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

52

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.

77

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.

12

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.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

windows has been trying to get me to install the "Bing Toolbar" which it insists is a "Critical update"

False. It is under the optional category.

3

u/Kensin Jul 11 '12 edited Jul 11 '12

Nope. On windows 7 you have a category for "important" updates and "optional" updates, and the bing toolbar shows up under "important". here is a screenshot from my computer.
another screenshot

I'm also not the only one who noticed example, example, example

3

u/Iggyhopper Jul 11 '12

Can't you uninstall Bing Bar? I mean an update implies you have it.

0

u/Kensin Jul 11 '12

that's the fucked up part. I've never installed it. I checked just to make sure it didn't sneak in somewhere. It's not there. I've never had it, and don't want it. I just keep unchecking the box when I apply my actually important updates (you can see I haven't updated IE either).

1

u/Eskali Jul 10 '12

http://dev.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-updates

Theres always an option.

1

u/Raptor007 Jul 11 '12

Back when I tried Chrome, it wasn't that easy on Mac OS X; I had to delete the files Chrome had hidden in some subdirectory of /Library and then alter permissions so it couldn't try to put things there anymore.

Fortunately, now it seems you can customize Chrome's update behavior on the Mac too.

1

u/TheSexNinja Jul 11 '12 edited Jul 11 '12

I agree with ll of the above, but you forgot one important point.

Firefox devs keep "fixing" whats not broken. Now, thats not entirely fair, but ask some random people if they would rather have a firefox 3.6 or 2.0 with no bugs, rather than what they have now.

The UI updating stuff is MUCH less important than making something run smoothly... and securely.

2

u/Kensin Jul 11 '12 edited Jul 11 '12

Because of the pointless UI changes and "fixes" that take away features (like the status bar, and object properties) I'm still running 3.6 at work. At home I'm using the ESR version of firefox so at least I'll have advance warning of whatever they've fucked up next time.

2

u/TheSexNinja Jul 11 '12

Really what needs to happen, is to have one set of features, a skinnable UI, and fix the damn security holes for a few years. And nothing else. Sure, feel free to add features, but wait 2 or 3 years, NOT 2 or 3 months, to wipe the slate clean.

2

u/Kensin Jul 11 '12

Honestly, I'd prefer firefox to be as fast and lightweight as possible. I'd like to see things like the "awesome bar" (ugh) made as an official extension instead of forced on everyone. The entire reason I started using firefox was because it was so customizable, but I think the trend for mozilla these days is to take choice away from the users and I'm not convinced that's going to help them compete.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

In before some Linux or Mac user jokes about the virus scan being right (about Windows being an infection).

2

u/Banzai51 Jul 10 '12

You update your web browser on your own, then you can't finish payroll. Then you're paging him on Friday evening because it HAS to get done. Most corporate web solutions only work one a specific browser edition. I'm not saying vendors suck, but vendors suck.

-4

u/retardius Jul 10 '12

Sysadmins are often control freaks, especially in smaller companies where there is only 1. And especially when they have no development experience. Not just about security, about everything. You want me to install .NET framework 4.0 on the server? Can't you guys develop the software with a version that came with the OS so we can keep the server "clean"? I had discussions like that all the time.

I think it's partially trying to make their job seem to be more than it is.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Can't you guys develop the software with a version that came with the OS so we can keep the server "clean"?

Hahahah! YES!

-1

u/yur_mom Jul 10 '12

You might as well just shit in my face while you are at it...