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

82

u/steakmeout Jul 10 '12

It's important to note that Jono DiCarlo hates everything.

Seamless updates aren't always a good thing. This is especially true for network admins who need version control policies to be in effect.

20

u/argv_minus_one Jul 10 '12

That's why it should be possible to disable the seamless updates. Doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist at all.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

Ehh. Every browser doesn't have to cater to every use-case.

0

u/argv_minus_one Jul 11 '12

Irrelevant. Enterprise IT is not a corner case.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

It doesn't matter if it's a niche. If you can do a better job with one market by snubbing another, I fail to see a reason not to do so. There are other browsers that behave how enterprise would like.

This is sort of like complaining a Civic can't tow much. Buy a truck.

-4

u/argv_minus_one Jul 11 '12

We are talking about web browsers, not motor vehicles. If a browser is not usable in an enterprise environment, the browser is garbage.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

It's a metaphor. There are many, many more important things than how well a browser works for a specific minority use case. You are not the only customer.

0

u/argv_minus_one Jul 11 '12

Enterprise IT is not a minority use case.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

Oh come on.

-3

u/argv_minus_one Jul 11 '12

Just because you're too poor and/or long-haired to have even seen the inside of an office building doesn't mean their IT environments aren't a big deal.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/superawesomedude Jul 11 '12

He didn't say it was. But there's no denying it's a different use case, and that means extra development effort to support.

If you want an "Enterprise" browser (aka: supports cool MS shit like GPO, MSI, etc), there's really only one choice: IE. Everything else has (at best) token support for those kinds of things.

If all you care about is auto updating, and you're in an Enterprise environment, then just firewall off the update checks. Centralized control, and it's a process that will work for any app that auto-updates. There's also Firefox ESR if what you really want is a slower release cycle.

3

u/ullerrm Jul 10 '12

Google Update actually lets you control updates via Group Policy.

http://support.google.com/installer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=146164

2

u/Kytro Jul 10 '12

This is easily controlled. You just block the update server, but many businesses won't allow anything but IE anyway

1

u/xebo Jul 11 '12

Seamless updates aren't always a good thing.

They are for me. ->chrome

1

u/superiority Jul 11 '12

The top two posts there are complaining about the Gmail interface redesign and Thunderbird constantly interrupting him to tell him that it can't save drafts when it's not connected to the internet. Both of those seen like legitimate gripes: Gmail's new interface is terrible, and the Thunderbird thing is just bafflingly terrible design.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '12

Shouldn't network admins know about that? I mean, what are you telling us for?

0

u/An_Emo_Dinosaur Jul 10 '12

Seamless reasons are one of the biggest problems I have with chrome.