×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 12 Released — Introduces Silent, Chrome-like Updater

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the grandma-will-never-know-the-difference dept.

Firefox 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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

411 comments

What's best (4, Insightful)

black6host (469985) | about 2 years ago | (#39785523)

I suppose if you believe Mozilla knows what's best for us then this is a good thing. If you don't........

Re:What's best (-1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#39785545)

I believe Chrome knows what's best for us.
I believe Mozilla does not.
So... Interesting and compelling comment you've posted.

Re:What's best (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785769)

If they did, they wouldn't have prompted Mozilla to implement this crappy secret updating garbage.

Re:What's best (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#39785799)

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 (1)

steveg (55825) | about 2 years ago | (#39785983)

Exactly. Every once in a while I load up chrome (now that I've segregated my Google logged-in services from everything else) and I keep running into annoying "features" where Chrome just doesn't work right.

Re:What's best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786195)

If you can't disable something so simple on a corporate scale, maybe you should fine another career.

Re:What's best (1, Flamebait)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#39786475)

It's pretty clear that Mozilla have no interest in catering to enterprise customers anyway.

Re:What's best (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#39785855)

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.

Re:What's best (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785957)

So what else is new? Firefox and IE have been ripping off Opera since before Chrome even existed.

Re:What's best (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786015)

the sad thing is firefox doesn't care about making the browser function correctly anymore and they still havent plugged ANY memory leaks.

Re:What's best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786355)

I tried using Opera back when it was the browser everyone copied. Unfortunately, I had to give it up because of all the sites that only "worked" in IE and FF (and I couldn't reasonably avoid the sites that refused to load for it.) Now that those two browsers are copying one with actual market share, I use Chrome.

Re:What's best (3, Insightful)

bubkus_jones (561139) | about 2 years ago | (#39786159)

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 (2)

Errtu76 (776778) | about 2 years ago | (#39786317)

Yeah, I get what you mean. And the only reason why I haven't switched over to Chrome is because I kind of like vimperator, which doesn't exist for Chrome. Or at least, not in the way vimperator for Firefox operates.

Re:What's best (3, Insightful)

EyelessFade (618151) | about 2 years ago | (#39786225)

You don't allow them to update? I'm sorry but I really can't find anything to be upset about here.

Re:What's best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786377)

You don't have to install the auto update option, uncheck the box during install.

Re:What's best (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#39786615)

If the user you run your browser as has write access to the browser installation, Mozilla probably does know better than you.

Finally (1)

medlefsen (995255) | about 2 years ago | (#39785537)

Now I won't have to go 10 rounds with the wife to keep the ff on her mac up to date.

Re:Finally (3, Interesting)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about 2 years ago | (#39785917)

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:Finally (5, Insightful)

medlefsen (995255) | about 2 years ago | (#39786089)

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:Finally (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39786309)

>>>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:Finally (2)

Emetophobe (878584) | about 2 years ago | (#39786371)

I've been using the same addons since Firefox 3.x and they all still work in Firefox 11. Which addons are you using that break with every new release?

Re:Finally (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#39786083)

Now I won't have to go 10 rounds with the wife to keep the ff on her mac up to date.

Alternatively, you could just move her to Firefox Extended Support Release [mozilla.org], which is what I did at home as soon as it was available. She'll still get the security patches, but won't get overloaded by all the pointless monthly "updates for the sake of updating".

Re:Finally (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about 2 years ago | (#39786525)

This specific new updater is Windows only. Linux hasn't had this issue as long as your disto actually keeps up with Firefox releases (most do now).

So yea.. as long as you aren't running Mac OS...

So it has come to this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785543)

Version 4 to version 12 in just one year... and yet it still lags behind chrome in terms of speed and responsiveness. Only area where Firefox still is the best is it's customizability.

Re:So it has come to this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785731)

it's good to see that chrome fans don't dare to criticize firefox on memory issues anymore.

Re:So it has come to this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786011)

And to think it only took them 6 years to fix that memory leak. That's some awesome turnaround time!

Re:So it has come to this. (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#39786491)

Don't dare? What is there to really say since Mozilla finally got off its lazy ass after some several years and worked on the problem rather than playing a perpetual round of the blame game with plugin developers?

I guess people could still criticize it took Mozilla this long to take the situation seriously.

Re:So it has come to this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785843)

And both Chrome and Firefox lag behind Opera since like forever.
For pete's sake, Opera is a better browser on linux than Firefox or Chrome. -_- And on Windows there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.

Re:have you run FF at all? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39785959)

I recently rewipped my PC. I am developing a business oriented website where users have older browsers (sigh) and I installed FF 3.6 since many corporations still use it.

My god was it a pig. I ran a ni nite installer which updated FF by accident (I wanted 2 installed versions) to FF 11. I have not run FF = 3.6 in over a year. BIG IMPROVEMENT.

I rate it as fast as Chrome when it comes to starting up, debugging, and scrolling up and down, and even running javascript. It uses much less ram and is quite competitive. I hate the auto updating but I give Mozilla credit it greatly improved it.

The only thing it stil lacks over IE 9 and Chrome is decent hardware acceleration for smoother scrolling with the arrow keys and a sandbox for security. Otherwise I would use it fulltime.

I may even switch back to it now if Mozilla ads better multi core CPU support, threads/process per tab, and a sand box. Versions 3.6 and 4.0 were quite bad and even IE was faster than 3.6 last March. How embarasing? I ran the benchmarks and even switched to IE 9 for a month or two before going to Chrome. FF has come a long way.

Re:So it has come to this. (5, Informative)

Cito (1725214) | about 2 years ago | (#39786075)

someone hasn't seen the latest benchmarks on tomshardware then.

Firefox is just barely but is beating chrome and IE in speed for last 2 versions..

Chrome fanbois are about as bad as Appletards

Re:So it has come to this. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786595)

When you say "for the last two versions". That means more or less in the last three or four months. It took them six years to fix memory leak issues, it was still bloated and slow six months ago and now we're supposed to give them yet another chance?

And now the whole "we need to beat Chrome's version number" game is just stupid and even a lot of hardcore Firefox users are jumping ship. People have moved on, Firefox is losing marketshare because they were lazy and didn't listen to their users. That's as simple as that.

Find (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785565)

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.

Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786501)

For being the only commenter to mention the "Find" feature. And it speaks volumes about registered users of Slashdot when only unregistered users have nice things to say.

Gahhh!! (4, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | about 2 years ago | (#39785585)

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.

Re:Gahhh!! (3, Informative)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 2 years ago | (#39785889)

Who said anything about root access? If Firefox is running with root privs, you are doing something wrong. Also, the silent updater is optional.

-d

Re:Gahhh!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786291)

This is a non-issue. You can get a chrome MSI right now and the GPO object, push it out, and disable automatic updates and just update the next MSI when you're done testing.

Re:Gahhh!! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786331)

Chrome runs entirely under the user profile, installs under the user profile, and installs updates under the user profile. Does not require "root access" or any admin privileges to run, update, or install. Your entire +3 post is based on rubbish.

Firefox does require admin rights to run, because it's an insecure turd.

Re:Gahhh!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786577)

...Bussinesses...

It appearss you left out an ss. The correct sspelling iss "bussinessess".

Ssigned, Ssalazar Sslytherin

Enough already (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39785603)

So then we will stop getting a post about it every 6 weeks? If version numbers don't matter like Asa claims then why such a big fuss and fanfare over their ridiculous version inflation?

Talk about inflation! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785891)

So then we will stop getting a post about it every 6 weeks? If version numbers don't matter like Asa claims then why such a big fuss and fanfare over their ridiculous version inflation?

You tell'em Desler!

Why in my day, you could get the most up to date software for less than 1.0! And you still had features leftover! Now, what does a 1.0 version get ya?! Nuth'in! You got to go all the way up to version 12!

This is all because we're off of the "Gold standard". You see, back in my day, software wasn't released until it was Gold.And we got an update once every two years - and we liked it! And I had to walk, uphill both ways!, to get all those floppies to stick in. An update took a better part of a day and if started snowing, well, we updated in the snow! And liked it!

And when we did it, we listened to good ole Rock&Roll music; none of the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM talking about nonsense over a drum beat! We had a melody! Wailing guitars! And solos that's grow hair on your chest! And the songs were about cool things too!

I'm outta breath, now. This Gerotol stuff is great! I'm on my second bottle of the day here - gotta keep me strong!

Cool (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#39785605)

Now can we switch back to a sane version numbering system, so that extensions do not mysteriously stop working after a silent update?

Re:Cool (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#39786153)

Don't you get it? Firefox is a Living Standard(tm) now, like HTML. If your plugins aren't getting updated every SHORT_TIME_PERIOD they're already dead. ;)

User control (5, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 2 years ago | (#39785613)

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.

Re:User control (5, Insightful)

SpaceWiz (54904) | about 2 years ago | (#39785789)

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:User control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785925)

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.

Why wouldn't users need stability and control ? Developers develop for users, if Firefox's developers start developing for themselves in no short time FF will go down the drain and no one will give a flying fuck about it.

Re:User control (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39785975)

I can already see the future article:

"Latest Firefox update causes computer not to boot. Mozilla apologizes for the error and is working on a fix." -- I leave the autoupdates turned off and update when it's been around for awhile, and won't break anything. This silent update feature sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

Re:User control (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#39786033)

It sounds like an exploit vector since it runs at a high permissions level yet silences UAC.

Re:User control (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39786557)

It sounds like an exploit vector since it runs at a high permissions level yet silences UAC.

What do you mean "silences UAC"? From the article: "When you install Firefox 12, Windows UAC will ask you to approve Firefox Software Updater". My guess is it installs a service that has permission to write to Firefox's folder inside Program Files, and then Firefox activates the service once it has downloaded the update package.

Re:User control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786445)

Why would you want to run an older version than your users?

Re:User control (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786459)

You can (Tools -> Options, Advanced, Updated). You can also turn off the background updater if you don't want it.

Package management? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785621)

So...how will this get on with the system package manager?

Extended Support Release of Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785641)

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html

and Tbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/organizations/all-esr.html

I like Firefox, but... (1, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | about 2 years ago | (#39785647)

i use root (superuser) in an xterm to install it, then how is firefox going to update itself without my root password?
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

Re:I like Firefox, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785831)

sticky bit?

Re:I like Firefox, but... (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#39786031)

Al least on my upgrade information it says this is a Windows feature. Do you use xterm and root accounts on your Windows system?

Re:I like Firefox, but... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#39786037)

Oh thats ok, it will just install those files and do a chmod 666/777 on the files that needs to be updated, during the install process. You are perfectly safe, it will be able to update itself without the root password just fine.
The other option is when you install it, it runs daemon process as root that will check for updates and install itself.

Oh by the way because you installed it as root, any security flaw in the daemon process could effect you computer... Good for you.

Re:I like Firefox, but... (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39786515)

He said INSTALL as root, not RUN as root. It can do none of the things you claimed if it is INSTALLED as root but RUN as an unprivileged user. Note, installing means untaring the tarball somewhere.

The result is binaries owned by root that cannot be overwritten as a non-root user unless root chooses to change the permissions.

Re:I like Firefox, but... (1)

bluec (1427065) | about 2 years ago | (#39786107)

I've no idea how it works but I'd imagine that upon installation it can install a service or daemon that runs as root and handles the updates without requiring further passwords?

Good, two birds with one stone... (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#39785741)

Good, two birds with one stone...
1. People 'forgetting' to install updates and leaving themselves open to vulnerabilities.
2. People complaining about the version numbers, as the version number is now something you should only encounter when you go looking for it.

I do wonder what security issues will pop up with this background service that has some privileges to deal with the installation, rather than Chrome's method of s/appdata/programfiles/, though.

However, the 'search result gets displayed in center' is much more interesting to me from a usability viewpoint.

I'd like to take this space to thank (since I never saw a donate button) White Alice0775 - whoever that is - for writing 'Find To Center' which had largely implemented this functionality for previous FireFox releases.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/find-to-center/ [mozilla.org]
Your addon was well and truly appreciated.

Re:Good, two birds with one stone... (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 2 years ago | (#39786487)

Just updated my Firefox. Have to say I strongly dislike the new find behavior. When I searched this discussion-page for "cent" (to match both British and American spellings), and it found 2 matches in your post, and unnecessarily scrolled onto the second match, I assumed the second match was a different post. More importantly, the needless scroll is very jarring to my sense of 'orientation' on the page.

I'd far rather have Firefox reliably stay centered on an element when I change the zoom level.

As it is, I have to highlight what I'm reading, zoom in, then scroll around to find where I was. It doesn't seem to anchor to what's on the top of my view-area, either: it scrolls up as I zoom in. Chrome seems to do the same. Opera is somewhat better behaved, but not perfect.

Re:Good, two birds with one stone... (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#39786599)

2. People complaining about the version numbers, as the version number is now something you should only encounter when you go looking for it.

The only reason this actually works for Chrome is because all extensions written for Chrome are completely forward compatible. This is not the case with Firefox as of my last dealing with it, and the API is still subject to go bonkers and change without notice between updates. Users who want or need to install plugins for Firefox will most certainly be exposed to the version number still.

Well I guess I'll just have to... (0)

trygstad (815846) | about 2 years ago | (#39785773)

...reset the maxVersion on all of my Add-Ons to 99 so they won't all break with every upgrade...GRRR!

Re:Well I guess I'll just have to... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#39785861)

At the current rate, it means your add-ons will stop working around 2022.

Re:Well I guess I'll just have to... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786049)

Or don't, as they will are compatible by default now.

They've lost their focus (3, Insightful)

USA-Libertarian (1290208) | about 2 years ago | (#39785779)

Firefox was unique because it gave control to the user with their add-ons. It's my computer. I won't tolerate software that changes without my permission.

Re:They've lost their focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785833)

"I won't tolerate software that changes without my permission."

I concur.

And so will anyone else who is not an idiot.

Re:They've lost their focus (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#39786117)

Until, you miss an important patch, and you get hacked then someone else not the vendor changes your software without your permission.

Re:They've lost their focus (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#39786249)

Or there is an exploit in this silent updater and you don't know malware is being installed because the Firefox devs disabled UAC prompts.

Re:They've lost their focus (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39786047)

I thought they lost their focus when Firefox started being as big-and-bulky as the original Netscape Communicator. It was originally split-off to be a basic browser that didn't eat-up a lot of RAM or CPU time. At least Netscape Communicator (renamed Mozilla seaMonkey) included an email client, usenet reader, HTML editor, and other functions. Ditto Opera. But firefox takes-up the same bulk but with none of the extras.

Auto-update Windows Only? (2)

Necroman (61604) | about 2 years ago | (#39785815)

Accord to their feature site [mozilla.org], the auto-update is windows only?

Windows: Firefox is now easier to update with one less prompt (User Account Control)

So it's not really auto-update, just makes it a little nicer/easier for windows users.

Re:Auto-update Windows Only? (1, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#39785915)

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:Auto-update Windows Only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786289)

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?

What idiot thought that UAC improves their security, as Microsoft *themselves* have stated that "UAC is not a security barrier":

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/021407-microsoft-uac-not-a-security.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/02/05/update-on-uac.aspx

Re:Auto-update Windows Only? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#39786353)

Yeah, access controls are so dumb. Everyone knows we should just run everything with hgh level access. That's what all the secure systems do.

Re:Auto-update Windows Only? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786477)

You're missing the point. UAC is *not* a security feature, because its prompts can be bypassed easily by malware *anyway*, *without* the need of having the new firefox update service installed. Just regular Windows, nothing extra installed, UAC turned on, you run an .exe and it can elevate its permissions without asking the user anything. Microsoft says this is not a security issue and won't fix it, because "UAC is not a security barrier". So UAC is basically useless from a security POV, it's only feature is annoying the user with popups, while letting malware in anyway :)

Re:Auto-update Windows Only? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39786597)

How do you know it doesn't drop all permissions other than those needed to write to Firefox's folder inside Program Files?

Re:Auto-update Windows Only? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 2 years ago | (#39786281)

It's windows-only for now. Silent update for Mac and Linux was scheduled for FF14, last I heard.

It's not just like chrome... (5, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#39785817)

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.

Re:It's not just like chrome... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39786039)

Chrome's sand box prevents writting to the disk. Its pretty hard to exploit to do this. FF does not have a sandbox so it is a concern unless my knowledge is outdated.

Re:It's not just like chrome... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39786155)

Wow that is stupid; it's the windows-equivalent of giving Mozilla corporation root access. Who's in charge of this project? The new firefox Lead should be fired and bring back the old one.

Stick with the stable version 10esr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785825)

Stick with the stable version (extended support release 10) rather than use the beta version that comes out every six weeks. I don't they don't called it a beta, but that's effectively what it is. The extended support release will be supported for 12 months at least.

Lazy devs strike again. (5, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#39785853)

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:Lazy devs strike again. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786303)

Speaking of lazy devs, from the linked release notes [mozilla.org]:

Known Issues

UNRESOLVED
Windows: The use of Microsoft's System Restore functionality shortly after updating Firefox may prevent future updates (see 730285 [mozilla.org])

Apparently not only does something already go wrong, it can prevent your from ever being able to update Firefox again! (Without deleting your current profile, reinstalling won't work!)

But who cares, according to the calendar, it's release time NOW!

Re:Lazy devs strike again. (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#39786481)

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.

Borken Plugins (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785897)

Great, now our plugins will break and we won't know what to blame.

does not work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785927)

i just updated, and it didnt prompt me about anything, it just installed a service called
"Mozilla Maintenance Service"

set to manual start, if i try to start it, it gives an error

The Mozilla Maintenance Service service on Local Computer started and then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they have no work to do, for example, the Performance Logs and Alerts service. ...
and thats it
needs more work i guess

Versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39785995)

Thank you Google and Mozilla, for making major versions obsolete. Now all we have to rely on is... eh... nothing?

I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786325)

if it will stop crashing on my Ubuntu box. It crashes like crazy.

Too late... (1)

bi$hop (878253) | about 2 years ago | (#39786409)

I switched to Chrome after giving up hope that this bug [mozilla.org] would ever be fixed. Mozilla has done nothing but point fingers at Adobe (but this bug doesn't exist in Chrome or IE with the debug Flash Player).

Re:Too late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39786611)

This is the world's way of telling you not to use flash anymore.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...