back in my day, software wasn't released until it was Gold.And we got an update once every two years - and we liked it! And I had to walk, uphill both ways!, to get all those floppies to stick in. An update took a better part of a day and if started snowing, well, we updated in the snow! And liked it!
And when we did it, we listened to good ole Rock&Roll music; none of the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM talking about nonsense over a drum beat! We had a melody! Wailing guitars! And solos that's grow hair on your chest! And the songs were about cool things too!
I'm outta breath, now. This Gerotol stuff is great! I'm on my second bottle of the day here - gotta keep me strong!
Great, now our plugins will break and we won't know what to blame.
Updates... overrated. When the update gives you nothing that you desired, and breaks all your addons, it's extremely annoying.
When v4 came out, I didn't see anything worthwhile in the update list, and decided to not update again until there was. Of course, I would never do this if I didn't also run noscript.
I updated from v3.5 to v11 just 2 weeks ago, so that I could get SPDY support. I don't anticipate updating again until v20+.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Or don't, as they will are compatible by default now.
someone hasn't seen the latest benchmarks on tomshardware then.
Firefox is just barely but is beating chrome and IE in speed for last 2 versions..
Chrome fanbois are about as bad as Appletards
Now I won't have to go 10 rounds with the wife to keep the ff on her mac up to date.
Alternatively, you could just move her to Firefox Extended Support Release, which is what I did at home as soon as it was available. She'll still get the security patches, but won't get overloaded by all the pointless monthly "updates for the sake of updating".
#DeleteChrome
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"
I've been using the same addons since Firefox 3.x and they all still work in Firefox 11. Which addons are you using that break with every new release?
Don't dare? What is there to really say since Mozilla finally got off its lazy ass after some several years and worked on the problem rather than playing a perpetual round of the blame game with plugin developers?
I guess people could still criticize it took Mozilla this long to take the situation seriously.
He said INSTALL as root, not RUN as root. It can do none of the things you claimed if it is INSTALLED as root but RUN as an unprivileged user. Note, installing means untaring the tarball somewhere.
The result is binaries owned by root that cannot be overwritten as a non-root user unless root chooses to change the permissions.
I mean, you can do what you want obviously but your logic is terrible. Firefox updates don't actually break computers (at worst they could break the browser causing you to... use a different one for the few hours before the fix comes out) and people really do get viruses which really do break their computers or, in the more likely case, turn their computers into bots and steal their financial information.
I updated from v3.5 to v11 just 2 weeks ago, so that I could get SPDY support. I don't anticipate updating again until v20+.
See you in November!
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?
You can disable auto-updates, regardless of whether or not you're running the extended support version.
Preferences -> Advanced -> Update.
You can also download every version of Firefox we've ever released here. We have no interest in forcing users to run the latest version.
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
Then what you want is Firefox Extended Support Release or ESR which is just that, bug fixes and security updates. It will be supported until FF 17 which at the rate they are going will be about a year, maybe a year and a half.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
As someone with a very basic understanding of plugins (we have a custom toolbar we roll out with internal apps and links) I can tell you it is an issue. As an add-on developer you have to build into the toolbar "this add-on is good for FF versions x through y" that is in an xml file required for the toolbar to run. So you as a developer have 2 options you can say that your toolbar will work with version 1 through 999999 and just hope that a firefox update really doesn't ever break your add-on OR you can update it with every release ensuring that it works with the new version and require your users / (admins in corp environment) to update the add-on every time. Both of the above options have there drawbacks.
My major issue with the firefox team is that they changed the rules in the middle of the game. It used to be that if I put this add-on will work with this new version it would be good for about a year. Now I need to add in 6 weeks per version so if i want it to be good for a year I divide 52 weeks by 6 week major upgrade cycle and add 8.6~9 to the version number for it to work for about a year. All of this is assuming Mozilla doesn't change there major release version system again. If they decide to go back to the old way then my add-on will last for 9 years and will almost certainly be broken by a release at some point along the way.
TODO create witty sig.
The silent, automatic updates only work on systems lacking decent package management (Windows and OSX), just like Chrome.
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.
I use FF on Mac OS X. It's been steadily becoming one of the worst browsers for the platform, performance-wise, but certain plugins still cause me to use it as my primary browser.
FF has always been shaky about remembering which monitor it should be on, but if I kept it there once I got it to open on the right monitor, it would at least always open where I left it. Well, in FF12, they have added this fantastic feature where all new windows open up on the primary monitor. Hooray! This should really increase my productivity. It might seem minor, but it's not minor to me.
Alright, that's annoying, but I decided to upgrade on day 0 of the release. My mistake assuming that they would stick with random interface changes, and not break lower-level functionality. I'll just roll back the browser. Fired up Time Machine, and I rolled back to the previous installation. Now, FF randomly hangs on various pages for up to a minute. Maybe the profile is hosed? Rolled that back, too. No, still hangs. Also tried starting in "safe" mode - it still hangs.
So, this isn't necessarily FF fault, maybe the rollback was corrupted. I'll just download FF11 and reinstall it. Except, since it's no longer the latest-and-greatest, it's not available. I couldn't find it without manually editing the FF12 link to point to 11.0.
Firefox, I don't know how much longer I can bother dragging your sorry carcass around with me. Your 3D transforms are so slow they are often unusable and the rapid update cycle is starting to cause real issues. Of course, I can't forget the random interface changes like removing favicons from the URL bar, because the interface is so terrible you can't tell the favicon from a security marker. I've now got almost as many interface hacks (via Stylish and plugins) as I do normal plugins.
I don't know what the solution is for FF, but I keep getting my hopes up, and keep getting more frustrated.
Note: I know that this might be only my computer. I don't have a lot of time or energy to set up another multi-monitor system, upgrade FF to FF12, and try it out. Since FF is one of the only applications I use that has multimon issues (besides a few random utilities), I have to assume it's something wrong with FF.
As of today 3.6 will no longer receive any security updates. So all of you netbook/low power users need to find an alternative, or bite the bullet.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Because it is a service that is started by the Mozilla binary. It updates and the exits. It doesn't stay running all the time. Ant this will work for the next update, not this one
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.
It's not just Mozilla doing this these days, it's lots of software projects. Linux users have been complaining about Unity and Gnome3 for quite some time now, and Google is now forcing a crappy new UI on its Gmail users. For a long time, Gmail users could opt out and stick with the old UI, but I got switched about a week ago with no way to switch back. There is a Chrome extension that looks like it might fix it, but it doesn't work on Chromium/Linux at the moment.
Basically, it seems like a lot of software developers (or their managers) are trying to justify their existence by constantly coming up with unnecessary and downright bad user-interface changes, and forcing it on their users in the name of "progress", even though there's no actual evidence that their new UIs are better, and instead lots of users complain, with great specificity, about how much worse they are.
I sometimes go crazy like that. I go to Reddit, /., Neatorama, Blue's News, Boing Boing, etc. and open web pages I want to read per page and site.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
That policy was already changed in Firefox 10:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Add-ons/Add-ons_Default_to_Compatible
New things are always on the horizon
Actually March 2013:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
New things are always on the horizon