Mozilla Dev - Everybody hates Firefox updates

[pyonir]

there is a reason why i dont use chrome but it seems like ff is trying to copy just about every aspect.

I agree. The beauty of FF is you can edit it to make sure it doesn't turn into Chrome. Something you can't do in chrome itself. For the most part my FF13 looks almost the same as it did at FF3. :thumbsup:

 

[Jeff7]

why do FF users hate updates? i run Opera mainily and i like updates, i also have FF and the updates never bothered me, the version numbering however is a bit silly. however chrome is worse

They're making version changes more frequently primarily for the sake of making bigger version numbers, and it seems that every other update significantly changes some part of the interface.


For some people, that's fine. For others, the reaction is "What's wrong with my computer now?" or "Why did this update wipe out half of my UI customizations?" or "Why did Mozilla vomit rectangles all over Firefox?"

 

[corkyg]

And here we go again . . . http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2257880

 

[hclarkjr]

all hail the best browser ever!!!

 

[FeuerFrei]

You can turn it off in Firefox 12+. Just go to Control Panel -> Uninstall a Program then uninstall "Mozilla Maintenance Service" and/or go into Firefox's Options -> Advanced -> Update tab and uncheck "Use a background service to install updates". Worked for me.

But whatever you do, don't go to "Help -> About Firefox" or it WILL update you automatically (even in Firefox 11 I think).

Good to know, thank you.

 

[Jeff7]

We are already at Chrome 22. TWENTY TWO! At some point, if you're iterating every 6 weeks, version numbers make no sense. No one cares what version Gmail is right now, even though internally there's probably a build number as with all software to track bugs and fixes.

And I think that's all it is. Someone at Google got the bright idea to do their versions differently, and now everyone else looks "bad" because of their low version numbers.
Hell, nVidia's Detonators are up into the 300s. I still remember enjoying the 2.17 build, which I think was on either a TNT or TNT2 videocard.

It's this same sort of thing.

 

[Phynaz]

I've been FF since v3.x and haven't had a single instance of an update breaking an add-on or extension.

Oh look...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57476478-93/firefox-14-may-break-your-theme/?tag=mncol;cnetRiver

The latest version of the desktop browser is incompatible with a huge number of existing themes.

 

[Spungo]

We hate sneaky background auto-updates more.

You wouldn't say that if you played world of warcraft. The WOW launcher would download giant 500mb+ patches in the background then apply the patch after the scheduled tuesday down time that happens every week. The game might suck these days, but the update system is excellent. This was in contrast to the old style of patch system where a counter-strike patch would be released and you could feel the entire internet slow down as everybody grabs the file as fast as possible. Wait times on file planet would be hours and random websites totally unrelated to the game would be slow or sometimes down completely.

Background patching is a great leap ahead.
I'm using Chrome and I don't know what version. It updates when ever.

 

[lxskllr]

Background patching is a great leap ahead.
I'm using Chrome and I don't know what version. It updates when ever.

Background patching is fine if you agree to having your programs patched in the background. Otherwise, it's an unauthorized change to your computer system. If patches aren't controlled by the owner, the owner doesn't control his machine. A company does.

 

[Jeff7]

Background patching is fine if you agree to having your programs patched in the background. Otherwise, it's an unauthorized change to your computer system. If patches aren't controlled by the owner, the owner doesn't control his machine. A company does.

I'm not making a value judgement here, just saying:
The company would probably say in response that you are using a licensed copy of their software with their permission, and that it is still technically their software, and that they can do whatever they want with it.

(I know, I know, libre software, free software, whichever it is....)



And out of the kindness of their hearts, these companies promise not to monitor what you do with their software.

Unless someone waves a few dollars at them.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm not making a value judgement here, just saying:
The company would probably say in response that you are using a licensed copy of their software with their permission, and that it is still technically their software, and that they can do whatever they want with it.

(I know, I know, libre software, free software, whichever it is....)



And out of the kindness of their hearts, these companies promise not to monitor what you do with their software.

Unless someone waves a few dollars at them.

All true, but there's degrees of freedom. Ideally, our computers would be 100% free, but in the current world, we make compromises, both necessary, and specious. Decisions have to be made, and the decisions should always err on the side of freedom.

You run Windows because you need AutoCAD for work. There just isn't a decent libre replacement, so you're stuck for the time being. That's a reasonable reason. It would take a special kind of dedication to use an extremely limited libre package, or go back to the old T-square, and drafting table.

A free(gratis) browser isn't a good reason to give up control. Lets assume for a second Chrome is faster than Firefox. They trade off on benchmarks, but I do think Chrome is faster. Is saving a few ms on page load time worth giving up control of your machine?

Something with as much wide spread use as a web browser can also be influenced by the people that use it. If enough people demand control of their machines, and vote with their choices, you'll get control of your machine. It doesn't even take a majorty of Chrome users. A sub majority percentage is still millions of people. With something like AutoCAD, they can tell you to pound sand. Even with the large numbers of people that use it, it's still a niche application in the greater computing landscape. It's a hard sell telling everyone to go back to the T-sqaure until AutoDesk makes agreeable changes to their policy.

This isn't counting the dubious legal argument of software licensing. The whole discussion might have a different framework if our leaders weren't beholden to corporate interests.