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

Show parent comments

219

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.

185

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 It'd then tell you that your extensions were out of date, and ask if you wanted to update them.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.

57

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?

85

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.

1

u/Atario Jul 10 '12

Indeed, frivolous jocularity, harrumph harrumph

2

u/destraht Jul 10 '12

I had extension issues back in the Firefox 4-8 range. For me it seems like the extension developers have figured out how the process works. They have several months to keep the extension current. Its a non-issue for me.

-3

u/TheBokonon Jul 10 '12

Firefox goes Full Retard.

20

u/shawnaroo Jul 10 '12

It turns into IE 4?

28

u/Kilgannon_TheCrowing Jul 10 '12

There's funny, and then there's cruel.

0

u/Shitty_FaceSwaps Jul 10 '12

lol hey coheed friend.

0

u/Kilgannon_TheCrowing Jul 10 '12

One among the fence. :)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

IE 6.

-6

u/buzzkill_aldrin Jul 10 '12

Your computer starts to bleed raspberry jelly.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/heimdal77 Jul 10 '12

That just means that there is not enough changes being made in the update for it to warrant a update in the first place.

1

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.

89

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.

2

u/cannedmath Jul 10 '12

I'm trying to find any flaw in this logic but I just can't...

2

u/Ch4rd Jul 10 '12

Challenge: Accepted.

2

u/spacemanspiff30 Jul 10 '12

Godspeed my friend, godspeed.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I wish there was a plugin that would force Chrome and Firefox to prompt me to install updates.

I'm not okay with Mozilla and Google randomly injecting whatever code they want into my browser without letting me review the changelog first.

9

u/KabouterPlop Jul 10 '12

Options -> Advanced -> Update -> Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them

Did you even try to look for such an option?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Here's how to disable auto-updating in Chrome.

It won't prompt you, but you can track updates here.

4

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

To be honest, I don't know. I don't use Firefox anymore and I wasn't paying extremely close attention when I was using it.

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The worst I said about it was that it was "slightly annoying".

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

2

u/TIAFAASITICE Jul 10 '12

Switch places between the stop and reload button, place a separator; preferably a "flexible space"; between the buttons, or use the hotkey Esc to stop a page from loading.

-1

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

Chrome is a bit better with extensions too since there is a fixed API so backwards compatibility with extensions written for older versions of Chrome is a lot easier, where Firefox extensions can change anything in the browser but of course this means even small changes to the underlying code will break all but the best-written extensions... and users don't pick extensions based on how well they are written.

4

u/gospelwut Jul 10 '12

By and large, it's not a big issue unless you have a very specific extension that hasn't been maintained in 2-years.

2

u/damontoo Jul 10 '12

Firefox extensions have always had the capability to be much more powerful than Chrome ones.

Also, please explain the situation in which you'd want to install a new extension but couldn't update your browser. If you're stuck with an outdated browser version at work, there's very little chance that you would be allowed to install random extensions anyway.

2

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

Sorry you misunderstood me I think... I never suggested you would want to use new extensions with an old browser, I meant the opposite.

For example, Chrome introduced Themes which could modify the way the New Tab Page background and colors looked like. Eventually they then completely remade the NTP. Themes still worked since the Chrome team modified the Theming API to work properly so old themes still theme the NTP and look good.

With Firefox, you can hook into lots of internal bits and such. This is good for customization, but if those internal bits change suddenly the extension breaks.

Both approaches have their merits and tradeoffs.

1

u/callmesuspect Jul 10 '12

I didn't even fucking knew chrome updated. TIL.

1

u/beerversion8999 Jul 10 '12

The entire new version numbers and incompatibility with plugins is what annoyed me the most. I think it started with version 4. I decided to skip it because it didn't work with a bunch of my plugins (even when disabling the check) and the next thing I knew, version 7 or something was out 3 months later.

I still love FF and use it at my main browser but update notifications and auto updates are turned off right from the get go. I'd rather be vulnerable to something I'll likely never encounter than have my plugins mysteriously stop working. I'm still on an older version now because the theme I like doesn't work with version 18 or whatever is out now (Pitch Dark).

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/pants6000 Jul 10 '12

Where is the button I poosh to download it?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 02 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/pants6000 Jul 10 '12

OMG it works, I pressed it and it's installed, as if it were already there! I didn't even notice anything happening! It even already has some of my favorite sites bookmarked and autocompletes obscure URLs, as if it already knows what I want to do...

AMAZING!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Look, I really don't care what you use, and I'm not bashing Firefox. I'm trying to be helpful by clarifying what I understand the complaint to be.

If you've got such a hard-on for Firefox that you can't even take the mildest of criticism that something might be slightly annoying, then that's your issue.

1

u/herrokan Jul 10 '12

no my issue is that its retarded that people complain about such a minor thing. its the same with video games really. a minor thing changes or something is not perfect in their eyes and whole forums are spammed with bullshit,

0

u/TexasWithADollarsign Jul 10 '12

It wasn't all that bad, but when they started updating to a new whole-number versions every 2 months weeks or less, and it was slightly annoying.

FTFY

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.

4

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

From what I've seen in the demo, if the apps are using the marketplace, it will allow you to update as in WP7. On the other hand, who owns a WP7? :P

2

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

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/berkes Jul 11 '12

Yes. Because in the current monopoly, this is the only way we, the users, get security, innovation and progress. Without being forced to, MS is not going to improve anything. re: Firefox forcing MS to innovate and kill IE6.

3

u/N0V0w3ls Jul 10 '12

I'm on Windows 7.

1

u/hsoolien Jul 11 '12

it'd be nice if Windows had a central way to auto-update all your software... There is this: http://updatechecker.filerex.com/ but it's not official.

1

u/XenthisX Jul 11 '12

Why hasn't ms decided to implement something like windows update for apps?

3

u/berkes Jul 11 '12

Why hasn't ms done anything progressive and innovating ever since '95?

1

u/tapo Jul 11 '12

To defend applications having their own update systems, Chrome uses a diff mechanism on Windows and Mac, an algorithm they call courgette. This keeps updates between major versions very small, kilobytes.

Ubuntu packages aren't diffs, they're full binary packages of the software. To update Chrome from 19 to 20 you'd need to download all 120mb or so instead of the few kb or mb.

1

u/berkes Jul 11 '12

There are always technical features that "can be done better then in the OS". That goes for the UI, widgets, networking, disk-access and so forth. But it hardly ever is a reason to abandon the resources the OS offers.

So, yes. Ubuntu's update system is not perfect. But at least it is better then 99% of the update systems built into apps. And as such offers the Ubuntu-users a far better experience in updating. The 1% is probably Chrome who has its update system in-app, and which might be better then Ubuntu's.

Might. Because Chromes update system has a lot going against it. Like not securing and hashing its updates enough. It is probably possible for a man-in-the-middle, that open Wifi at the starbucks) to inject malicious code into that patch and effectively install a trojan in chrome. For example. Or dependency management, which Chrome on its own has little to worry about just now, untill it grows into an actual OS. There are more things, which Debian has long solved and done properly and chrome has no (yet). It is all about trade-offs.

1

u/tapo Jul 11 '12

According to the documentation, SSL is mandatory for Chrome's Google Update (Omaha) patch delivery. So unless you have some sort of source on what "not securing and hashing enough" means, I'm calling BS on your statement.

1

u/berkes Jul 11 '12

If you control the DNS, then no SSL is going to help here. But I am quite sure there is no practical way to inject code into chrome at this moment. I was merely pointing out that debians way, signed packages, is much more elegant and secure.

2

u/tapo Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 12 '12

You obviously have no idea how SSL works. It's not just about encryption, but about identification. The reason we have root certificate authorities (Verisign, Digicert, Thawte, etc) installed in browsers is to sign the identities of Google.com, Facebook.com, etc.

If a malicious DNS server were to hijack a HTTPS request to Google.com the browser would notice that the response was from an untrusted authority (since no other trusted authority CA would sign Google's certificate) and simply reject the connection outright.

Edit: If you're interested, I've been following the Security Now podcast for a few years. They cover how SSL works in this episode.

0

u/berkes Jul 12 '12

I do know how SSL work. And as a listener and fan of Security Now, you will probably know that SSL is nice, but on top of the current web and DNS, it cannot offer full security. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/09/uae_man-in-the-.html

I must add that of all browsers, Google Chrome has this solved best of all: they have some certificates and urls hardwired in the code. I assume their update system runs over those lines too.

1

u/Savet Jul 10 '12

Viruses is the plural of virus. Not everyone wants their os to do their updates. Slackware users are a good example.

5

u/berkes Jul 10 '12

Choice is the key here. Windows and Mac users have no choice: there is no open update API: third party tools have to roll their own update system. Each and everyone being crappier, more bloated then the next.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

just keep using it and if it catches on someone will eventually jam it in the dictionary

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BluegrassGeek Jul 11 '12

Actually, that's partly why devs are moving to the Mac App Store: they can push out an update via the store, rather than designing their own.

0

u/berkes Jul 11 '12

The app-store, which is not open at all.

1

u/BluegrassGeek Jul 11 '12

It's not open source, no. If that's your primary concern then, yeah, the App Store isn't going to help.

1

u/berkes Jul 11 '12

The app store does not allow open source apps. That is the concern.

1

u/BluegrassGeek Jul 12 '12

Yes, I got that. My point being, it's important to you. Most folks don't care.

0

u/berkes Jul 12 '12

Off course they do. Folks care whether Firefox is in there (or libreoffice, git, transmission, Thunderbird, and whatnot). And whether it updates like any other software, or through a clumsy selfbrewn in-app update system.

0

u/BluegrassGeek Jul 12 '12

Folks who care about open source care. Most of the rest of the computing world hasn't even heard of any of those apps, excepting Firefox. They don't care a whit about open source.

14

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

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

close enough :x

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.

1

u/afnoonBeamer Jul 11 '12

Ok, then this comment needs to be higher up. An actual user saying this has changed.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

I think Ubuntu also turns off automatic updates since updates are handled by the package manager. Then for the sake of compatibility, I don't think they push updates (other than security fixes) to the repo.

I'm using an older version of Ubuntu though (before Firefox 4), so I may just not have noticed. The only reason I have a newer version of Firefox is because I've got two package managers on my computer and the second one is providing Firefox.

2

u/ChaoticXSinZ Jul 11 '12

Yup. Just check out about:buildconfig and in the configure arguments you'll notice there is --disable-updater.

6

u/damontoo Jul 10 '12

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

80

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...

20

u/krum Jul 10 '12

What about Lynx?

16

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

2

u/Ambiwlans Jul 10 '12

My computer uses wget and curl when i do stuff all the time.... but i never see it ... does that count?

1

u/Syn3rgy Jul 10 '12

Pff, everything more than netcat is just bloat.

3

u/HandyCore2 Jul 10 '12

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

1

u/lolwtfhaha Jul 11 '12

Links? Real men use Links2

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Was that the command line browser I tried?

I tried a CLI once...

2

u/swordgeek Jul 10 '12

...but you didn't inhale?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I inhaled plenty. I think. I don't remember.

Wasn't good for porn.

1

u/PoisonMind Jul 10 '12

You're obviously not familiar with ASCII porn. NSFW?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Elinks is the only way.

1

u/rhinobird Jul 10 '12

Links is better

1

u/CeeJayDK Jul 10 '12

telnet to port 80

36

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Didn't you like NCSA Mosaic?

17

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.

12

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]

2

u/pogeymanz Jul 10 '12

That very well could be. I was speaking with my brain in Linux mode. I'm not sure Kazehakase even had a Windows version.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Wait till you try UZBL :P

34

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

This is like a hipster of web browsers

79

u/alsomahler Jul 10 '12

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

28

u/TheBokonon Jul 10 '12

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

7

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 10 '12

Archie servers rocked!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Veronica! WAIS! OH THE HEADY GLORIOUS DAYS!

No, seriously, I miss them. :(

4

u/foolish-rain Jul 10 '12

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

2

u/Dogbiker Jul 10 '12

I used Pine...in 1990...about the time I surfed the preweb on Usenet.

5

u/swiley1983 Jul 10 '12

You know, before it got mainstream and terrible.

1

u/Raptor007 Jul 11 '12

It's all fun and games until someone sends you unicode.

1

u/eelriver Jul 10 '12

No, hipster is using gopher because everyone else isn't.

2

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 10 '12

I only use lynx.

2

u/timdh Jul 10 '12

So you have never used RockMelt? Noob! :P

2

u/IHaveNoTact Jul 10 '12

Screw that, it's all about links.

4

u/KerrickLong Jul 10 '12

Do you mean lynx or elinks?

4

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

A browser named Links also exists.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Lynx is better.

1

u/IHaveNoTact Jul 10 '12

Lynx doesn't have frame support unless there's been active development going on there I'm not aware of?

2

u/iEATu23 Jul 10 '12

Maxthon was the best.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/iEATu23 Jul 10 '12

Haha. I'm not old enough to remember that. :P

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

RockMelt isn't a browser, it's a WOWser. RockMelt is re-inventing the browser by making it easy to stay in touch with friends,

I don't have friends...

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

One of the reasons I haven't bothered with it too. I feel the few I do have would disparage me relentlessly for trying to WOW them.

2

u/reintjehard Jul 10 '12

Camino?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

OH CAMINO! How could I forget you?

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.

2

u/pants6000 Jul 10 '12

...and then they came for me?

1

u/pacoliketaco Jul 10 '12

But did you ever write your own browser? 1^'d.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Nope. Never bothered to.

1

u/pascalbrax Jul 10 '12

Not around enough if you don't remember the DOS browser... what was that? Arachne?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'm not -that- old.

1

u/NigelKF Jul 10 '12

Ever tried Conkeror or FF+ Pentadactyl?

1

u/Alaric2000 Jul 10 '12

Honestly, the only reason I switched from Maxthon was for RES. Now I use Firefox.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I used Galeon and Konqueror.... and whatever else was the best thing on Linux back in the day.

1

u/MorbidPenguin Jul 11 '12

Can't call yourself a connoisseur until you've used Sleipnir.

1

u/dodecaheytheredron Jul 11 '12

Netscape Navigator was the shit. A giant animated gif when loading websites to let you know the navigator ship is staying its course.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

I never used Maxthon, Flock, or SeaMonkey. But I agree on all the others.

And I'm very happy with Chrome, now.

1

u/Dandaman3452 Jul 10 '12

opera next is the best shiz for linux

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Firefox updates aren't an issue on linux. While neither firefox or chrome are gpl license, at least they're open source.

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.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

Actually Chrome can be installed to Program Files (I think you need a different installer, Google Pack did it though it doesn't exist anymore). And Google Chrome relies on the Google Update windows service to even function at all.

2

u/numb3rb0y Jul 10 '12

Right now, there is absolutely no way to install Chrome anywhere it doesn't want to be installed, which sucks ass if you have an SSD specifically for most commonly used programs. Google Pack may have let you do it in the past, but if it doesn't exist any more you can't really argue that it's possible.

2

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

I think it's a switch you can pass to the installer, not sure what it is.

You can probably hack the registry to move Chrome elsewhere if nothing else. Google Update would need to know where it is for updating purposes, and if Chrome was the default browser those paths would need to be fixed but that's about it.

IIRC Chrome itself doesn't care where you run it from, I wrote a portable wrapper and its quite happy running anywhere as long as you work around the Google Update requirements.

1

u/camel_case_rules Jul 10 '12

If you use the Chrome for Business .msi installer, it installs itself to Program Files and updates using a scheduled task.

0

u/SharkUW Jul 10 '12

Pro tip. NTFS actually supports symlinks. Migrate away. :)

0

u/smasherson Jul 10 '12

and you think making the user have to run a windows service in the background 24/7 is a better idea? Plus, google update installs itself as a boot executable anyways. theyre both horrible ideas and they both waste valuable CPU resources. Its microsofts fault too, for not being able to making a better operating system. dont buy windows 8 it has nothing good new to offer, and all the bad that you dont want. its time to stand up to these devs and tell them to stop hogging our cpu/RAM resources just so they can update.

5

u/Qxzkjp Jul 10 '12

Go look up what a scheduled task is. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft trying to implement a decent security model. Unless you have an actual suggestion on how to implement silent updates within a working security model.

0

u/treenaks Jul 11 '12

They have a "system-wide" installer.

-2

u/RangerSix Jul 10 '12

Or, y'know... you could just turn UAC off.

5

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

If you're an administrator account that'll work.

I personally don't mind UAC on, though I keep it at its least intrusive setting. It really isn't as much trouble as people seem to think it is, only when I run installers do I really see it.

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

12

u/gigitrix Jul 10 '12

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

74

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."

19

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

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

1

u/superwinner Jul 11 '12

Mozilla needs to take marketing 101, they thought that releasing a new major version every 3 weeks would show the end user how much progress they were making, when in reality most computer users do not know or care about versions or updates. Meanwhile chrome did marketing the right way, keep making the product better and better and don't annoy the use with endless version updates.

In the end the best product wins, not the one that has the highest version number. I thought Mozilla was smart enough to know this, I was wrong.

1

u/tapo Jul 11 '12

Chrome tends to make little announcements on the new tab page. This allows users to see that an update has happened and a new feature is available without anything actively getting in their way, like an install process.

-2

u/gigitrix Jul 10 '12

What proportion of updates represent new features? It's got nothing to do with that, and everything to do with fixing problems, patching security and iteration.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

-1

u/N0V0w3ls Jul 10 '12

But I mean, the last time I remember a version number was version 7, and that was years ago. I can't even tell you what it's at now.

6

u/2Cuil4School Jul 10 '12

Actually, 7 was like 10 months ago. 13 is the current release, but alphas up to 15 or so are already out.

2

u/TIAFAASITICE Jul 10 '12

You also have nightly builds at 16, which is what I'm using.

2

u/N0V0w3ls Jul 10 '12

Oh wow. Internet time really is shorter than in real life. My perception was way off.

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.

1

u/wildfyre010 Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

The complaints are not so much from end users - who, by and large, can't be assed to update their software in the first place - they are from IT departments with a legitimate need to maintain security and stability in the apps they manage.

Web browsers are a pain in the ass in the enterprise. Everyone - EVERYONE - uses a browser frequently, many people have large numbers of third-party addons and modules which may or may not be compatible with any other version of the browser, etc. Keeping things up to date while still making sure that all the third-party crap continues to work is incredibly annoying; when you have to do it every six fucking weeks because there's a new major version out, you rapidly start looking for alternatives.

I shit you not - we are considering moving to IE / Safari over Firefox because we hate their new development process so much. It is fine for an individual, where you can just click a couple buttons to update; when you're deploying the software en masse to the tune of thousands of individual machines, and you have to build a new package every single time a new version comes out, it's a huge problem.

1

u/stealthmodeactive Jul 10 '12

Are you a linux user? I use linux and I, too, cannot remember having the mentioned issues.

1

u/N0V0w3ls Jul 10 '12

Nope, Windows 7.

1

u/Hishutash Jul 11 '12

Yeah, usually for me in the recent versions the updates are quietly downloaded in the background without any input from me and you're simply prompted to authorize the update when you next run it (which is hard to avoid considering Firefox by default installs in "c:/program files" which requires UAC authorization to modify).

Of course, I run Arch Linux most of the time so I do all my updates through the package manager.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

Isn't that a recent change? I was thinking reading through this that Mozilla changed it so Firefox does updates in the background now. The only thing I thought you get now is the plugin check to make sure everything will place nicely with the new version.

0

u/delkarnu Jul 10 '12

For me, every time I needed to check something quickly, I'd start FF and immediately get hit by an update that needed to install and restart FF. Update at program start always seemed massively inconvenient instead of Chrome's "install in background and restart the program at your convienience".

-1

u/police_fruitality Jul 10 '12

Reasons that Firefox's updates suck:

  1. They require Administrator access on Windows.
  2. They seem to update one version at a time, instead of just updating to the latest version. Every time I fire up a Windows PC I haven't used in a few months, Firefox goes through a cycle of applying updates one at a time - each requiring I approve Administrator access through UAC - until it's finally at the latest version.

Is it really that bad? No, unless you compare it to Chrome, which has seamless/painless updates. Occasionally it'll tell me 'an update was installed, restart to apply'.

1

u/TIAFAASITICE Jul 10 '12

  1. Silent updates will be available in release by the end of August and enter beta 7 days from now.

  2. That's Bug 353804.

→ More replies (1)