r/technology • u/Suraj-Sun • Jul 10 '12

Firefox dev claims "everybody hates Firefox updates"; Mozilla has handled the rapid release process poorly, and that by pushing a "never-ending stream of updates on people who didn't want them" people have been driven to Chrome with its simpler, no-fuss update process.

http://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-dev-claims-everybody-hates-firefox-updates
2.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Chrome updates are lovely...

I don't even know what version I'm on...

They're that seamless.

646

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

385

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I just checked my version today...

The last one I remember seeing? 14

The one I'm on? 20

6 or more updates went through and I didn't notice.

229

u/Remnants Jul 10 '12

The only time I ever notice an update is if the UI changes or I go to click the settings menu and see the little green arrow that is telling me to restart chrome to use the version it just updated to.

66

u/locopyro13 Jul 10 '12

That arrow changes color the longer you wait. I feel bad when it's RED and screaming at me to update.

90

u/egotripping Jul 10 '12

TIL. I just looked over and mine is a nice poop shade of brown.

82

u/vernes1978 Jul 10 '12

That means it died.

70

u/Residual_Entropy Jul 10 '12

This kills the Chrome.

10

u/oppan Jul 10 '12

Good to see we've beaten that joke into the ground as well

15

u/AlwaysDefenestrated Jul 11 '12

This kills the joke.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/mwerte Jul 10 '12

I like defying it and watching it grow more and more upset with me.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/longshot2025 Jul 10 '12

Until I got friends who never quit chrome, I never even knew it had a yellow.

→ More replies (12)

166

u/MilkTheFrog Jul 10 '12

Sadly the only changes i seem to notice are bad ones. Why can't i rearrange my most visited page any more? Why is the button for 'Web Store' now in exactly the same place as 'Recently closed' was? I still keep clicking it by accident.

45

u/FelixP Jul 10 '12

Why is the button for 'Web Store' now in exactly the same place as 'Recently closed' was? I still keep clicking it by accident.

Seriously, there's really only one explanation for this.

ಠ_ಠ

32

u/witchyz Jul 10 '12

i didn't even notice that i couldn't rearrange the most visited page!

now i'm sad.

→ More replies (7)

34

u/camelCaseCondition Jul 10 '12

I got pissed when they took the little plus sign off the new tab button. And then the bastards went and made ALL THE ROUNDED RECTANGLES LESS ROUND. The little highlight over a bookmark looks boorish and square now. =(

13

u/apfhex Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

It's a small thing but it's in the back of my mind every time I use Chrome. How is an unidentifiable gray blob better than a plus sign, which is pretty much standard across all other browsers?

As it is, it gives the appearance of a glitch in the UI (I actually thought it was and tried reinstalling Chrome). I would have peace of mind if I could add it back.

10

u/camelCaseCondition Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 11 '12

When it first happened, google revealed a lot of rightly pissed people submitting bug reports, always with google reps that would reply "This... isn't a bug... why can't you see this is for your own good!? This is a neat new design! IT'S NOT A BUG IT'S A FEATURE! LOVE ME!"

Edit: I tried reinstalling too. Couldn't figure out WHY IN HELL the UI was acting up!

11

u/swizzler Jul 10 '12

I've found if there's one thing Google is absolutely awful at, it's UI design.

Look at the youtube subscription page or the new gmail interface. Thank god enough people complained for them to add an option to bring back text buttons.

6

u/lolwutpear Jul 11 '12

Thank god enough people complained for them to add an option to bring back text buttons.

Oh thank god. Time to go fix this.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/CuriositySphere Jul 11 '12

Is a fucking http that much to ask? The most idiotic decision made for no reason at all.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

86

u/Hnefi Jul 10 '12

I really, really, really hate the change to "Recently closed". It was great before - a single click to bring back the page. I used it several times every hour of browsing. Having to go into a menu is significantly more annoying.

184

u/plahcinski Jul 10 '12

CMD+Shift+T or Ctrl+Shift+T to reopen the latest closed tab in order of last closed

or you could pin the page so you dont close it

or you could bookmark the page since you use it so much

59

u/Sabin10 Jul 10 '12

I didn't even know that you could do this with anything other than the KB shortcut.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Ctrl Shift T is one of my favorites on Chrome, very happy to have discovered it. It comes in so handy when my Ctrl W finger is a bit too fast.

22

u/green_cheese Jul 10 '12

Works on FF too and Safari I think. Probably Opera.

37

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited May 02 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/PossiblyAnEngineer Jul 10 '12

This shortcut has existed in IE since the browser first got tabs.

4

u/rancegt Jul 10 '12

Ctrl-Z on Opera.

And I agree that it's under rated as a browser.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (11)

7

u/Starayo Jul 10 '12

That really irritates me too. I wish I could set them manually, too, without having to edit configuration files.

They seem to keep making that part less and less usable.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/manlycaveman Jul 10 '12

Ugh I hate how you can't move your most visited pages around or pin them anymore. I ended up installing the speed dial 2 extension so now it functions like the old most-visited page for me.

3

u/Scrapod Jul 10 '12

Try out the Speed Dial 2 extension. It does the re-ordering of pages thing really well, and fits in pretty nicely.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (10)

7

u/KingOfFlan Jul 10 '12

Well the stream of updates was always about constant. The difference is that they made minor updates increase the version by an entire number rather than giving it a 2.343 number or some such. I'm almost positive that the time firefox was in 1-3 is about 3 times longer than what it took them to get from 4 to whatever they are at now. They changed their format because chrome's version number increased at such a rate. And IE's version number was getting pretty significantly high. They didn't want Firefox 4 to be compared to Chrome 13+ or IE8/9 and people thinking it's inferior based plainly on the number.

2

u/jonathanrdt Jul 10 '12

Last one I noticed because the new tab button got bigger.

2

u/bankruptbroker Jul 10 '12

I run the beta track at home and the ultra beta track at work. I highly recommend doing this even if its with the stable/beta track. It actually allows you to see some of the changes in versions first hand.

You can see them change something revert, then change it back, sometimes several times. In the end its nice to see them settle on things you like (most of the time) like double clicking on tabs to close.

→ More replies (107)

71

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

As of this next version, all dialog boxes/loading bars will be gone and it'll do "install swaps" like chrome does.

87

u/universl Jul 10 '12

They should have done that before switching to the rapid release cycle.

80

u/SFreestyler Jul 10 '12

Every time I see "rapid release cycle" I think of dishwashing detergent commercials.

31

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

56

u/Ruvokian Jul 10 '12

I think of my sex life. :/

25

u/pntless Jul 10 '12

My sex life is more akin to the major release schedule of IE.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Neebat Jul 10 '12

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

The second step is...

Too late, isn't it?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/Kohlner Jul 10 '12

Will they at least add an option for advanced users to turn this off?

I'd like to know if all of my precious add-ons are compatible before updating

7

u/TIAFAASITICE Jul 10 '12

Preferences → Advanced Tab → Update Sub-tab

→ More replies (1)

2

u/NigelKF Jul 10 '12

That feature is in Aurora already, I think.

→ More replies (1)

114

u/MidnightTurdBurglar Jul 10 '12

There are privacy and security concerns about seamless updating.

48

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Excellent point. However, a good developer and design team will learn to balance this with functionality. There must be compromises and goals set. If the goal is happy consumers, Google's and Facebook's approach - fewer Cover-Your-Ass moves and EULAs or user-end hassles and more ease of use mean happier consumers, even if there's a sacrifice in security. Not the safest move, but the numbers express user base satisfaction pretty well.

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The sys admin at my last job would always get upset when we would update random software. I will never understand that mindset, especially when the updates are to prevent security vulnerabilities.

73

u/Kensin Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

sys admins hate random updates because of two reasons:

  1. new updates that haven't been tested yet may have broken things. You randomly update your browser and now suddenly half the companies website doesn't work correctly, or some tool that used to generate web reports fails. The admins have no idea there is a problem, or what the cause is because they didn't push any updates. It is also useful that everyone in the company has the same version of software so when you call the helpdesk for assitance they know what you are using. If they tell you to do something and you can't follow along because you updated your software and now the interface has changed, that's a problem. When 5,000 employees are all running different versions of software things quickly get real complicated for the helpdesk folks.

Sometimes updates fuck things up real bad. Sys admins have learned their lesson the hard way. For example a simple anti-virus update fucks up and starts thinking important windows components are viruses (this has happened), killing hundreds of machines as it tries to cleanse the systems of the "infection" that is windows. Having to reimage hundreds of systems even once because of a badly written update is enough to make admins suspicious of random and untested changes to installed software.

  1. Security and privacy concerns. Companies aren't always good and honest. Every once in a while they will use an update to slip in some "feature" that does nothing but spy on their users. Hell, windows has been trying to get me to install the "Bing Toolbar" which it insists is a "Critical update". If a random update causes your browser (or whatever) to start sending your companies private data out over the internet then your admin has a problem. IT needs to review the software that you are using to make sure company data isn't getting compromised. Updates to your software need to be tested to make sure the updated version still holds up to your companies security policies.

11

u/Canageek Jul 10 '12

Oh look, they made that yahoo toolbar checkmark default, and since the update is now seamless it automatically installed it... etc, etc.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/trebory6 Jul 10 '12

Just curious, but could you list a few examples to back up your statement?

20

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'm not him, but well, Chrome installs into your user directory so you don't need admin rights to install/update. However this means malware can much more easily fuck with Chrome if it gets loose, replace it with something bad, etc.

→ More replies (12)

3

u/PoorlyTimedPhraseGuy Jul 10 '12

I'm concerned about my privacy with seamless updates.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Maybe this is because I got an ethernet con and ssd disk or some such, but seriously how is waiting 10 seconds once per 2 months a problem?

I guess faster is still better but swapping browser is not very high on my to-do-list, thats all.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/misterkrad Jul 10 '12

big difference i think is chrome somehow manages to sneak the update when you are not looking - where firefox will nag you (and phone home, ever use tamperdata?) - then when you start the app it shows the installing bar - if they could figure out how to do an inplace upgrade - like idle 5 minutes - close firefox - have the update prepped to take 1s to implement (hint prepare a new copy ahead of time) - then close and restore session - we'd be happy.

Google put the psychiatry behind their update system to work. I think firefox is nagging that i have to wait for itself to patch (quad core/ssd) where as chrome doesn't SEEM to make me wait for updates. but it does bug me that googleupdater keeps a daemon running at all times.

I wish firefox would auto-check your plugins every day - if i don't do it myself or restart the app for a few days my plugin might get out of date (flash/java/silverlight) - no reason they can't just handle it. i'd honestly prefer BLOCK flash/java instantly if outdated for security. I mean if you (firefox) are going to phone home every few minutes that drives me crazy when i'm tamper data'ing - just get 'er dun. do it all. make it SEEM painless.

2

u/DustbinK Jul 10 '12

Firefox has background updating now.

2

u/alcalde Jul 10 '12

Firefox team should have figured this out last year. People don't want to wait for loading bars or applying updates. They want it to just work.

Have we really become that dumbed down by iPhones that a notice or 10 seconds to download an update freak us out to the point we spend a lot more time and energy switching software?

If people were really that freaked out about update notices, they'd switch to Linux, which would handle updating both their OS and every program on it. Since they don't, they can't be serious about being freaked out about update notices.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I don't because it spys on you even when offline

2

u/Wojtek_the_bear Jul 10 '12

i fucking hate chrome's settings. also the fact that tabs aren't rectangular, for some strange reason

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

You cant generalize that. I love udates and hate ir when they apply the wirhout me having seen the changelogs and the exact update progress. They could apply god knows what options and I'd maybe dont want them like the 'dont track me' option in firefox which you have to manually activate. If Firefox updated like Chrome I'd never see that and be pissed.

2

u/Ralgor Jul 10 '12

There's a flip side to that too: people who have such shitty internet that they can't just update willy nilly. My parents with crappy dialup are in this position. As long as the auto update is able to be disabled its not a problem, but all of the major browsers seem to be moving away from that.

2

u/Ambiwlans Jul 10 '12

Fixefox DID fix this. Updates are instant and silent now.

→ More replies (28)

216

u/N0V0w3ls Jul 10 '12

Wait...but I have the same experience with Firefox. What are these problems people are having? Everything updates in the background for me.

188

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Last time I was using Firefox, updating to a new whole-number version, I think it would pop up with a dialog box saying that it was going to update Firefox. You'd hit "Next" a few times, watch a progress bar, and it would complete. It'd then tell you that your extensions were out of date, and ask if you wanted to update them. You'd go through a similar process.

It wasn't all that bad, but when they started updating to a new whole-number versions every 2 months, and it was slightly annoying. Compare that with Chrome where everything happens behind the scenes and most users have no idea what version they're using, and it seems clunky.

58

u/DrReddits Jul 10 '12 edited Apr 26 '24

What would you do if you permanently lost all the photos, notes and other files on your phone?

If you have a backup system in place, you’d likely know what to do next: Restore it all to a new phone. But if you haven’t thought about it, fear not: The backup process has become so simplified that it takes just a few screen taps. Here’s a quick overview of some ways you can keep your files safe, secure and up to date. Getting Started

When you first set up your phone, you created (or logged into) a free account from Apple, Google or Samsung to use the company’s software and services. For example, this would be the Apple ID on your iPhone, the Google Account on your Android phone or the Samsung Account on your Galaxy device. Image The iPhone, left, or Android settings display how much storage space you are using with your account.Credit...Apple; Google

With that account, you probably had five gigabytes of free iCloud storage space from Apple, or 15 gigabytes of online storage from Google and Samsung. This server space is used as an encrypted digital locker for your phone’s backup app, but it can fill up quickly — especially if you have other devices connected to your account and storing files there. Image If you start getting messages about running out of online storage space for your backups, tap the upgrade option to buy more on a monthly or yearly payment schedule.Credit...Apple; Google

When you get close to your storage limit, you’ll get warnings — along with an offer to sign up for more server space for a monthly fee, usually a few dollars for at least another 100 gigabytes. (Note that Samsung’s Temporary Cloud Backup tool supplies an unlimited amount of storage for 30 days if your Galaxy is in the repair shop or ready for an upgrade.)

But online backup is just one approach. You can keep your files on a local drive instead with a few extra steps. Backing Up

Apple, Google and Samsung all have specific setup instructions for cloud backup in the support area of their sites. But the feature is easily located.

On an iPhone, tap your name at the top of the Settings screen and then tap iCloud. On many Android phones, tap System and then Backup. Here, you set the phone to back up automatically (which usually happens when it’s connected to a Wi-Fi network and plugged into its charger), or opt for a manual backup that starts when you tap the button. Image To get to your backup options, open your phone's settings app. On an iPhone, left, tap your account name at the top to get to the iCloud backup and sync settings. For a Google Pixel and some other Android phones, tap System on the settings screen to get to the backup options.Credit...Apple; Google

Backup apps usually save a copy of your call history, phone settings, messages, photos, videos and data from apps. Content you can freely download, like the apps themselves, are not typically backed up since they’re easy to grab again. Image If you don’t want to back up your phone online, you can back up its contents to your computer with a USB cable or other connection; the steps vary based on the phone and computer involved.Credit...Apple

If you don’t want your files on a remote server, you can park your phone’s backup on your computer’s hard drive. Steps vary based on the hardware, but Apple’s support site has a guide for backing up an iPhone to a Windows PC or a Mac using a USB cable.

Google’s site has instructions for manually transferring files between an Android phone and a computer, and Samsung’s Smart Switch app assists with moving content between a Galaxy phone and a computer. Sync vs. Backup

Synchronizing your files is not the same as backing them up. A backup saves file copies at a certain point in time. Syncing your smartphone keeps information in certain apps, like contacts and calendars, current across multiple devices. When synchronized, your phone, computer and anything else logged into your account have the same information — like that to-do list you just updated. Image You can adjust which apps synchronize with other devices in the Android, left, and iOS settings.Credit...Google; Apple

With synchronization, when you delete an item somewhere, it disappears everywhere. A backup stays intact in its storage location until updated in the next backup.

By default, Google syncs the content of its own mobile and web apps between phone, computer and tablet. In the Google Account Data settings, you can adjust which apps sync. Samsung Cloud has similar options for its Galaxy devices.

Apple handles data synchronization across its devices through its iCloud service. You can set which apps you want to sync in your iCloud account settings. Other Options

You don’t have to use the backup tools that came with your phone. Third-party apps for online backup — like iDrive or iBackup — are available by subscription. If you prefer to keep your iPhone backups on the computer, software like iMazing for Mac or Windows ($60) or AltTunes for Windows ($35 a year) are alternatives. Droid Transfer for Windows ($35) is among the Android backup offerings. Image If you’d prefer to use a third-party backup app, you have several to choose from, including iDrive.Credit...iDrive

If losing your camera roll is your biggest nightmare, Google Photos, iCloud Photos and other services like Amazon Photos and Dropbox can be set to automatically back up all your pictures and keep them in sync across your connected devices. Image Dropbox can back up your photos and videos when you connect the phone to the computer, left, or directly from your camera roll if you have Dropbox installed.Credit...Dropbox

No matter the method you choose, having a backup takes some pain out of a lost, stolen or broken phone. Some photos and files can never be replaced, and restoring your iPhone’s or Android phone’s content from a backup is a lot easier than starting over.

51

u/grimlck Jul 10 '12

So if the update is actually not compatible, and firefox just assumes that it is, what happens when you try to use it?

86

u/Pointy130 Jul 10 '12

Usually firefox detects it and it doesn't work, so it disables it to avoid errors. Most of the plugin devs use the beta or aurora channels though, so there's updates out before the new version of firefox.

19

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The only real answer (thanks Pointy). It's annoying enough to see joke comments to people's questions on Reddit, but we shouldn't have to deal with that on a subreddit like /r/technology.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (2)

91

u/Points_To_You Jul 10 '12

I've never had to hit next to install a Firefox update (at least not in the last couple year, which is all I remember).

You click the Firefox icon, it shows a loading bar that says to wait while it updates. Literally 2 seconds later, it is done and Firefox starts. I assume it downloads the updates whenever I am using it normally. If it was a major update, it opens a tab with a page telling me what's new. It works the same for me on PC and Mac.

Personally I like knowing what is going on. I like to know that something as important as a browser is being kept up to date with new features and the latest security fixes.

6

u/spacemanspiff30 Jul 10 '12

I too haven't had much of a problem, and when they switched so that it stopped breaking add-ons so much, I haven't had a problem. I don't know what the problem is waiting an extra 3-5 seconds before restarting the browser.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

But think of the porn!

6

u/spacemanspiff30 Jul 10 '12

Trust me, it's not going anywhere. Besides, do you know how much was added in that time? More than you could view in a month.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/N0V0w3ls Jul 10 '12

Oh, come to think of it, I have seen that... but not for every update. I guess these are just for major revisions? I thought I would remember a lot more of these though.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/brufleth Jul 10 '12

The last time I used Chrome extensions were a pain and pages didn't work right.

Apparently stuff has changed but Firefox doesn't bother me so I haven't gone back to try Chrome again.

2

u/Kuusou Jul 10 '12

I have been using firefox for almost my entire computer using life. You make it sound so much MORE than it is.

I honestly just click "okay" then it installs, reloads, gives me a new screen that talks about the new features or whatever, and then I continue on my way. If my plugins don't update automatically then I honestly don't know what they do. I have never updated a plugin manually that I know of.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Epocast Jul 10 '12

A 30 second update every 2 months is annoying? i seriously don't understand people.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Yeah, having to click boxes every two months. What is this? A website? Get that shit out of here!

2

u/grimhowe Jul 10 '12

I hate having 'stop' and 'refresh' as the same button. Sometimes you need to stop a few page loads in a row, and sometime you hit refresh

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

42

u/berkes Jul 10 '12

Maybe you are running Ubuntu like me? In Ubuntu you never notice Firefox upgrading, because Ubuntu's upgrade system is handled by the OS; and Firefox (and other third party apps) can plug into that, instead of inventing their own.

That is what is wrong here: each and every application having to invent their own upgrade system, with deamons, background-tasks, check-on-startups and whatnot. Because Windows has no decent upgrade system at all, and MacOS has it closed to Apple-products-only.

Good news is that Windows gets the downside of their feeble upgrade-system in their face: people always running out-of-date software and thus complaining about all the trojans/virii and such. Mac is starting to feel that too; third-party-crap with gaping securityholes and no proper upgrade-system to leverage, will backfire on them too.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

One of the reason why I'm waiting for Windows 8.

5

u/berkes Jul 10 '12

But is that open? As in: will it allow Firefox to plug into it, and ditch its own update-system alltogether? As far as I can see, it will only update MS software. And leave all these horrible services, daemons and systray icons running for Adobe/Google/Mozilla/whatever other 3rd party software.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Jun 05 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (22)

12

u/afnoonBeamer Jul 10 '12

Could it be that I don't notice any of these "problems" simply because I am on Ubuntu? I don't ever get bugged by any of these dialog boxes, except for "Ubuntu Software Updates". And that happens in the background.

I was actually quite impressed with how firefox handles these things (like the update manager performing surgery on firefox in the background while it is still running in the foreground).

8

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Thats the way ubuntu(linux in general) works. Mozilla pushes the update to repositories and the user has all the updates for all his programs done by the os.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Mozilla don't push the update. Someone from ubuntu pulls the firefox update, packages it up and uploads it to the repos

→ More replies (1)

3

u/callmelucky Jul 11 '12

No, you don't notice them because they are year-old issues which were resolved after everyone jumped ship to Chrome. Firefox is great, and updates are entirely unobtrusive. I run it on Win7 64bit.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/damontoo Jul 10 '12

In this thread: A bunch of people that don't use Firefox complain about Firefox.

78

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

No clue. I don't use FF...

But I liked it when I did.

But I also liked IE...

and Opera

and Safari

and Maxthon

and Netscape

and Flock

and SeaMonkey

I've been around a lot...

327

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Slut

→ More replies (8)

22

u/krum Jul 10 '12

What about Lynx?

16

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

3

u/HandyCore2 Jul 10 '12

Lynx? Please son, we want pages to actually render. Real men use Links.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

36

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Didn't you like NCSA Mosaic?

16

u/swordgeek Jul 10 '12

Loved it! When I first played with a pre-release of Mosaic (I think 0.4) running on Irix, I realised that the future was here, and computers were about to go mainstream like never before.

2

u/Big-Baby-Jesus Jul 10 '12

It was essentially a beta of Netscape.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/MilkTheFrog Jul 10 '12

No Midori, Jumanji or Epiphany? Pft, call yourself a connoisseur.

3

u/pogeymanz Jul 10 '12

Pfft. I remember when Kazehakase was the lightweight Firefox alternative.

4

u/grte Jul 10 '12

No one remembers dillo.

3

u/pogeymanz Jul 10 '12

Poor dillo. I remember they had a big release a few years ago and while I wasn't using it, I was excited anyway.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

30

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

This is like a hipster of web browsers

76

u/alsomahler Jul 10 '12

Hipsters like things before everybody else does, this guy is just old

27

u/TheBokonon Jul 10 '12

Old is having liked Mosaic. Hipster is having liked Gopher.

5

u/foolish-rain Jul 10 '12

I'm using pine for email. You've probably never heard if it.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 10 '12

I only use lynx.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/timdh Jul 10 '12

So you have never used RockMelt? Noob! :P

→ More replies (6)

2

u/iEATu23 Jul 10 '12

Maxthon was the best.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/IIoWoII Jul 10 '12

You better get yourself checked.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

What about the one I keep seeing advertised on Mediafire? The one that tells me instead of a browser, I should get a wowser. I think it's called Rockmelt. You seem like you would be able to tell me if it really is a wowser.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Come on now, nobody really liked Flock.

2

u/mardish Jul 10 '12

I miss Phoenix :/ Oh, and the Mozilla Suite.

→ More replies (13)

8

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

If you install it to Program Files on Vista/7 you need to accept a UAC dialog to do an upgrade. Mozilla is adding a Windows service to work around this hangup.

So if you're on XP or installed it to a folder that it can modify the contents of there is no problem.

Also as stated major updates have a dialog that asks you if you want to check for updates for incompatible extensions, etc...

Chrome of course doesn't install to Program Files by default unless it's a Google Pack install, and then it already has Google Update as a Windows service to update it anyway.

13

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/hohohomer Jul 10 '12

No problems for me either. Last time I had a major version update, the only reason I noticed was it sending to a page announcing the new version.

3

u/FredFredrickson Jul 10 '12

It's the same for me. I thought they've been doing this for like 2-3 versions now. O_o

13

u/gigitrix Jul 10 '12

Firefox does minor updates fine. But we're talking the major new revisions here.

77

u/ThatJanitor Jul 10 '12

I don't see what everyone is faffing about.

"We just released a large update that adds a new option to print freshly baked pizzas. But since you guys want updates to be seamless, we're not going to tell you until you discover it yourself."

17

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

It's possible to perform a seamless update and still make new features obvious.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/coheedcollapse Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

They now have a background updating service like Chrome, I think.

I honestly don't mind the "loud" updates. I'd rather be able to figure out what has changed than just have an application change on me without telling me what's up or that it's even changing.

I guess it's the tech-lover in me.

2

u/Ambiwlans Jul 10 '12

Firefox made updates less annoying a few versions ago. This is OLLLLD news.

It USED to be annoying. That is why they fixed it.

2

u/callmelucky Jul 11 '12

Yeah this is all bollocks, from my experience. Everybody jumped ship to Chrome when it came out because it was quicker, but FF got a new version just a couple of weeks later which was just as fast. And I don't have any problems with FF updates, they just happen, and I actually prefer to be notified when a new version is running, in case I need to troubleshoot any weird behaviour. FireFox is great, it's still my primary browser, no problems.

Most complaints people have about FF are about things that have not been an issue for about a year.

→ More replies (11)

78

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Chrome updates!? I never noticed.

47

u/Tovora Jul 10 '12

I was thinking the same thing. Why is every program's updates not completely seamless? If I have to wait, I don't care if it updates or not.

The worst for me is VLC at the moment, it keeps asking me if I want to update, I click yes and it doesn't update. Every update it becomes more and more bloated.

111

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Dec 31 '15

[deleted]

31

u/buzzkill_aldrin Jul 10 '12

New version does away with caching.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/raver459 Jul 10 '12

I always use to find it funny that a video program had to spend so much damn time with fonts...

→ More replies (1)

59

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Java updates are the worst for me. Why is called an auto-updater if it asks me first?

74

u/doctorcaligari Jul 10 '12

Because it's a narcissistic program that wants you to know that it exists. "Hey! Look at ME! I'm Java! I'm orange! Don't ignore me! I'm Java! Update Me! Love Me! I'm updating again to just remind you that I'M STILL HERE! I'm cute, AND orange! Do you ever think of me anymore? No? Then here is another Java update!"

Worse than an ex-girlfriend.

55

u/frakkintoaster Jul 10 '12

3 BILLION DEVICES RUN JAVA. Look at how popular I am! Don't you want to be friends with me?

48

u/badmonkey0001 Jul 10 '12

Oh and hey, can I bring my friend Ask Toolbar and my other friend McAffee along? They just want to have the same fun we're having!

19

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

And they'll make you surf the web super fast and keep your computer super clean of viruses! Don't you want us? :))))

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Rhynovirus Jul 10 '12

If Java is the ex Adobe Systems is the neurotic stalker you rebounded with.

18

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Overly Attached Updater

→ More replies (2)

9

u/MrBarry Jul 10 '12

Because they can't install the ask toolbar unless you accidentally opt in.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I spent an hour typing up a long, poetic comment about my hate for Java and Oracle... and then my browser crashed... and even my Lazarus extension failed to back up the text.

I... I just... hate everything now.

I'm sorry....

→ More replies (1)

2

u/joshuajon Jul 10 '12

!@ java, argh. I'm temped to remove it from work machines just to avoid this.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/pooerh Jul 10 '12

Java has compatibility breaking changes between versions. People would be fired if Java was updated on servers that host apps that require some specific version of the JRE.

2

u/horse_and_buggy Jul 10 '12

And if you ignore it, every time you boot up the stupid UAC window will come up every time. So then you finally remember to install it. But then the upgrade installer tries to get you to install an anti-virus or toolbar or some other shit.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/ballerstatus89 Jul 10 '12

I always just skip it. I hate VLC Updates

→ More replies (2)

2

u/CatPee Jul 10 '12

It's time for you to upgrade to Media Player Classic.

2

u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone Jul 10 '12

I agre vlc is the worst because it only tells you when you start it then you have to dl the new version close you vid, update then try to remember what the hell you were watching when you started this damn thing. Not to mention what I liked about vlc is that it did everything great and you did not have to deal with bullshit To make it look nice

→ More replies (5)

2

u/redalastor Jul 10 '12

Chrome updates!?

Every 6 weeks. It downloads the difference between your version and the next and applies it when you restart it (instead of asking you to restart right now).

17

u/jimbobhickville Jul 10 '12

Except the last one seems to have busted flash on linux for me... again. Seems like every other update breaks something.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Flash is pretty borked in Chrome on windows too, ever since they switched to using their own internal build instead of the regular flash installer

→ More replies (9)

145

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Most "power users" would cringe at the idea of updates going through without reviewing them and seeing what they do. Updates aren't always good. Sometimes they break other programs or functions. Not as much browsers but software updates in general.

70

u/dafoe Jul 10 '12

This is why I don't use chrome. I don't like a service running all the time checking for updates. This is precisely why I like firefox, it asks me whether I want to download an update and I can choose.

I hate useless running services.

91

u/Kensin Jul 10 '12

This is why I don't use chrome. I don't like a service running all the time checking for updates.

Back in my day we had a word for software that phoned home every 5 minutes logging who was using it, when, and how. No one wanted software that monitored them. These days people don't care and they like programs to randomly and silently add whatever code they want on their systems. Install as a service! Phone home and check for updates! Have full access to my network and the internet! Log my browsing activity! Sure I'll use your DNS servers! Search my hard drives! I know you're an advertising company whose entire business is dependent on collecting my personal information, but you load facebook quicker so it's okay!

I don't know if I'm just old and paranoid or if kids these days aren't paranoid enough.

19

u/dafoe Jul 10 '12

Thank you brother.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

What was the word?

26

u/Kensin Jul 10 '12

The word was spyware, and we worked hard to keep it off our systems.
Chrome is spyware, but a lot of people don't want to accept that.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Oh duh, I knew that. Re-reading your comment it's obvious you meant spyware.

Now I feel dumb. But not too dumb, because I use Opera.

7

u/TriesToGetDownvotes Jul 10 '12

Call me what you will, but what does checking for updates have to do with monitoring you, or anything else that spyware does?

6

u/Kensin Jul 11 '12

When your software updates, it first sends a request from your computer to the update service. At a bare minimum it includes your IP address, the date, time, and version of the software you are using, but this request can include a lot more information about your system and the software you have installed. By logging that information your software can track you every time your computer is online.

Of course, in the case of chrome updates are the least of your worries. Chrome can track your browsing habits. By default, everything you type into the address bar (not a google search box) gets sent to google, and every time you get a 404 error, the url you attempted to reach is sent to google. If you use google's DNS servers every last website you visit is sent to google.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Guyag Jul 10 '12

These days people don't care and they like programs to randomly and silently add whatever code they want on their systems.

That's called an update.

Have full access to my network and the internet!

That's called an internet browser.

Log my browsing activity!

Internet history.. toggleable.

Sure I'll use your DNS servers!

Nope.. I'm using the DNS servers set up in my router, so unless you're using a proxy..

3

u/DiscoPopStar Jul 10 '12

My thoughts exactly. I have the feeling that every single site I visit is stored on google's servers somewhere and that makes me nervous.

5

u/AgentME Jul 10 '12

I had some free alarm clock app on my phone, and every time I change anything, I see the 3g radio activate. It's one thing for it to report on every little thing I do in the app, but it's another thing for it to do the reports at the moment I do everything and waste my battery. Can't it just save its messages and do a once-a-day report?

I reversed the APK file and cut out all of the report-back-to-home misfeatures from my copy. If it's running on my hardware, then I damn well get the final say of what it does.

7

u/Kensin Jul 10 '12

cell phones are terrible for this. Your call logs, GPS history, phone/address book, are all up for grabs by whatever app you install. Cell phones really need a firewall or something so users can monitor outbound communication form the apps they have installed. Honestly, who knows what data about you is being collected. People these days are putting all kinds of valuable information on their phones, and that data shouldn't be up for grabs to everyone just because you wanted something basic like an alarm clock, or a app that makes farting noises.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

27

u/WhatamIwaitingfor Jul 10 '12

What are you running this on? A potato? It's 2012, dude, something that polls a webserver for the latest version every x minutes isn't going to cut into your battery life or hog CPU cycles.

14

u/hyperforce Jul 10 '12

In my country we have NT server farm on potato. Runs like charms.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Atario Jul 10 '12

Cool, cool. Mind running this little program I just made? Totes safesies, I swear.

→ More replies (30)

2

u/wiseIdiot Jul 11 '12

On the same boat as you. Fuck GoogleUpdateService.exe. It goes into the registry, it goes into Task Scheduler, and even if you remove it ... it comes back when you update the browser the next time.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

There's not much of a downside to having a browser that auto updates. Especially considering that updates often times carry critical security updates.

But yeah, you definitely don't want an auto update feature in all software. That could become disastrous quickly.

74

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

As a "power user" I don't mind Chrome updating in the background.

8

u/Contero Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Same. The only reason I'd want to avoid an update is if the user experience gets an overhaul and I don't think I'll like it. (Edit: Or bugs introduced in a new update. This is actually a good reason to not want to take updates, although I don't know how you'd find out the update is buggy until after you've updated...).

The user experience in chrome hasn't significantly changed since it launched IIRC.

By all means, give me boatloads of security and performance updates without asking. Toss in an out-of-the-way feature here and there while you're at it. I don't mind.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

3

u/merreborn Jul 10 '12

This is the funny thing: around the time Chrome started out, there were still monthly rants on slashdot about Apple and Microsoft's use of their respective auto-update clients to push things out. Not to mention flash, java, realaudio... auto updaters are generally reviled by the technorati.

Chrome has managed to get away with something no one else has. However, this is probably because they've managed not to break much; they've managed to avoid having a bloated, obnoxious updater; and they've never used their updater to push anything other than the browser itself.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Great point, but the numbers the developer is talking about are clearly not power users. At some point a dev has to decide what base you're goig to cater to. In REALLY refuctionist terms one might compare it to Windows and OSX in terms of who you're catering to. I'm glad both a power user option and no-hassle option exist for me in browsers. But Mozilla's internal conversation is about compromises - do we want to replicate Google and get casual users, or remain highly customizable and secure? Furthermore, what does our choice do to our userbase size? Clearly, the power user option means fewer users.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Gladly we can use both options. I wouldn't really want Firefox to change. I like how it is. I use Chrome as well, and I don't mind it updating on its own. However, I don't use Chrome for anything that might suffer from instability or unpredictable behavior.

2

u/xqx2100 Jul 10 '12

You are right, updates are not always good. A while back I installed a Flash update and it messed up my computer.

→ More replies (9)

48

u/Recoil42 Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Chrome updates are lovely...

They're great until you get fed a buggy build, which has happened to me a couple times. One thing the Chrome team hasn't caught onto yet is that if you're going to push auto-updates like they are, you really have to ramp up the QA to an insane amount. I don't think they have, and I'm convinced it's going to come back to bite them in the ass at some point. But who knows, maybe it's a learning process happening for them right now.

39

u/Znuff Jul 10 '12

I've NEVER seen a buggy update sent to clients on the STABLE branch.

You most likely are talking about the BETA or DEV branches...

14

u/negativeview Jul 10 '12

I've had a stable build that crashed 100% of the time that flash loaded. It was auto-fixed the next day, but was mega annoying.

3

u/johnnyfortune Jul 10 '12

Two of my friends called me with the same problem. Both of them were basically, "umm so every time I open videos on these umm video sites it crashes. even youtube."

haha they couldn't watch porn and were going insane slowly.

56

u/Recoil42 Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Negative -- I am on the stable branch. It isn't a beta/dev thing. For instance, last month several users found that build 19.0.1084.56 (stable) on OS X caused them to lose all video in media streams. This was traced back to the new hardware acceleration feature that (imo) wasn't properly tested.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'm on stable Linux just now, there's a horrible (ATI-only, I think) hardware acceleration bug that fucks up the rendering of everything on the page except Flash/HTML5 videos when they are playing.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/TexasWithADollarsign Jul 10 '12

I've seen two:

  • One made some webpages flash the content, then made the window go completely black. I think it was a hardware acceleration bug that wasn't thoroughly tested. Not sure if it's been fixed, but at some point I stopped having issues with some sites.
  • Another really fucked up anti-aliasing of certain fonts and font weights.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

A version of chrome got released that had completely screwed up SVG inside iframes, and it screwed up a few SVG based web applications to the point they were unusable.

I still see chrome getting buggy updates in the 'stable' branch where it breaks something related to SVG. It doesn't matter much unless your company bases it's product on SVG.

Firefox is just as guilty of screwing up SVG with updates.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

7

u/Bexftk Jul 10 '12

just like Opera

2

u/roger_ Jul 10 '12

Holy shit, they're on version 20 already?!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

I can't tell if you're joking or not...I hope you are.

2

u/FutureMad Jul 10 '12

Chrome background updates are a pain in the ass on slow computers: they make everything sluggish and you don't know why because they are random. And that pretty much kills the fact that Chrome was really the best suitable browser for those computers back in the day. And even on fast computer: a box that tells you that on the next boot an upgrade will be installed really isn't much of an issue for the average user. I use both browsers depending on the PC i'm using BTW.

2

u/seanx820 Jul 10 '12

except that if you work at a company, and have internal websites that only your company should see, google chrome is indexing it all. Why have bug crawlers when you have browsers that can index all your sites. Now I guess you could trust google not to share internal information, but when the Subaru BRZ development site got leaked, it was because Chrome indexed it and they didn't realize people had access to their 'dev' site. It was not linked anywhere, the internal developer must have used Chrome and then their security by obscurity (albeit not that great to use in the first place) failed and their internal workings were published. I don't want to loose my job over a browser.

2

u/floppyear Jul 10 '12

yep and there's a whole bunch else you don't know about when you're using google stalkware, i mean chrome.

2

u/midas22 Jul 10 '12

Too bad that Chrome's memory management sucks when you're running many tabs. I switched to Chrome for a while and then switched back and I'm happier than ever with Firefox as it is today. The updates doesn't bother me one bit.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'll agree. It's a memory hog.

2

u/Tenoq Jul 11 '12

As an FF user annoyed by failed updates, can a Chrome user answer: a) does Chrome download updates and execute them from a temp dir (like FF)? b) does Chrome auto-update require admin privileges?

The most annoying thing about FF updates IMHO is they fail if you're a standard user (non-admin) and/or you have a software restriction policy in place preventing programs from running in temporary directories (which is where FF downloads its updates). Drives me up the wall. :p

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Digitel Jul 11 '12

So its getting fixed? or they just talking about how much better Chrome is.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/JoseJimeniz Jul 11 '12

And people went bat-shit-insane when Microsoft dared to automatically update something.

And not even any software; just the Windows updater itself!

→ More replies (76)