SillyDog701

[James]

One day after the release of Firefox 11, Mozilla on Wednesday provided an update on its progress and gave fans of its browser a peek at what's to come in 2012.

That includes silent updates with the release of Firefox 13, the company revealed.

Entire article here: http://www.ecoustics.com/pcmag/news/2401630

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[Fulvio]

I may want to allow silent updates, but I prefer to select the time, and it myself. So far, Firefox, for the first time in ages, has allowed me to do a partial update, and not forced me to download the entire installer.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) RockMelt/0.16.91.345 Chrome/16.0.912.77 Safari/535.7

[Antony]

It should be called ‘stealth’ update, rather. Forcing everybody to use the latest they deem fit is clearly unethical.

So, instead of constantly popping up a message window to tell users
hey, another new version is out, you should RUSH for the latest,
Mozilla will change the tactic to
we just rushed out another version, probably nothing much but it's newer, like it or not, you must use the latest of whatsoever we made.

Let's face it, many open-source extremists were darn concerned about their rights (particularly those American rights), which translates to if such action was another company (say from Apple), there would be a huge complaint from people like Asa, perhaps even protests... Except this one is from many open-source extremists' beloved Mozilla. Their attitude towards this? I expect the majority will be different.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[Anonymosity]

There is a setting "app.update.silent" in about:config which is currently set to false. If you use a user.js file, you can copy that into there and when that setting changes to true, it will be changed right back again.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[DJGM]

It should be called ‘stealth’ update, rather. Forcing everybody to use the latest they deem fit is clearly unethical.

So, instead of constantly popping up a message window to tell users
hey, another new version is out, you should RUSH for the latest,
Mozilla will change the tactic to
we just rushed out another version, probably nothing much but it's newer,
like it or not, you must use the latest of whatsoever we made.

Let's face it, many open-source extremists were darn concerned about their rights (particularly
those American rights), which translates to if such action was another company (say from Apple),
there would be a huge complaint from people like Asa, perhaps even protests... Except this one
is from many open-source extremists' beloved Mozilla. Their attitude towards this?
I expect the majority will be different.

Antony, why are you always attacking Mozilla over the same old issue regarding it's update mechanism?
If you're so against what you're referring to as "stealth updates", why don't you also attack Google the
same way? They do exactly the same thing with regards to the default way Chrome gets updated.
You do come across as quite pompous and supercilious with this sort of attitude.

Why do you keep saying it's "unethical"? I had no idea there was a specific legal code of conduct that
all browser makers (or just Mozilla) need to obey when they release new versions of their software.
When a doctor breaks the rules or goes against the Hippocratic Oath ... that's unethical.


Antony, you seriously need to get off your high horse about open source "extremists", when you're as
big an extremist when it comes to Apple products. You think that it's wrong and unneeded for Mozilla
to get users to keep their installations of Firefox up to date, even if there are known security bugs in
the previous version. You believe it's wrong for Firefox users to get the latest version, even if it's an
important update. You believe it's unnecessary to RUSH to get the very latest version of whatever.
In some cases, I would agree that it is unnecessary to RUSH for the very latest. It really depends
on the actual product that's being updated. If it's a web browser, or any other app that connects
to the internet, and can have occasional security issues, getting the latest version is needed.

It is however, NOT necessary to get the very latest version of a certain popular gadget as soon as it's
been released. The latest version might well have better features than it's predecessor, but it wasn't
really an important updates that all users MUST get. Yet you still had to RUSH to buy the latest
version of the iPad didn't you? Even though you most likely didn't really need to do.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[Antony]

Nice new avatar, DJGM.

You believe it's wrong for Firefox users to get the latest version, even if it's an important update.

I never said that.

You clearly misread my point.
Mozilla instead of just telling people to get the latest, the planed new sneaky stealth update method simply means:
Mozilla is forcing (or pushing) users to the latest of whatsoever just because they have something new.

It is also possible that the new sneaky stealth update method will keep users in the dark about the changes of the software in users' devices.

There's no need to drag the new iPad into this, unlike the picture you tried to paint. Unlike Mozilla, Apple does not force or rush people to buy the latest product.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/534.54.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.4 Safari/534.54.16

[Fulvio]

DJGM is right. Antony, you have been complaining about updates, silent or otherwise. So far, I was never forced to do anything. If Mozilla will remove the setting in Tools|Options|Advanced|Updates, which allows me choice, I will make one. But, interestingly in FF11, I found out there was a setting, which, I surely did not check, to "never check for updates. I did not know that there was such a thing. I changed the setting to the intermediate one, as I had it in the past.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[Fulvio]

I did a custom install of 12b1, and, nothing worked as promised. Yes, I have 12, installed in a different location from 11, and I use a different profile. Since I did not rename the shortcut, the beta knocked out the stable version. I wanted to give a link about all the new great things promised, and, after several attempts, I was able to open the e-mail in Seamonkey, mind the section on Windows UAC. Nothing like that, ever, came up, nor a chance for add-on compatibility. Add-on Compatibility Reporter does not work in v.12.
If they are going to make my life easier, this way, I can say goodbye to Firefox.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/12.0

[James]

It's beta, Fulvio. It's to be expected. I have to admit, however, to not liking Firefox nearly as much as I once did. I stick with it out of familiarity. But my head tells me to adopt Chrome full time and be done with Mozilla. I'm not sure I can make the break having been with it for so long. Oh how I long for the days of Netscape.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[Antony]

So, currently (and in the past), users were forced to update their browsers to whatsoever versions upon next relaunch by default setting. It is, however, true that currently users can change the default settings and hence they would not be forced to update. Even so, the dirty tactic is clear: banking on the huge number of users who do not make the change in default setting.

In the future, it is quite likely that users would be pushed to whatsoever new version at Mozilla's wish at any time, (1) without letting users know because it is sneaky and stealth, (2) also quite likely users won't have a choice to stay with the browser they were happy with.

What a beautiful “just do it” approach (to users' computers).

Oh, if this was Apple, you can see those Mozilla's die-hard supporters' (and open-source extremists') very vocal bashing on Apple. Without a doubt, because it is from the open-source group, those very same individuals would show the strong support.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[Fulvio]

So, currently (and in the past), users were forced to update their browsers to whatsoever versions upon next relaunch by default setting.

.
This is where we disagree. I was, never, forced to update my browser. For the longest time, I stuck with the v.3.6.x series. How come you are using 3.6.28, if the newest version is 11?

In the future, it is quite likely that users would be pushed to whatsoever new version at Mozilla's wish at any time,

. If I were pushed, I would abandon Mozilla.
For long time, I had given up on Chrome, because of its "sneakiness", but, then, I figured out how to get around its propensity of update "behind my back". I will figure out Mozilla, or it is gone. FYI, although I was using a beta, with v.12, I, immediately, sent a feedback to let them know of my displeasure with the new world order.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[Antony]

You think that it's wrong and unneeded for Mozilla to get users to keep their installations of Firefox up to date, even if there are known security bugs in the previous version. You believe it's wrong for Firefox users to get the latest version, even if it's an important update.

And

If it's a web browser, or any other app that connects to the internet, and can have occasional security issues, getting the latest version is needed.

Allow me to remind you, Mozilla has been caught lying to Firefox users by using "security update" as an excuse which pushes users' Firefox to update to the then latest (of 3.6.xx series) upon user's next relaunching of browser.

In that lying incident caught, this was what presented to the user:


And for those who dug in to read the documentation, the said update removes a features rather than fixing so called “security” issue.

Firefox 3.6.19 fixes the following issues found in previous versions of Firefox 3.6:

* Turned off downloadable font support for users running Mac OS X 10.7 due to an underlying platform bug. We hope to enable them again in the future

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[Antony]

So, currently (and in the past), users were forced to update their browsers to whatsoever versions upon next relaunch by default setting.

.
This is where we disagree. I was, never, forced to update my browser. For the longest time, I stuck with the v.3.6.x series. How come you are using 3.6.28, if the newest version is 11?

Under the default setting (which means the user never adjusted it or afraid to do so),
For those who uses Firefox 3.6.x, their Firefox had be automatically upgraded from time to time upon each relaunch, to current 3.6.28. I am one of those.

Starting from Firefox 4, the users' browser would be pushed to Firefox 11 (as of now). When Firefox 4 was available, I did not install it on my main system at that time.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[Fulvio]

I understand what you are saying, but, to me, but not to many, if there different options, I take a look at them.
I did not like silent updates, because, often, the browser has to be restarted, and I don't want to be bothered.

I don't want to be bothered

Exactly!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[James]

Silent updates, whether you like them or not, are the future. Microsoft intends to start rolling them out for its browser this year and Mozilla and Chrome will be joining them. You (Fulvio, Antony) are by far in the minority. Most folks could care less what is under the hood of their computers, so to speak. They don't want to be bothered updating anything (browser, email program, antivirus) BUT they want to be up-to-date and protected. So... to fulfill this for the majority of users, silent updates are the order of the day. It's all well and good to say, "I want to approve the update." BUT most folks don't for the simple reasons that: 1) they don't care; 2) they wouldn't have a clue whether to approve or not so they leave these decisions to the makers of their OS, browsers, antivirus programs.

It is what it is, guys. Better get used to it. I mentioned this months ago... that silent updates were coming. Well, they're here and things will not be changing back to the old ways. That's also what I mentioned about suites. They're yesterday's way of browsing and checking email. When you compare the number of folks using suites to those using stand-alone programs... the number is infinitesimally small.

The young people of today use smart phones, tablets, social media programs (Twitter, FB) and soon to be... ultra-books. Most of them could care less about updating their browsers. So Google Chrome does it in the background. Now Mozilla will do it and IE will do it also. It's not 1995 anymore. It's a new way of doing things.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0