Firefox 12 Released — Introduces Silent, Chrome-like Updater 411
MrSeb writes "Firefox 12 has been officially released, with only one major new feature: A silent, background updater. Now you will have to approve the Firefox Software Updater when you first install Firefox, but after that the browser will update silently — just like Chrome. In other news, the Find feature now reliably centers the page on any matches — hooray!"
Here are the release notes, the list of bug fixes, and the download page.
What's best (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose if you believe Mozilla knows what's best for us then this is a good thing. If you don't........
Find (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm very happy to hear about the find feature properly centring. It irks me when I search for something and then have to look over an entire page of text trying to figure out were on the page the key word is. This will save me a lot of time in the long run.
Gahhh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
We already can't use chrome where I work due to the difficulty of wrangling then push updates. Bussinesses can't tolerate the lack of control of external root access to their computers. Even without root access pushed updates are a bussiness intelligence leak vector. while one can cabble work arounds to this, assuring thaey are intact on every computer is a hassle.
There is of course a raging debate if it's better to be up to date by default or to manage the bussiness approved updates. One can see benefits from both.
What would really help here is some third party paid seal of approval that bussinesses could contract to be the gate keeper on vetting third party updates.
User control (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as I can opt-out of the silent updates, I see no problem with this. The quicker we can get users to update, the better. Developers, on the other hand, need stability and control.
They've lost their focus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:User control (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as I can opt-out of the silent updates, I see no problem with this. The quicker we can get users to update, the better. Developers, on the other hand, need stability and control.
So your end users are running a version or three ahead of you? Typically the developers are ahead of the end users not the other way around...
Re:What's best (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe Chrome knows what's best for us.
I believe Mozilla does not.
So... Interesting and compelling comment you've posted.
I don't think Chrome knows what's best for us -- I keep finding changes I find anywhere between no-care to highly-annoying. Too bad the default setting in every rollout is "ON" and sometimes you really have to dig to find ways to disable them.
Imagine making the decision to standardize on a browese, across your enterprize and then find every user is suddenly stuck on morning because some update to Chrome broke the application everyone runs. Not a plus.
Re:What's best (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, lets get Firefox to work and look just like chrome. I mean it isn't like chrome is freely available for many different platforms, and running of an open compliant based engine.
The reason why I don't care for Firefox lately, and IE. Is because they are just copying what chrome is doing. If that is the case they are just copying chrome, I might as well use chrome, and that is what I do.
Borken Plugins (Score:2, Insightful)
Great, now our plugins will break and we won't know what to blame.
Re:Auto-update Windows Only? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that just makes it an exploit target now. What idiot possibly thought that a program running with service-level permissions that bypasses UAC was a good idea?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't give a crap about new features and I haven't had plugin issues in a very very long time. I just want bug/security fixes and the latest standards support. Speed improvements are certainly welcome though.
For something as important as a web browser the updates have to be automatic and in the background. Most users are so afraid of doing anything to their computer they never install updates and then we end up with a bunch of vulnerable web users (who are also holding back newer web features).
Yes, it does require a bit more care on the part of the vendor to make sure they don't automatically break everyone's computer but that is a necessary risk.
Re:What's best (Score:3, Insightful)
Chrome, as far as I've been aware, doesn't have a flash video downloader app. It's pretty much the single most used extension I use in Firefox. I find it odd because Chrome has every other extension I use, and Firefox has a good half-dozen flash downloaders.
Even with it, I wouldn't change over just because it's the thing to do. Firefox would have to change considerably for the worse, or Chrome would have to become das uber-browser.
Re:What's best (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Yes, it does require a bit more care on the part of the vendor to make sure they don't automatically break everyone's computer but that is a necessary risk.
So instead of worrying a virus might sneak-in and break my machine (that's happened like twice in 10 years), instead I have to worry that the developer will do it for me (which seems to happen a lot). No. Thanks.
Re:What's best (Score:5, Insightful)
If the user you run your browser as has write access to the browser installation, Mozilla probably does know better than you.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it does require a bit more care on the part of the vendor to make sure they don't automatically break everyone's computer but that is a necessary risk.
Which means there is absolutely no way Mozilla should be doing this. They've proven reliably that they can not be trusted to release an update that doesn't break massive amounts of stuff people care about because of their own ignorant engineering and 'I'm right your wrong' management morons. Yes, I'm talking to you Asa. They are doing exactly what drove them bankrupt the last 2 times they've failed.
No intelligent person wants a Mozilla auto-update so they can wake up tomorrow with a browser that looks different just because one fuck inside Mozilla thinks X group of users don't matter ... ignoring the fact that he just said the majority of his user base doesn't matter.
If you haven't had plugin issues in a very long time then you don't use plugins or your definition of 'long time' is done on swatch time or something stupid as the rest of the world regularly complains about Mozilla stupidity with plugins, yes, even after all the crap they did to auto-patch plugins.
Its mind blowing that you think Mozilla is in any way qualified to do auto updates for anything, thats a really dumb thing to allow them to do.
Re:What's best (Score:4, Insightful)
What's ironic, is that I don't use Chrome simply because it won't let me put the different tabs below the address bar WHERE THEY BLOODY WELL BELONG. (You know, like practically every other browser does.)
How to tell a non-bricking update? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's best (Score:2, Insightful)
A consumer-grade OS should be designed assume the person using it is going to be admin. That's what people want. Company's should figure out a way to safely give it to them.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox is still the only browser I can open a 100 tabs
Whenever I see someone mention 100 tabs, I wonder exactly wtf they're doing.
You know, these things called bookmarks make it so you don't have to have every page you (in)frequently visit open all the time.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's best (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care if it's illogical, I want it to be practical, which is why Firefox has the option so you can do either. So if it's easier/faster for you to have tabs on the bottom (like me and Kier), you can do it.
Re:What's best (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes; because people writing web applications that involve SVG are also necessarily experts in C++.
Re:What's best (Score:5, Insightful)
A consumer-grade OS should be designed assume the person using it is going to be admin. That's what people want.
That's also one of the main reasons virus and malware are so prevalent. A user, no matter if he's the only one using that computer, and especially if he isn't, should not be running with admin privileges. Nor should it be a simple click of an 'OK' or 'Accept' button to gain those privileges. It's too easy to just click on through. If something I'm doing requires admin rights, I have to type in my admin password to give it those rights. It makes me think, and if the password dialog pops up and I didn't initiate something that needed it, I can't just blindly click 'Accept' without even knowing what's going on.
Company's should figure out a way to safely give it to them.
Employees using a workstation for work do not need admin privileges under ANY circumstances. If something needs installing or fixing, call IT.
Re:What's best (Score:4, Insightful)
"If only you had access to the source code for Chrome, and could submit patches and bug fixes yourself."
The last refuge of an asshole.
Re:What's best (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly do you want, 25 years support and that no one else is allowed to release new features, oh, except chrome?
Let me see how hard it is... I'll google "firefox extended support release". Oh, first match:
"Where can I download Mozilla Firefox ESR?
You can download Mozilla Firefox ESR here."
*Clicks*
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html [mozilla.org]
Oh.