6 ms·

So why hasn't Firefox implemented this yet? They've already said they are moving away from version numbers, but I still get the "You need to update, do you want

by lean 15y ago

So why hasn't Firefox implemented this yet? They've already said they are moving away from version numbers, but I still get the "You need to update, do you want to?" and "You've updated, now stop what you're doing and restart". Chrome has eliminated both of these dialogs (that used to be browser standards), and the FF dev team is usually responsive enough to adopt new, good ideas quickly. So what gives?

alttag 15y ago
Because Firefox is very plugin driven, and its current design disables plugins that aren't compatible. It is not in the best interest of users to have their plugins disabled automatically as a "feature".
- thatjoshguy 15y ago
  Can't they just stop making changes that cause plugins and extensions to break? I know that would be easier said than done, but Chrome seems to do a good job of it.
  - jerf 15y ago
    AFAIK, Chrome plugins still have much less access and power than Firefox plugins, which makes it easier for Chrome.
  - starwed 15y ago
    Firefox addons are traditionally written using the same API the browser itself uses. That's what makes them much more powerful than Chrome extensions, but clearly more fragile to breakage. They're starting to offer a separate extension SDK (formerly called Jetpack) that allows extensions to ignore the internal API and build against something more stable. Such add-ons can be installed without requiring a restart, and should be much easier to update, but many important extensions need more power than currently provided. (Ad block is a good example.)
    - SkyMarshal 15y ago
      As is vimperator and pentadactyl.
  - mcpherrinm 15y ago
    In short: Not with the old API. In this recent newsgroup post, you can see a list of the things that could break an extension, and it's a lot. http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/dafd0bc59b587e27# http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_t... The work to solve that is mentioned in the thread.
- kalid 15y ago
  This is the tail wagging the dog. The plugins are going to be broken whether the update from 3 to 4 happens manually or automatically (and, if anything, discourages manual updating despite all the popups). Windows has had binary compatibility for decades. Why not just version the internal browser API? (Extension XYZ was built against FireFox 3.6).
  - eurleif 15y ago
    >Windows has had binary compatibility for decades. Extensions don't just run on top of Firefox, though; they modify Firefox's UI in arbitrary ways. >Why not just version the internal browser API? Firefox already does this, and automatically disables incompatible extensions.
tbassetto 15y ago
Some people do not want automatic update. They prefer having total control on their software (think entreprises or free software fanatics).
- pnathan 15y ago
  Fanatics? No. Normal users too. Some people just don't like having magic.
- jonknee 15y ago
  I think the enterprise would benefit greatly from auto-updating. How many enterprise users today are stuck using insecure browsers?
  - mschwar99 15y ago
    Often times they are stuck using insecure browsers because some archaic piece of in house software depends on obsolete features only present in dated versions of browsers. They choose to skip updates because they don't want to spend the cash rebuilding the timekeeping system to work with anything other than IE <= 7.
    - T-hawk 15y ago
      Stated another way, for most large enterprises, the functionality of intranet in-house browsing for internal systems is more important than public web browsing. And this really is true for the enterprise's day-to-day business and ultimately profitability. Once you understand that, it naturally follows that the corpus of installed software and updates will be controlled to favor the former case at the expense of the latter.
      - WettowelReactor 15y ago
        This kind of thinking is what has lead us to the sorry security state we are in today. Why do we allow our providers to dictate to us that insecure software is a requirement for running their software. If enterprise pushed back on vendors for this issue we would be better off.
abraham 15y ago
I didn't get either of these form 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. Fx automatically downloaded in the background and updated the next time I restarted.

by lean 15y ago

alttag 15y ago

Because Firefox is very plugin driven, and its current design disables plugins that aren't compatible. It is not in the best interest of users to have their plugins disabled automatically as a "feature".

thatjoshguy 15y ago
Can't they just stop making changes that cause plugins and extensions to break? I know that would be easier said than done, but Chrome seems to do a good job of it.
- jerf 15y ago
  AFAIK, Chrome plugins still have much less access and power than Firefox plugins, which makes it easier for Chrome.
- starwed 15y ago
  Firefox addons are traditionally written using the same API the browser itself uses. That's what makes them much more powerful than Chrome extensions, but clearly more fragile to breakage. They're starting to offer a separate extension SDK (formerly called Jetpack) that allows extensions to ignore the internal API and build against something more stable. Such add-ons can be installed without requiring a restart, and should be much easier to update, but many important extensions need more power than currently provided. (Ad block is a good example.)
  - SkyMarshal 15y ago
    As is vimperator and pentadactyl.
- mcpherrinm 15y ago
  In short: Not with the old API. In this recent newsgroup post, you can see a list of the things that could break an extension, and it's a lot. http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/dafd0bc59b587e27# http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_t... The work to solve that is mentioned in the thread.
kalid 15y ago
This is the tail wagging the dog. The plugins are going to be broken whether the update from 3 to 4 happens manually or automatically (and, if anything, discourages manual updating despite all the popups). Windows has had binary compatibility for decades. Why not just version the internal browser API? (Extension XYZ was built against FireFox 3.6).
- eurleif 15y ago
  >Windows has had binary compatibility for decades. Extensions don't just run on top of Firefox, though; they modify Firefox's UI in arbitrary ways. >Why not just version the internal browser API? Firefox already does this, and automatically disables incompatible extensions.

tbassetto 15y ago

Some people do not want automatic update. They prefer having total control on their software (think entreprises or free software fanatics).

pnathan 15y ago
Fanatics? No. Normal users too. Some people just don't like having magic.
jonknee 15y ago
I think the enterprise would benefit greatly from auto-updating. How many enterprise users today are stuck using insecure browsers?
- mschwar99 15y ago
  Often times they are stuck using insecure browsers because some archaic piece of in house software depends on obsolete features only present in dated versions of browsers. They choose to skip updates because they don't want to spend the cash rebuilding the timekeeping system to work with anything other than IE <= 7.
  - T-hawk 15y ago
    Stated another way, for most large enterprises, the functionality of intranet in-house browsing for internal systems is more important than public web browsing. And this really is true for the enterprise's day-to-day business and ultimately profitability. Once you understand that, it naturally follows that the corpus of installed software and updates will be controlled to favor the former case at the expense of the latter.
    - WettowelReactor 15y ago
      This kind of thinking is what has lead us to the sorry security state we are in today. Why do we allow our providers to dictate to us that insecure software is a requirement for running their software. If enterprise pushed back on vendors for this issue we would be better off.

abraham 15y ago

I didn't get either of these form 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. Fx automatically downloaded in the background and updated the next time I restarted.