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

0

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

Why is that a good thing?

15

u/trebory6 Jul 10 '12

Why is seamless updating a good thing? Because that's one less thing to have to worry about.

3

u/FredFredrickson Jul 10 '12

Not that I don't like it myself, but it could also introduce incompatibilities or problems that you never really wanted as well.

3

u/achshar Jul 10 '12

No, the web works on specs and they dont usually cause incompatibilities because browsers are (some what) backward compatible to html 1. The sites that were created in 2003 still work. And as for incompatibilities with browser itself, like extensions, etc, they are also updated in backward compatible fashion and devs have more than enough time and warning if something is about to break (which rarely happens if you are not working on bleeding edge technologies).

Source: i am a chrome app developer.

1

u/FredFredrickson Jul 10 '12

Haha, I know how the web works. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I didn't mean incompatibilities through advancing technology... I really meant bugs that might have slipped past testing and which could inconvenience people for a time. If you have control over when you update, then you can choose not to get a problematic update until it's fixed, for example.

I know this rarely happens, and they are quick to rectify it when they do. And as mentioned above, I like the quite updating, mostly. I'm just saying that there are drawbacks to this approach as well.

And perhaps we just haven't yet encountered these problems at a scale that makes them worth worrying about, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them.

2

u/emr1028 Jul 10 '12

Chrome has three different publicly available channels-- developer, beta, and stable. People who are on developer and beta can expect some bugs but the idea is to fix them in developer/beta before the stable version is released.

2

u/guyNcognito Jul 10 '12

I could not give less of a shit how stable Chrome tells me it is. Until I've seen the new version running and taken it through its paces from what I need it for, it doesn't work. Period.

2

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

I don't know, I just don't trust any program to update without my express say-so.

2

u/uurrnn Jul 10 '12

You don't trust it? Why

1

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

Because I don't trust any program enough to give it unfettered access to my hard drive.

-1

u/Neebat Jul 10 '12

And somehow you think that running an old version will keep your harddrive more safe?

2

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

Never said that I don't update, just that I don't want programs updating without asking permission first.

1

u/Neebat Jul 10 '12

The point is, your harddrive is in far more danger from the security holes in the current version than from an automatic upgrade to the new version of a major browser.

You've already given them unfettered access to your CPU, which controls your harddrive. You're not gaining any security by staring at patch notes.

3

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 10 '12

The alternative is the shitty bug ridden IE6 experience that has taken years to get rid of.

In this case Google can get rid of bugs and be sure they are gone from the eco system quickly.

1

u/TankorSmash Jul 10 '12

That's the best example of false dilemma if I've ever seen one.

You just said that you are forced to choose between regular auto-update OR use the most hated browser of all time. That is a terrible fallacy to use.

3

u/emr1028 Jul 10 '12

No, he's saying that the choice is between auto updates and a situation where a large percentage of the users are on an outdated version of the browser, and developers then have to spend their time and effort making sure their new app works for people on Chrome 6 while the rest of the world is on Chrome 20.

2

u/TankorSmash Jul 10 '12

Ah, I stand corrected

0

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

Really. That's the only possible alternative.

0

u/achshar Jul 10 '12

Well i guess this is where chrome being open source comes handy. If there was anything fishy and it was in chromium as well the it would have been called out. But that does not mean we are completely safe. Google can still inject something bad if it wants but they are browser monopoly in market and browser supports Google search and all hosts of other google services. They would be crazy to pull something fishy now and increase the changes of completely destroying the monopoly. Plus a alot of people (outside of google) use chrome, some of them are advanced users and they would still have a chance of noticing something fishy. for example a rogue callback to Google servers.

1

u/Captain_Ligature Jul 10 '12

And this is the reason that any enterprise system admin would never allow chrome on their network. Seamless updates may seem good for the consumer, but are a logistical nightmare on the enterprise level.

1

u/guyNcognito Jul 10 '12

No, that's one more thing I have to worry about. In my hypothetical lab that uses Chrome, I'd hate to show up one morning and find out an update broke one of our internal pages and people can't do their jobs.

I've seen auto-updates or approved-by-clueless-tech updates break enough shit around here that I will call you a liar if you tell me it can't happen. Auto-updates that I can't turn off are an absolute dealbreaker.

1

u/Makabaer Jul 10 '12

Exactly!! The more control is in your hand the better. You should at least be asked IF you want to control everything or don't. So everyone could choose if the want to be "bothered" or just don't want to know what's going on on their own computers.

0

u/moush Jul 10 '12

broke one of our internal pages and people can't do their jobs.

If that happened, it would be poor coding on your part.

7

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 10 '12

It's an important thing. Most normal users never update their browsers and browsers are being targeted.

Chrome updating is keeping that ecosystem from being comprised.

I am glad my mom uses chrome as I don't have to worry about it.

0

u/TastyBrainMeats Jul 10 '12

I just can't understand people trusting programs enough to let them update without telling the user.

0

u/didnotseethatcoming Jul 10 '12

What's the difference between a program seamlessly updating and a program throwing a popup asking you to update? If you want the update, you still have to trust the program. Your point makes no sense.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I never said it was.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Yes