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.
I like Firefox, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
it can not do it, thats fine with me because i dont want firefox or any other application or part of my OS updating itself without my knowledge
It's not just like chrome... (Score:5, Interesting)
but after that the browser will update silently - just like Chrome.
Chrome installs the browser into the user's folder in order to silence the UAC controls.
.
Firefox is continuing to install in the protected system area, without the benefit of the UAC warnings, bypassing any Windows security.
Will Firefox now become a new attack vector for exploits?
The developers said this move was in response to the complaints about the flurry of versions being released. But I have to say, I'd rather have fewer versions released than to have a new security exploit vector installed.
Lazy devs strike again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox simplifies the update process for Windows users by removing the user account control dialog (UAC) pop-up while maintaining the security of your system. Once a user gives explicit permission to Firefox on their first installation, they will not be prompted again for subsequent releases.
yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong with having a service running that never prompts the user when it is doing something. Lazy devs strike again.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Updates... overrated. When the update gives you nothing that you desired, and breaks all your addons, it's extremely annoying.
When v4 came out, I didn't see anything worthwhile in the update list, and decided to not update again until there was. Of course, I would never do this if I didn't also run noscript.
I updated from v3.5 to v11 just 2 weeks ago, so that I could get SPDY support. I don't anticipate updating again until v20+.
Re:Lazy devs strike again. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not the possible compromise - that is just as true for the current way of updates.
The problem is the automation and speed. Right now, if someone were to compromise the updater and install some malware, some people would update quickly, some not so quickly, some would wait or don't use their browser/computer every day, etc.
A compromise would probably be found, the update pulled and the problem fixed before the majority of users did the update.
Not so with a push service. Compromise that and boom, instant botnet. By the time the issue is discovered, you'd already have millions of compromised machines.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone with a very basic understanding of plugins (we have a custom toolbar we roll out with internal apps and links) I can tell you it is an issue. As an add-on developer you have to build into the toolbar "this add-on is good for FF versions x through y" that is in an xml file required for the toolbar to run. So you as a developer have 2 options you can say that your toolbar will work with version 1 through 999999 and just hope that a firefox update really doesn't ever break your add-on OR you can update it with every release ensuring that it works with the new version and require your users / (admins in corp environment) to update the add-on every time. Both of the above options have there drawbacks.
My major issue with the firefox team is that they changed the rules in the middle of the game. It used to be that if I put this add-on will work with this new version it would be good for about a year. Now I need to add in 6 weeks per version so if i want it to be good for a year I divide 52 weeks by 6 week major upgrade cycle and add 8.6~9 to the version number for it to work for about a year. All of this is assuming Mozilla doesn't change there major release version system again. If they decide to go back to the old way then my add-on will last for 9 years and will almost certainly be broken by a release at some point along the way.
Re:What's best (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's best (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes it would be great if the Mozilla team would copy one of the useful features of Chrome: multi-process browsing. I'm sick and tired of the monolithic Firefox process consuming vast gobs of memory and excessive CPU that means my laptop's fan is constantly kicking (and probably shortening it's life through overheating), and giving me no way to manage it other than constantly closing the browser. I've seen it behaving poorly on several computers, so I doubt it's anything to do with an individual installation.
I've heard all the bullshit excuses about why it's hard to break out in to a multi-process application. These excuses seem to be a regurgitation of the ones used by the Netscape Communicator/Seamonkey Suite people back in their day - I guess the Mozilla devs just aren't very good.
After recently reading that the Electrolysis project was on hold [lawrencemandel.com], I started using Chrome. It had a few annoyances that I've got used to, but all my plugins/extensions work that would apparently fail in multi-process Mozilla. Most importantly, when a tab/page uses too much memory or CPU, I can easily see which it is and close it, although Chrome hasn't been a bad system hog in the same way as Firefox.
Ignorant devs, poor performance, moronic release cycle that seems to add nothing for users - no wonder Chrome is eating Firefox's lunch, and is now the most popular browser [w3schools.com]
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It's not just Mozilla doing this these days, it's lots of software projects. Linux users have been complaining about Unity and Gnome3 for quite some time now, and Google is now forcing a crappy new UI on its Gmail users. For a long time, Gmail users could opt out and stick with the old UI, but I got switched about a week ago with no way to switch back. There is a Chrome extension that looks like it might fix it, but it doesn't work on Chromium/Linux at the moment.
Basically, it seems like a lot of software developers (or their managers) are trying to justify their existence by constantly coming up with unnecessary and downright bad user-interface changes, and forcing it on their users in the name of "progress", even though there's no actual evidence that their new UIs are better, and instead lots of users complain, with great specificity, about how much worse they are.
Re:What's best (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, my instance of FF 10 has been open for days, has currently 19 open tabs and 9 active addons, and it's running fine with 625MB of used memory in a single core 1.6GHz laptop CPU.
I don't get it.
Re:What's best (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's best (Score:4, Interesting)
A: Firefox doesnt do silent updates, IT SUX I SWITCH TO CHROME I hate dialogs!
Weeks later:
B: OMG Firefox does silent updates like Chrome PFF WHY NOT USE CHROME THEN!
Well, sounds rather dumb.