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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
Actually March 2013:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
New things are always on the horizon