Search similar:
|
|
uniqs 4539 |
|
|
|
|
chachazz
Premium Member
2012-May-3 1:00 am
[Mozilla] Firefox 12.0 / 10.0.4 ESRFirefox 12.0 is now available as a free download for Windows, Mac, and Linux. released: April 24, 2012The release notes for Firefox 12 are available here. Please see the complete list of changes in this release. Security - Fixed in Firefox 12MFSA 2012-33 Potential site identity spoofing when loading RSS and Atom feeds MFSA 2012-32 HTTP Redirections and remote content can be read by javascript errors MFSA 2012-31 Off-by-one error in OpenType Sanitizer MFSA 2012-30 Crash with WebGL content using textImage2D MFSA 2012-29 Potential XSS through ISO-2022-KR/ISO-2022-CN decoding issues MFSA 2012-28 Ambiguous IPv6 in Origin headers may bypass webserver access restrictions MFSA 2012-27 Page load short-circuit can lead to XSS MFSA 2012-26 WebGL.drawElements may read illegal video memory due to FindMaxUshortElement error MFSA 2012-25 Potential memory corruption during font rendering using cairo-dwrite MFSA 2012-24 Potential XSS via multibyte content processing errors MFSA 2012-23 Invalid frees causes heap corruption in gfxImageSurface MFSA 2012-22 use-after-free in IDBKeyRange MFSA 2012-21 Multiple security flaws fixed in FreeType v2.4.9 MFSA 2012-20 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:12.0/ rv:10.0.4) Download - All systems & languages
Firefox 10.0.4 ESR is now available. The associated release notes are available here. Firefox 10.0.4 for Android is now available. The associated release notes are available here. | | chachazz |
chachazz
Premium Member
2012-May-3 1:06 am
| | |
to chachazz
Fx v12 is quite snappy. | | |
to chachazz
Speaking of updating, how does one check for available updates without triggering the download and installation of an update? I have updates disabled in options, but clicking 'check for updates' in the About Firefox location always triggers the full update process. | | |
chachazz
Premium Member
2012-May-3 11:44 pm
The program will check and notify you when an update is available.......it works very well. | | |
I have it on 'never check...', and rely on reading daily what's available, and find out any bugs etc before downloading. Are you saying that I need to swap to that setting to know what version Mozilla has available?
There's no way of checking from within the browser, and keep my 'never check' setting?
In other words, is there a way to manually query what version is available without triggering the download and installation of any possible updates. | | plencnerb Premium Member join:2000-09-25 53403-1242 |
said by EdmundGerber:In other words, is there a way to manually query what version is available without triggering the download and installation of any possible updates. Sure. Go to » www.mozilla.org/en-US/fi ··· efox/fx/ and see what the current version is. --Brian | | |
If that is the only way, then mozilla is surely headed in the wrong direction. | | M_ join:2010-05-01 Vancouver, BC |
to chachazz
It's very complicated, but I'll oblige; Help / Check For Updates... | | Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
to EdmundGerber
said by EdmundGerber:If that is the only way, then mozilla is surely headed in the wrong direction. There is a big controversy on Mozilla NGs about it. Some angry users and Mozilla devs just don't get it. They have actually stated that unless you want the update DO NOT CHECK for updates from About Firefox/check for updates. They cannot understand why this angers users. They say that if you do not want an update right then do NOT check for one. They say it makes no sense to check for updates unless you are ready to accept an update right then and they will not back off of this idiotic interpretation of "check for updates" button. This ridiculous situation is just as bad as what I encountered while dslr was offline. I have Fx 10 ESR (on a guest machine) and had done a small security update a month or more ago. I have been using Fx since Phoenix days yet when I did that update I didn't notice any box that I needed to uncheck in order for Fx to continue honoring MY settings. I had forgotten about needing to look for that box and uncheck it because I rarely update Fx (I still use Fx 4 on my host machine). So, while dslr was offline, and I could not check this forum for any announcements of available updates for Fx 10 ESR, suddenly, I got a popup on my screen saying Fx was going to install the latest version of Fx10 ESR. I was stunned because I have Fx set to NEVER check for updates. There was no way out of the update. I was given the choice of allow the update right that moment (interrupting what I was doing) or it would be FORCED the next time I started Fx. There was NO information about the update (and this forum was offline). I was puzzled because ESR is not supposed to be getting hardly any updates. I wanted to know all about it before I allowed it. I was so angry that I was not given the choice of declining it entirely at that time (or on the next start of Fx) and that Fx evidently had sneakily changed my preferences on the security update that I did about a month ago from "never check" to "automatically check and install" that I uninstalled Fx right then. Several days later, I reverted to a month old snapshot (my most recent on the virtual machine) and I looked at Fx 10 settings and sure enough my chosen setting for never check for updates had been reset to automatic check and install. I posted in the NG about it and was told that I should know by now that Fx will always change my settings on every update and that I have to remember to uncheck the box that changes your settings. Both of these things disgust me. The LEAST the devs could do would be to change the wording regarding "check for updates" button and make it very clear that if you do this an update will commence (if one is available) no matter what your settings are regarding updates and that simply checking is not possible. The devs should also make that obscure box that is REchecked on every new update (that resets the user's preferences regarding automatic download and updating) more in your face so that you would uncheck the box. But what the devs should IDEALLY do is honor the user's settings regarding no automatic updates and that should be honored from version to version and never changed by Mozilla. As for the About Firefox/check for updates button that should ONLY check to tell you if there is an update available. If you want Fx to fetch it then there should be ANOTHER button to click on. That's how both should be but the devs are dead set against honoring users settings with regards to updates. It makes Asa's promise about never forcing updates over his dead body a partial sham as the devs are deliberately making it as difficult as possible for one to decline automatic updates or a forced update when all you think you are doing is checking to see if there is one available. | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
It seems apparent to me that Mozilla has been recruiting new devs from the ranks of malware developers. I'd probably switch to another browser if one existed which offered the features I want--but there isn't one. As it is, I only use the PortableApps releases, so I haven't encountered this particular problem yet. Mozilla has become one of those organizations that I just don't trust anymore, and Firefox is now simply "the devil I know". | | Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
Mele20
Premium Member
2012-May-8 7:24 am
I think you are going a bit too far there. The devs that spoke to this in Mozilla NGs have been around a long time and they care about Fx but appear hell bent on "protecting" the naive users that make up the majority of users and don't see any reason to pay attention to the needs/gripes of their long time knowledgeable users. I think there should be room for seeing to the needs/wants of both and there was BEFORE Chrome started getting popular.
I think it is the extensions that keep most folks with Fx.
Fx has lost even more market share recently and IE has gained, surprisingly, quite a bit. | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
said by Mele20:I think you are going a bit too far there. Intentionally. I'm quite dissatisfied with their whole "do as we say" attitude. | | plencnerb Premium Member join:2000-09-25 53403-1242 |
to EdmundGerber
said by EdmundGerber:If that is the only way, then mozilla is surely headed in the wrong direction. Maybe I am old fashioned, but why would you NOT want to go to the official web page of the software that you are using to check for updates? Does it actually take that much time to open your web browser, type in that address, and see what the latest version is? I will say that doing those kind of steps is something I do about once a month for the applications that I have installed. I'm talking about things like Winamp, Trillian, Firefox, Waterfox, Thunderbird, and so on. These programs are all free to download, and I have a 2nd Hard drive in my system where I store them. This way, when I re-build my system (or work on a friend or family members computer), I don't have to go back to the web to get everything. Of course, one must keep up to date on all these applications, and to me, the best way to do that is go to each web page, DO THE RESEARCH, and see what the current version is. If there is a newer version then what I have stored on my 2nd hard drive, I research it, to see what changes were made, bug fixes, or whatever. Even if I don't want to upgrade my version right then and there, I'll still download it from the webpage, and store it for later use. And this statement just totally blows my mind. said by Mele20:There was NO information about the update (and this forum was offline). I was puzzled because ESR is not supposed to be getting hardly any updates. I wanted to know all about it before I allowed it. While I love this site, and I find the find the information here to be very informative, and up to date on a lot of things, I cannot see why you would use it as your ONLY SOURCE of information. Just because DSLR is down, does that also mean you cannot go to mozilla.org and check the status of updates? Quite a few of us post links directly to Mozilla's web page when new versions of any of their products come out (Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Firefox, etc). How do you think we know that? We actually take the time and the effort to go out to Mozilla's webpage, do the research, and see what is new. This goes along with what I said above. Sure, it is nice when the program "checks in" for you, but the problem is, each program is written by a different group of people, and they may not all work the same way. This is why I always manually check the actual webpage for updates. Which, leads me to this said by Mele20:I was so angry that I was not given the choice of declining it entirely at that time (or on the next start of Fx) and that Fx evidently had sneakily changed my preferences on the security update that I did about a month ago from "never check" to "automatically check and install" that I uninstalled Fx right then. Several days later, I reverted to a month old snapshot (my most recent on the virtual machine) and I looked at Fx 10 settings and sure enough my chosen setting for never check for updates had been reset to automatic check and install. Again, call me over-cautious, but when I do an install (or an upgrade) of ANY application, I go though and look at all the settings to make sure things are still set the way they were before. Sure, things should remain the same if you are doing an upgrade, but did you write the application? Do you know what the program is actually doing? Yes, if it is an upgrade, settings that you have made should be left as they are, and not modified. However, mistakes do happen, and sometimes, things do get reset back to a "default" value, or the "default" value may be changed by the powers that be. I do this for a few reasons: First, its an upgrade. Maybe there is some new features that were not in the old version that I may want to use (or not use) in this one. Second, is to verify that all my settings that I had are still the same way they were before the upgrade. Now, in you case, it sounds like there was a change that was made, and I think the better thing to do here would be to let those at Firefox know about it, IN A CALM WAY. Send them an e-mail and let them know the problem, so that it can be corrected in future releases of the application. Sorry for the long rant and post. It just amazes me that people want everything done for them, and won't take the effort to look something up or do the research themselves. --Brian | | 4 edits |
Hi plencnerb , said by plencnerb:said by EdmundGerber:If that is the only way, then mozilla is surely headed in the wrong direction. Maybe I am old fashioned, but why would you NOT want to go to the official web page of the software that you are using to check for updates? Does it actually take that much time to open your web browser, type in that address, and see what the latest version is? .... Sorry for the long rant and post. It just amazes me that people want everything done for them, and won't take the effort to look something up or do the research themselves. --Brian You _all_ have valid points. While going to each application's webpage to check for updates, and other information, is great, and keeping an archive of the different versions can be helpful (Mr. Tech used to facilitate automatically doing just that with Fireweasel extensions, until that was FUBARED, by MoFo, iIrc. FEBE now can help archive.), once the application builds in the feature of being able to _check_ internally for updates, many folks may just find it more efficient to rely on using it. Of course, they then may not be aware of trivial to crucial information that a stop by the pages would have provided. I use the check-for-updates feature to let me know if an update exists. If it does, that signals that I might should investigate. Update dialogues often contain explanations, and/or links to change-logs, and/or homepages, and/or other information, to help one make a more informed decision as the few decades-old-question 'To download and install, or to just download, or to not download and/or install' at the precise moment. I stopped using what was Thunderbird's internal update manual checker, as for quite some time MoFo has apparently decried that simply checking for such availability suddenly also equates to someone's desire for immediate installation, should an update exist. Here, from Phoenix, thru the various incarnations to the present (and long past the good-old-days of "security-through obscurity") it is the _customization/configuration_ through _extensions_ and themes that ARE the Weasel. Running a lot of extensions (mid-forties currently in 11.x, down from over 60 very recently in 3.x), and a theme, presents a few challenges (much more so for the coders, than me, just a user): 1) No conflicts amongst existing extensions. 2) No conflicts between existing extensions and the existing Fx version. 3) No conflicts between updated extensions. 4) No conflicts between updated extensions and Fx. 5) Add a Theme into the mix. 6) Possibly add an external application or three. And there are Plugins. 7) And then try for no conflicts, or manageable conflicts, when Fx itself is updated. 8) Now do all that while actually _using_ browser for something other than keeping it, and it's components up-to-date, running with 50-100 open tabs, for work and play. Sure, it makes for a more informed user, when they check in on each of their application's homepages regularly, but this is also a tool, even if it is sometimes (often...?) a tool for fun (and the "fun" of itself). NoScript is updated by GM (The Hardest Working Man In Extensionbiz), so often, that I gave up keeping up with the details of each release some time ago, even though it will open a webpage for you to do just that. Piro's English is, better than my Japanese, but.... There are 40+ more just in Fx. I also will sometimes delay non-critical updates, as with 40-60 mini-apps and a browser, even with out NS, they can occur quite often. It is each user who should be able to choose trade-offs, when conflicts arise. A security update to fix a critical vulnerability being exploited is far different than a feature addition, or tweak. Being able to click an internal button in Fx, be prompted that an update exists, then either be shown the what and why, or provided with a link to that information, and then to decide when to install it (if at all), is an efficient manner of keeping the software up-to-date, on ones own terms, and sometimes that may mean following the links to investigate, and/or going to forums, other research, or postponing the installation, pending allocating the time to research the update for reports of features/conflicts/problems, or sometimes just choosing "ALLOW" with a nod to "feeling lucky" gods, and FEBE/MozbackUp (or more) just in case. ** What would really be great is for MoFo and the Compatibility Reporter extension to allow checking Compatibility Reports of extension Updates, _before_ they are selected for download and install. ** Perhaps this latest reported MoFo "feature" in Fx is an error, and will be corrected. While I hope so, I don't think it's been removed from T-bird, and it's been there for a while. | | Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI 1 edit |
to plencnerb
Mozilla.org got blocked in my hosts file as did firefox website back when Mozilla decided to spy on its users. ( I read the mozilla.dev.security.policy NG and have for many years). I don't need updates except for stability. My Fx 10 ESR was running fine. It wasn't unstable. It didn't need a security or stability update. It runs on a guest machine where the OS is XP Pro SP2 with NO security patches. I do have ProcessGuard to protect the machine but I have tried and tried to infect that machine purposely and I have never been successful. If it did ever get infected, I would simply revert to an earlier snapshot or, on Microsoft's VPC, I would just shut down choosing to drop disk and that would fix any infection as everything done since the last boot of Vista Ultimate that is on Microsoft's virtual PC would be dropped at shutdown. (I also run Vista Ultimate, no service packs, on a virtual pc and have never gotten infected there either). My host machine runs XP Pro SP2 with Process Guard and Avira 8 (not the current version 12) to protect it. I'm not big on updates. I don't have Flash or Java on my host machine except on IE6 which I do not use except for speed tests that require Java and Flash (otherwise I would not have either application on any machine or any browser. I didn't get a computer to watch Flash movies. I hate Flash). I can no longer use Java on Fx on my guest machines because I have an older version of Java (again used ONLY for speed tests that I own the software for the main tests - MySpeed) that Mozilla decided to block recently. It works fine on IE8 on those virtual machines. So, I find myself using IE more instead of Fx. I don't want to upgrade Java just so Mozilla lets it work. I'm tired of the devs attitude that ONLY ignorant of computers user matter to them.
Without this site, I really could do without a computer. I need a new computer as my current one has a bulging capacitor, plus it is a little over six years old, so its days are limited. When dslr was down for so long, I seriously was thinking that if it did not come back that I would not buy a new computer and I don't have a cell phone at all so I would just do without the internet as I need it for buying plane tickets at the lowest price that are not available if you call, or go to a travel agent, and for this site. Otherwise, I don't care much for the net these days since Web2 took over. I loved Web1 and I hate Web2.
Yeah, I suppose Mozillazine would have something about the latest Fx version but it is mostly a help forum. My gripe here is that Mozilla devs should have a good grasp of the English language and if a button says CHECK FOR UPDATES that is what it should do and it should NOT do other things also. The language for the button should be changed or the button removed.
As for sneakily changing my settings on each update, well that is simply inexcusable. Mozilla has defended it over the years as being needed for the computer dummies. Mozilla thereby indicating that the reason Fx got started and grew is irrelevant to them now and they presently care only about ignorant of computer users nd the rest of us users should just suck it up. My response to their arrogance has been to not upgrade Fx. I had 1.5 until March 2011. | | |
to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:said by EdmundGerber:If that is the only way, then mozilla is surely headed in the wrong direction. Maybe I am old fashioned, but why would you NOT want to go to the official web page of the software that you are using to check for updates? Does it actually take that much time to open your web browser, type in that address, and see what the latest version is? I will say that doing those kind of steps is something I do about once a month for the applications that I have installed. I'm talking about things like Winamp, Trillian, Firefox, Waterfox, Thunderbird, and so on. These programs are all free to download, and I have a 2nd Hard drive in my system where I store them. This way, when I re-build my system (or work on a friend or family members computer), I don't have to go back to the web to get everything. Of course, one must keep up to date on all these applications, and to me, the best way to do that is go to each web page, DO THE RESEARCH, and see what the current version is. If there is a newer version then what I have stored on my 2nd hard drive, I research it, to see what changes were made, bug fixes, or whatever. Even if I don't want to upgrade my version right then and there, I'll still download it from the webpage, and store it for later use. And this statement just totally blows my mind. said by Mele20:There was NO information about the update (and this forum was offline). I was puzzled because ESR is not supposed to be getting hardly any updates. I wanted to know all about it before I allowed it. While I love this site, and I find the find the information here to be very informative, and up to date on a lot of things, I cannot see why you would use it as your ONLY SOURCE of information. Just because DSLR is down, does that also mean you cannot go to mozilla.org and check the status of updates? Quite a few of us post links directly to Mozilla's web page when new versions of any of their products come out (Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Firefox, etc). How do you think we know that? We actually take the time and the effort to go out to Mozilla's webpage, do the research, and see what is new. This goes along with what I said above. Sure, it is nice when the program "checks in" for you, but the problem is, each program is written by a different group of people, and they may not all work the same way. This is why I always manually check the actual webpage for updates. Which, leads me to this said by Mele20:I was so angry that I was not given the choice of declining it entirely at that time (or on the next start of Fx) and that Fx evidently had sneakily changed my preferences on the security update that I did about a month ago from "never check" to "automatically check and install" that I uninstalled Fx right then. Several days later, I reverted to a month old snapshot (my most recent on the virtual machine) and I looked at Fx 10 settings and sure enough my chosen setting for never check for updates had been reset to automatic check and install. Again, call me over-cautious, but when I do an install (or an upgrade) of ANY application, I go though and look at all the settings to make sure things are still set the way they were before. Sure, things should remain the same if you are doing an upgrade, but did you write the application? Do you know what the program is actually doing? Yes, if it is an upgrade, settings that you have made should be left as they are, and not modified. However, mistakes do happen, and sometimes, things do get reset back to a "default" value, or the "default" value may be changed by the powers that be. I do this for a few reasons: First, its an upgrade. Maybe there is some new features that were not in the old version that I may want to use (or not use) in this one. Second, is to verify that all my settings that I had are still the same way they were before the upgrade. Now, in you case, it sounds like there was a change that was made, and I think the better thing to do here would be to let those at Firefox know about it, IN A CALM WAY. Send them an e-mail and let them know the problem, so that it can be corrected in future releases of the application. Sorry for the long rant and post. It just amazes me that people want everything done for them, and won't take the effort to look something up or do the research themselves. --Brian Why is it, with FF 3.6, I could merely go to Help-Check for Updates, and find out if an update was available, which version, as well as a link to What's New. But, here in the ultra modern badass FF 12.0, you want me to surf to an FTP site and trawl their directory looking for a new version. That's progress - Mozilla style! :rolleyes: And, if you'd done your own research, BRIAN, you would have known that, and not come across as a giant douche-bag... | | | EdmundGerber |
to Bobby_Peru
said by Bobby_Peru:Hi plencnerb , said by plencnerb:said by EdmundGerber:If that is the only way, then mozilla is surely headed in the wrong direction. Maybe I am old fashioned, but why would you NOT want to go to the official web page of the software that you are using to check for updates? Does it actually take that much time to open your web browser, type in that address, and see what the latest version is? .... Sorry for the long rant and post. It just amazes me that people want everything done for them, and won't take the effort to look something up or do the research themselves. --Brian You _all_ have valid points. While going to each application's webpage to check for updates, and other information, is great, and keeping an archive of the different versions can be helpful (Mr. Tech used to facilitate automatically doing just that with Fireweasel extensions, until that was FUBARED, by MoFo, iIrc. FEBE now can help archive.), once the application builds in the feature of being able to _check_ internally for updates, many folks may just find it more efficient to rely on using it. Of course, they then may not be aware of trivial to crucial information that a stop by the pages would have provided. I use the check-for-updates feature to let me know if an update exists. If it does, that signals that I might should investigate. Update dialogues often contain explanations, and/or links to change-logs, and/or homepages, and/or other information, to help one make a more informed decision as the few decades-old-question 'To download and install, or to just download, or to not download and/or install' at the precise moment. I stopped using what was Thunderbird's internal update manual checker, as for quite some time MoFo has apparently decried that simply checking for such availability suddenly also equates to someone's desire for immediate installation, should an update exist. Here, from Phoenix, thru the various incarnations to the present (and long past the good-old-days of "security-through obscurity") it is the _customization/configuration_ through _extensions_ and themes that ARE the Weasel. Running a lot of extensions (mid-forties currently in 11.x, down from over 60 very recently in 3.x), and a theme, presents a few challenges (much more so for the coders, than me, just a user): 1) No conflicts amongst existing extensions. 2) No conflicts between existing extensions and the existing Fx version. 3) No conflicts between updated extensions. 4) No conflicts between updated extensions and Fx. 5) Add a Theme into the mix. 6) Possibly add an external application or three. And there are Plugins. 7) And then try for no conflicts, or manageable conflicts, when Fx itself is updated. 8) Now do all that while actually _using_ browser for something other than keeping it, and it's components up-to-date, running with 50-100 open tabs, for work and play. Sure, it makes for a more informed user, when they check in on each of their application's homepages regularly, but this is also a tool, even if it is sometimes (often...?) a tool for fun (and the "fun" of itself). NoScript is updated by GM (The Hardest Working Man In Extensionbiz), so often, that I gave up keeping up with the details of each release some time ago, even though it will open a webpage for you to do just that. Piro's English is, better than my Japanese, but.... There are 40+ more just in Fx. I also will sometimes delay non-critical updates, as with 40-60 mini-apps and a browser, even with out NS, they can occur quite often. It is each user who should be able to choose trade-offs, when conflicts arise. A security update to fix a critical vulnerability being exploited is far different than a feature addition, or tweak. Being able to click an internal button in Fx, be prompted that an update exists, then either be shown the what and why, or provided with a link to that information, and then to decide when to install it (if at all), is an efficient manner of keeping the software up-to-date, on ones own terms, and sometimes that may mean following the links to investigate, and/or going to forums, other research, or postponing the installation, pending allocating the time to research the update for reports of features/conflicts/problems, or sometimes just choosing "ALLOW" with a nod to "feeling lucky" gods, and FEBE/MozbackUp (or more) just in case. ** What would really be great is for MoFo and the Compatibility Reporter extension to allow checking Compatibility Reports of extension Updates, _before_ they are selected for download and install. ** Perhaps this latest reported MoFo "feature" in Fx is an error, and will be corrected. While I hope so, I don't think it's been removed from T-bird, and it's been there for a while. How are you preventing the check for updates feature from automatically downloading any possible available updates? That was my beef - that lately there's no recourse - you check - you're updating! | | EdmundGerber |
to M_
said by M_:It's very complicated, but I'll oblige; Help / Check For Updates... Is not available with Firefox 12.0... | | |
to EdmundGerber
What amazes me is you think this sole feature is an indication of the direction of Mozilla's goals and directions. What amazes me even more is that this is such a turn off for you. | | plencnerb Premium Member join:2000-09-25 53403-1242 |
to EdmundGerber
Waterfox Update Screen | Check for Updates, on the about box |
said by EdmundGerber:And, if you'd done your own research, BRIAN, you would have known that, and not come across as a giant douche-bag... I did my research, which is why I always knew when a new version came out. When I first started using Firefox 5 years ago, I selected to turn auto updates OFF. I did not have it check for updates or anything. I went out to the official webpage and researched the page to see if a new version was there or not. So, if that functionally has changed, I did not know that as it is a feature of the program that I never have used, and will never use. said by EdmundGerber:Why is it, with FF 3.6, I could merely go to Help-Check for Updates, and find out if an update was available, which version, as well as a link to What's New. Again, if that is how it worked, I would not know, as it was a feature of the program that I never used. I have always been someone who hates having the program tell me when there is an update. I'm very capable of going out to the web site and looking to see when there is a new version or update to an existing piece of software. In fact, I will spend the time and research how to turn the auto update feature off once I install an application. Now, I'm not against programs that do that, as I know everyone in the world is not like me. Each person is different, and there are lots of people (yourself included) that would rather have ease and functionally of the application to do it for them. From what you have said, there appears to be a functional change in the way Firefox's update screen is written and functions between version 3.6 and 12.0. While I am no longer using Firefox (switched to Waterfox in December 2011), I have included a screen shot from Waterfox to show its update options. From what I have read on Waterfox's webpage, the code base, and functionally of Waterfox is the same as Firefox, as it is built with the same code, except that it is compiled as a 64 bit application. So while the screen is from Waterfox Version 12.0, the screen should be the same one from Firefox 12.0, and also have the same functionally. If I look at the options, this is how I see that they should function. Option #1: Automatically install updates (recommended: improved security) ---> This tells me that Waterfox will check for updates (not sure how often), and if it finds one, will automatically install it. The end user would not have the option to not install if it finds one. I call this a forced update, as the end user has no choice. There is an update, and by god you will get it no matter if you want it or not. Option #2: Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them. ---> This tells me that Waterfox will check for updates like it does with option #1, but give the end user a choice if they want to be installed at that time or not. Here, the user has more flexibility as to when the update is actually installed. The application will do the work to see if there is a new version, and then allow the end user when it will be installed. Option #3: Never check for updates (not recommended: security risk) ---> As you can see in the picture, this is the option that I have selected. Yes, Mozilla sees this as a "security risk", because they cannot guarantee that every user of their application will take the time to go out and check Mozilla's webpage for the new version, and update it as needed. This option puts the task of that on the end user. If what you are saying is that when you select option #2, you do not get the choice to install it as it says, then I would think you would need to inform the developers of Firefox of that, so that the problem can be corrected. said by EdmundGerber:How are you preventing the check for updates feature from automatically downloading any possible available updates? That was my beef - that lately there's no recourse - you check - you're updating! This again goes along with the fact that there appears to be a modification to the way the code was working. You said yourself you could "check for updates", and it would do just that: Check to see if there was a newer version, and then give you the option to download and install. If that specific feature is no longer working the same way, then you would again need to contact Mozilla, and let them know you found a bug in their code, and work with them to get it resolved. Finally, you made this comment You are talking about the "check for updates" option. Again, I never used it, but it sounds like it was a menu item located in the Help menu that said "Check for Updates". I agree, that option is no longer present at that location. Instead, it is located on the about screen. If you click on Help, and then About Waterfox / Firefox, you get a screen similar to the one that I have posted. Since I have automatic updates turned off, I have a box that says "Check for updates". I've never clicked it, as I would rather go to the actual webpage, so I don't know if clicking the box is the same as having option #2 selected. I would think it would be, but again..I'm guessing as I have never clicked it. I think the bottom line here is that it functionally that used to be in an older version of Firefox no longer works the same way in the newer version of Firefox. If that is the case, then my suggestion to you would be to take the time to document what used to work (use pictures if needed) from the version that you had it working on, and then show what version it stopped working on, and explain why you feel that it is "broke". I don't mean that in a negative way, but what I'm saying is that you need to let Mozilla know that something is broken. Maybe use the words "not working the same as it did in version x.x.x" would be better then "broke". Mozilla hopefully will take your detailed explanation of the problem, and then work on getting it fixed. Then, when Firefox 12.2 (or maybe 13.0) comes out, the problem will be corrected, and the functionally that you were used to using in 3.6 in this specific area will be back to the way it was. --Brian | | 3 edits |
to EdmundGerber
Hello EdmundGerber : said by EdmundGerber:How are you preventing the check for updates feature from automatically downloading any possible available updates? That was my beef - that lately there's no recourse - you check - you're updating! I understand, and it has been that way in Tbird for a while. Currently Tbird here is 11.0.1. I do not recall at what point MoFo rudely made this change in Tbird. Unfortunately I also do not recall when the last time was that I checked in Fx (currently "11.0", after 3.x for years, until a fairly recent jump to "10.x"), and not having the time now to research what effect an update would/might have on my particular configuration, nor to recover from an unintended update should that occur on a simple "Check" and hose something, I do not know if/when MoFo added this "feature" to Fx. I was responding in this thread to what others have reported in Fx, and what I have found previously in Tbird. Perhaps it's just an aberration/mistake in Fx? When ready for such a user unintended update, I will post what happens here. | | Bobby_Peru 2 edits |
to drhoward_t
said by drhoward_t:What amazes me is you think this sole feature is an indication of the direction of Mozilla's goals and directions. What amazes me even more is that this is such a turn off for you. It's one's right to be amazed, or even Italian, for that matter. Once again, as at least two greats have song: R-E-S-P-E-C-T; Respect for users, their desires, their consent, for their time. Perhaps it's just an aberration/mistake in Fx, and all will be cleared up soon? That would be great, but the poster's points in this thread that "Check" should not be changed to a forced update are certainly valid. | | plencnerb Premium Member join:2000-09-25 53403-1242 1 edit |
said by Bobby_Peru:Perhaps it's just an aberration/mistake in Fx, and all will be cleared up soon? That would be great, but the poster's points in this thread that "Check" should not be changed to a forced update are certainly valid. I agree with you on this. It does sound like there is some kind of issue going on with the developers of Firefox. I went and reread what Mele20 posted yesterday, and it sounds like she did try to communicate these concerns in NG (which, I'm not quite sure what NG stands for..thinking NewsGroup?) and from what he said the reply she got back from that posting was (well, let me just quote it below). said by Mele20:I posted in the NG about it and was told that I should know by now that Fx will always change my settings on every update and that I have to remember to uncheck the box that changes your settings. If this really is there stance on the subject, then that is bad coding on the part of Mozilla. I've been a developer for over 15 years, and one of the things we always made sure we had to do on upgrades was to verify that we did not modify existing user settings, no matter what. If this is the case, then I think someone needs to sit down with either the developers themselves, or their managers / supervisors, and explain that this practice is not a good idea. I'm all for ideas and ways to make sure that end users receive updates due to security issues, and having "Automatic updates" checked is the way to do it. But, forcing that change with each release is just not the right way to do it. Heck, even Microsoft does not go and modify the settings of Windows Updates when a new Service Pack or hotfix is installed. Sure, by default it may be on, but if the user changes it to "never check", it will be that way until the user goes and changes it. Mele20 goes on to make a suggestion that if the developers want to change it, then they should modify the wording on the button to "Check and install update" and have another button that is just "Check for update". Buttons should be clear in what they do. If it says "Check for update", that does not mean "Check and install update". There is a big difference, and again, bad coding on their part if that is the actual behavior of said button. --Brian | | |
Hello plencnerb . Yes, that would make sense. Or just the way it was done: Click button, it calls up a dialogue while calling home to check for updates, reports the findings, along with pertinent info, or links to it, and buttons 1) DO NOTHING, except close the dialogue 2) Install the update immediately, and maybe, if an update was found 3) Remind Later. It worked well since the internal updater was introduced. shhhh.....but maybe, no definitely, very very quietly add an "s" or three to your post before Mele20 wakes up, as she is not a he ... | | Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
Mele20
Premium Member
2012-May-10 12:45 am
said by Bobby_Peru:Hello plencnerb . Yes, that would make sense. Or just the way it was done: Click button, it calls up a dialogue while calling home to check for updates, reports the findings, along with pertinent info, or links to it, and buttons 1) DO NOTHING, except close the dialogue 2) Install the update immediately, and maybe, if an update was found 3) Remind Later. It worked well since the internal updater was introduced.
shhhh.....but maybe, no definitely, very very quietly add an "s" or three to your post before Mele20 wakes up, as she is not a he ... Too late!! but I don't mind being called a "he" or a "they" etc. One new Mozilla news group thread has a poster saying that as of Fx 15 the "problem" has been solved by Mozilla REMOVING "check for updates" from the "About Fx" box. According to him, MERELY CLICKING ON Help/ABOUT FX causes download and update of Fx (if there is an update available). So, that "solves" the problem of the misleading wording regarding exactly what to expect from "check for updates" button. Fx 15 will have automatic, silent updating fully operational most of it being done in the background while Fx is running. I guess anyone choosing to not participate in automatic, silent background updating will be expected to either check manually on the web for updates or understand that if they click on "About: Firefox" that an update will be performed. The first question that arises to me is the practical one of what if you want to simply check to see exactly what version you currently have? (Yes, you would know if you have Fx 10 or Fx 11 but do you remember always if it is Fx 10.0.02 or .03, etc and so you check). It appears you will no longer be able to do that unless willing to have an available update forced. Although having the Mozilla Service permanently disabled should stop that from happening but it wouldn't stop downloading automatically and installing either right then or on restart of Fx from happening. I don't know how for Windows users, (Linux and Apple are different), as of Fx 15, we will be able to avoid the silent background updates. We will probably have to continue to remember on each update to again uncheck the box for automatic updating that Mozilla will have rechecked, then check the Mozilla service to make sure it is still totally disabled, then remember to never click on "About: Firefox". This scenario is disturbingly similar to the contortions one must currently go through each time there is an available Flash update. Mozilla obviously believes that moving to seamless background automatic updating will help them hold on to users who currently don't want an automatic update to occur when they shut down Fx or on starting Fx. But to me, all this causes Mozilla to potentially lose other valuable users who simply wish to update when they decide to update. In the effort to make the average user happy, Mozilla is irritating other users as Fx becomes more and more Chrome like. | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
said by Mele20:Fx 15 will have automatic, silent updating fully operational most of it being done in the background while Fx is running. From what I've read, Pale Moon disables/will disable this "feature" ...might eventually be worth taking a closer look at. | | |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:One new Mozilla news group thread has a poster saying that as of Fx 15 the "problem" has been solved by Mozilla REMOVING "check for updates" from the "About Fx" box. According to him, MERELY CLICKING ON Help/ABOUT FX causes download and update of Fx (if there is an update available). So, that "solves" the problem of the misleading wording regarding exactly what to expect from "check for updates" button. I don't know if something is changing in Firefox 15, but in Firefox 4 - 12, if you have auto-update enabled, then that's the standard behaviour. Changing the update option from "Automatically Install Updates" to either "Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them", or "Never check for updates", will give you the (misleading) check for updates button. That being said, anyone running the Firefox 15 nightlies can probably test it and give us a definitive answer on that. said by Mele20:I don't know how for Windows users, (Linux and Apple are different), as of Fx 15, we will be able to avoid the silent background updates. We will probably have to continue to remember on each update to again uncheck the box for automatic updating that Mozilla will have rechecked, then check the Mozilla service to make sure it is still totally disabled, then remember to never click on "About: Firefox". I don't think Mozilla is purposely changing everyone's settings to force us all to autoupdate Firefox, it defeats the purpose of a radio button. It's probably a bug. I've had Firefox set to "Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them" and it's never changed on me. And if they actually did change settings on people, I think we'd hear from a ton of pissed off users about it. | | GuruGuy Premium Member join:2002-12-16 Atlanta, GA |
to chachazz
I've updated to Ver 12 via the internal updater. Clicking on "help", "about firefox" shows ver 12.0 and underneath "apply update". Duh, I did that. I then downloaded the installer and ran it again...same results. Running version 12.0 but "apply update" shows underneath.
WTF? | | |
to drhoward_t
said by drhoward_t:What amazes me is you think this sole feature is an indication of the direction of Mozilla's goals and directions. What amazes me even more is that this is such a turn off for you. Actually, it's more amazing to me, as an early user of Mozilla products, that so very few people can see it. And then there are the blind 'followers', like yourself, who have no idea what the issue really is, and just lashes out - mindlessly. There was a feature that would check if an update was available, it would tell you what the version number of the update was, it would link you to a 'What's New' style page. At some point, between version 3.6.xx and 11.0, this incredibly useful feature was quietly removed, leaving us with the very non elegant check for updates (lie!) button. And I'm the only one noticing this? Perhaps I'm just not as comfortable giving in and mindlessly following Mozilla's lead. But I personally like to find out about updates before having them forced onto my computer and installed without my permission. If manually checking is in my future so be it. Either that or go find a basic browser to replace FF... | |
|