Like Google's Chrome, Mozilla To Silently Update Firefox 4 287
CWmike writes "Taking a page from rival Google's playbook, Mozilla plans to introduce silent, behind-the-scenes security updating to Firefox 4. The feature, which has gotten little attention from Mozilla, is currently 'on track' for Firefox 4, slated to ship before the end of the year. Firefox 4's silent update will only be offered on Windows, Mozilla has said. Most updates will be downloaded and installed automatically without asking the user or requiring a confirmation. 'We'll only be using the major update dialog box for changes like [version] 4 to 4.5 or 5," said Alex Faaborg, a principal designer on Firefox, in the 'mozilla.dev.apps.firefox' forum. 'Unfortunately users will still see the updating progress bar on load, but this is an implementation issue as opposed to a [user interface] one; ideally the update could be applied in the background.' Unlike Google, Mozilla will let users change the default silent service to the more traditional mode, where the browser asks permission before downloading and installing any update."
I hope this can be disabled... (Score:0, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but IMHO, Firefox is suffering from it's increasing popularity. At least since Version 3.
Welcome to the Mozilla botnet ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice vs. Sleek (Score:5, Insightful)
I like that a lot of what makes Firefox different from Chrome is due to the "we'll let users decide how they want it" approach instead of just telling them how it's going to be done.
OMG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla is stealing our freedoms with communist security updates!
Silent updates are not ideal. (Score:5, Insightful)
I get more complaints from family and friends about "slow computers" than anything else, and usually these are all about silent background updates in the end. It's damned near impossible to explain to someone that's not computer literate what and update is, how it's affecting their computer, why it's necessary that the update gets installed, etc. They don't even know what Firefox is ("You mean my Internet?") much less any of the other things. Even my wife struggles to comprehend why there's always an update running; she tends to think I'm lying or dismissing her concerns. Every single application running on her computer does silent background updates:
Windows
Office
AntiVirus/Firewall Software
Adobe Flash Player
Adobe Reader
Sun JRE
Nero
Skype
etc.
Even tiny little apps from the vendor do this... Volume control, display control, trackpad control, blah, blah...
Another background process running automatic updates each and every icon in the tray and for each and every folder and application in the Start menu, as well as for browser plugins, third party configuration tools/extensions, drivers, etc.
At the very least they should try to display a notification somewhere on the screen saying "Updating XYZ, may slow your computer..." each time they do this, rather than silently saturating an internet connection (as 10 different updaters are in competition with one another), a CPU, and/or a hard drive's activity.
This is problematic and I hope it can be disabled (Score:4, Insightful)
This is problematic on slow links where every byte is precious (dial-up)
This is problmeatic on expensive links where every byte costs money (satellite, cellular)
This is problematic in managed environments where the end user does not have write-permission to the filesystem containing the software
I hope it can be disabled.
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:1, Insightful)
I think it's a fine. Most users don't need or want that updating status or whatever because it confuses them.
If you are more savvy then you can turn on the notifications and see everything it's doing. Seems perfectly acceptable to me.
I wonder if there will be some way to enable this silent update on other OS's though. Seems stupid to assume Linux users are more savvy than Windows users. I have many non-tech people running Linux (and loving it).
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-techie people don't get a thing about browsers, updating, security, etc. The medium-techie usually want to be all updated, so will update to even RCs and Betas if they find them out. Techie guys, us, do whatever they want, but I believe that they want to be in control and know what's going on -- thus, they'll disable such feature.
But especially for the non-techies, this is a way of getting free security upgrades. The upgrades will probably be carefully chosen so that there are no compatibility issues -- and if there are, non-techie to medium-techie users won't care that much.
All in all, it is good for people who don't care, and enables us who care to keep things the way we want it.
You thought you'd sneak that by me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not necessary. Linux distributions come with package managers and update systems that take care of upgrading everything on your system including your browser.
This kludge is only brought to the Windows version, because there is no coherent system to update third party software and the popups got old.
Re:Silent updates are not ideal. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why i hate that OSes... well, Windows, hasn't got a decent package manager.
Auto updates could easily be handled through a single program for the entire OS.
All you do is just add to a file or registry item where the URL is, current version number, date / frequency of check and an optional "where to extract this to" for non-install archives.
Then you can make whatever damned EXE you need to make for doing updates then, whether it is Chromes silent updater or a Windows updates.
Windows Task Manager != an updater system. It is a hack, and it still requires a separate EXE to check anyway.
But it is Microsoft, they never do anything good for anyone.
They deliberately make their OS stupid and cumbersome, lock the SHIT out of it and throw a crappy shiny sub-standard wasteful copy of contemporary UIs of the latest OSes.
MICROSOFT, MAKING YOUR LIFE EASIER.
Oops (Score:1, Insightful)
So much for rolling out Firefox for Enterprize.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have installed by the Administrator account and then Unpriv users can't do updates, it requires manual intervention.
So instead we'll get "couldn't silently update" dialog boxes !
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:3, Insightful)
So far computers aren't intelligent, nor smarter than their users (despite opinions to the contrary), they generally pick the worst time to try to do updates.
There currently isn't a way for a computer to predict when it's getting in your way (hint, right at boot-up is the worst time, as I turned on the computer to get something done). Until then, there should be a clear indication it WANTS to update, with user ability to postpone for a specified period without distraction/interference.
Computers and other tools/appliances should never do something without the users/owners knowledge, or they become untrustworthy.
Ever watch someone turn on their computer to show you something? They have a task, start the machine, load the browser, get to Youtube, find the video, click play.
On my system, it comes out of hibernation, Firefox is already running, new tab, search, play. All auto-updating is turned off.
On most systems, after the OS boots, some things auto-update, some things ask to update. The user clicks cancel on all the permissible updates, but their system is bogged down the the hidden updates. Their browser takes inordinately long to load, they bitch about it. When their browser is finally up, they, oh wait, now browser updates. Okay NOW we can try to load Youtube, only our network connection is being interfered with and it doesn't play smoothly.
The Twitter post of mine that got the most reaction was how to disable Window's update nag box--it can wait until the TV show is over, or whatever the user needs/wants to do.
A better method would be for the OS to have an updating control, like on the Windows task bar, with progress meters for various software, with controls to aborting, pausing without anything hidden/secretive/subversive/untrusted.
Sure, give the users the ability to have background updates for those who prefer it, even provide an OS control so that you don't have to tell each individual piece of software that's your preference, that would be great. Thankfully Firefox is not inhibiting user control--yet (or I'd be seeking an alternative browser).
No computer software should behave like it knows what I want (or need) more than I do. A computer is only useful when it's doing what *I* desire it to, anything more is interfering, and the presumed benefit is outweighed by not being able to realize that benefit.
More Mozilla Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to be able to actually deploy and maintain Firefox in the large enterprise that I work in. Users want it. Unfortunately, users don't have admin rights, and Mozilla makes applying updates and configuring the browser from a central location difficult and has a history of not thinking about and actively shooting down any proposals which would potentially benefit system administrators trying to support Firefox.
I don't get why they don't get it.
Re:Silent updates are not ideal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:3, Insightful)
Most users need to know when something has changed so they can associate any potential breakage with the correct event.
The more computers act like magical black boxes, the harder it becomes using them.
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:4, Insightful)
If things break, users probably won't be able to fix them without calling someone for help. It's easy enough to check whether there has been an update.
My mom, for example, frequently fails to tell me of important events like software updates when things stop working. Instead she just tells me that "the Internet stopped working today" and other vague things like that. I have to dig to find out that she upgraded such and such, or disabled this or that.
So I say either you are savvy enough to turn off silent updates, or at least check to see if there's been an update, or you aren't savvy enough for knowledge of updates to be useful to you directly.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Egad. Use intelligent defaults. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As long as the browser asks for permission (Score:2, Insightful)
Just take a hint from the silent updates that Windows does;
Do you want Firefox to be updated automatically?
(x) Yes, check for updates and install automatically (recommended).
( ) No, notify me but I will decide to install updates myself.
( ) Do not check for updates (not recommended).
Note: with automatic updates, you will still be asked for permission to instal major updates.
Signed with what certificate? (Score:3, Insightful)
The protocol could also require signed updates
Signed with a certificate issued by whom, purchased with what money? A company like Mozilla Corp could afford it, just as it can afford the Authenticode certificate to digitally sign Firefox Setup, but individual hobbyist developers of freeware and free software likely can't spare 200 U.S. dollars per year plus whatever their state charges to form a business entity.
Re:OMG! (Score:1, Insightful)
My computer, my rules: no automatic updates, and especially not silent ones. I want to know when software is updating, I want to know how it is updating (which process in the task list is responsible, so I can kill it if desired), I want to know why it's updating, I want to do it on *my* schedule, and I want the option of refusing to update. For me there's nothing more annoying than forever-resident background programs that are hogging memory and CPU for no reason other than checking "is there an update yet?", or having them decide to download while you are already using the machine for other things.
Apparently they've done the right thing and made a switchbox to go back to the regular behaviour. Good. I wasn't relishing the thought of going through the same kind of nonsense as I did with Adobe Reader to kill it's update program (Adobe Update / Adobe Application Manager). Had it been anything like that (for gods' sake how hard is it to allow "Never update" and "Disable/uninstall" in a switchbox????) I would stick with v.3.
Oh, and if Windows vendors could get together and come up with a single automatic update program, rather than reinventing the wheel over and over so that I have half a dozen of the stupid things running at once, one for each product/vendor, maybe I might leave that one program on. I could set my preferences for automatic updates and leave it. This is something that Linux does *SO* much better.
Re:I hope this can be disabled... (Score:3, Insightful)
They have essentially reached the point of time when there was no competition (technologically, *) left, and interpreted the achieved stability as a stagnation. And that freaked them out and they set out to destroy themselves by screwing up what was working perfectly before.
Kidding. FireFox's focus was always a grandma type of user. The moment when they say goodbye to their tech savvy audience was ought to come and I believe it is upon us. It started in 2.x with some enhancements one couldn't turn off (and had to install couple of add-ons to disable stuff), further expanded in 3.x and I think might peak in 4.x.
I'm already searching for a FireFox' replacement on Windows... IE is too dumb and arrogant (+ poor extensions + idiotic security). Chrome's too primitive (+ constant quirks due to forced updates). Opera is way too feature overloaded and cluttered.
(*) Except for the further development of HTML itself.
Re:This is problematic and I hope it can be disabl (Score:4, Insightful)
"And I hope it can be disabled"
Read the summary.
Re:More Mozilla Fail (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't get why they don't get it.
They get it, but it's an ego trip for many of the module owners. What they have decided is best and there's no possible way that some imbecile on the outside could possibly have a suggestion worthy of their consideration. Were you around when Stuart Parmenter removed support for MNG from Mozilla under the auspices of saving download time? That seriously was his argument. Then, when someone optimized the code to add less than 20k to the download, he still refused to add it back. It was an ego contest at that point and there was no way he was going to add MNG support back even if it saved space. It wasn't until years later that we learned Stuart was actually developing a pet project that was direct competition to MNG.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who exactly is running their web browser with the privileges required to install an update?
Virtually everyone.
Re:Egad. Use intelligent defaults. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:silent, or totally invisible (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, install Linux distro of choice? All updates (OS, Firefox, etc) handled by _one_ system, can show you a little icon/notification when there are new upgrades, easy to choose when to upgrade, etc.
I have to say no to this (Score:1, Insightful)
30 euro phone bill in a sort time (Score:4, Insightful)
Silent updates is the reason why I received a 30 euro phone bill for a few minutes.
I was on holiday, and let a friend use my laptop and telephone to send an important email (it was party invitation, nothing more important than that). And of course... I forgot to displace all things that would silently try to update whatever they could when a network connection was found. Withing a short time, a few megabyte was downloaded. And mobile data from a foreign country is more expensive than HP ink.
So please mozilla, provide a nice toggle though the preferences screen to change this, an not through a about:config option.
Re:I hope this can be disabled... (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize this may seem like sacrilege on /. but IE8 plus an extension called IE7Pro (which despite its name works great on 8) gives Firefox a good run for its money. It's actually more secure in some important ways (sandboxing, ASLR), includes ad-blocking out of the box (set the registry key to enable InPrivate Filtering on every startup) and Flash filtering (under the Flash add-on options, delete the Use on sites: *.* then you can manually add sites when they request it) and while its JS engine is weak compared to Firefox, it works fine on 99.9 percent of the sites I've seen (Acid3 being pretty much the other 0.1%). Plus, call me weird but I actually find its Accelerators feature handy, and feel its tabbed browsing is a lot better than Firefox's.
IE7Pro ( http://ie7pro.com/ [ie7pro.com] ) gives you more ad-block and flash-block options, spell checking, a download manager, user agent switching, customizable mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts, fast proxy switching, pre-fetching options, GreaseMonkey-style user scripts, and a lot more.
Firefox still wins on JS and HTML5, but I find the advantages worth it.
Re:Welcome to the Mozilla botnet ... (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>If a user doesn't know about that option, it appears to them as if the updates are being made in spite of their desires.
Precisely. That's why it's called "silent updates" because Firefox 4 will be automatically defaulting to doing upgrades without the user's knowledge. If programmers were perfect, it would be okay to do that, but programmers are human and make mistakes just like any other human. That means sometimes the update will kill a browser (or plugin) and make it unusable.
I prefer to hold-off on updates until a suitable time has elapsed (say one month). Let the early adopters be the one who get screwed if the update has a bug in it.