# Rant & Question: Firefox



## thoron (Jun 16, 2012)

How the hell do I go from having FF 12 to FF 13 with no nofication what so ever? In the past when I had 3.6 it would let me know that updates were available and when I restarted FF it would ask if I wanted to allow it to update. Also with this it would install updated but not upgrade the browser. I like it when security updates are done, thats fine but how the hell does a browser upgrade happen with out notification?

Also, it there a way to keep it from upgrading the browser while allowing the important stuff like security updates through?


----------



## zachhart12 (Jun 16, 2012)

thoron said:


> How the hell do I go from having FF 12 to FF 13 with no nofication what so ever? In the past when I had 3.6 it would let me know that updates were available and when I restarted FF it would ask if I wanted to allow it to update. Also with this it would install updated but not upgrade the browser. I like it when security updates are done, thats fine but how the hell does a browser upgrade happen with out notification?
> 
> Also, it there a way to keep it from upgrading the browser while allowing the important stuff like security updates through?



It always notifies me or just downloads it and then the next time I close and open FF it installs the update.  Is that what you're talking about, that you start FF and it installs update?


----------



## thoron (Jun 16, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> It always notifies me or just downloads it and then the next time I close and open FF it installs the update.  Is that what you're talking about, that you start FF and it installs update?



Back when I used 3.6 it would notifie me then the next time I started the it I would get a prompt with AUC, now though it would seem the retards who design FF removed that bit. I'm cool with automatic updates for security but I don't think I should be forced from 12 to 13 with out at least being able to say its alright. So is there a way to cherry pick the updates so I can get the security updates and not browser updates?


----------



## CerbrusNL (Jun 16, 2012)

thoron said:


> Back when I used 3.6 it would notifie me then the next time I started the it I would get a prompt with AUC, now though it would seem the retards who design FF removed that bit. I'm cool with automatic updates for security but I don't think I should be forced from 12 to 13 with out at least being able to say its alright. So is there a way to cherry pick the updates so I can get the security updates and not browser updates?



Are you seriously comparing 3.6 with 12/13?

Why is the auto-update even a problem? Why would you not want a updated (aka improved / stabilized / bugfixed etc) version of your browser?


----------



## Runefox (Jun 16, 2012)

The major release numbers don't mean anything anymore, at least not for Chrome and Firefox. The whole point now is that the browser stays consistent and silently updates bugfixes and security patches.


----------



## thoron (Jun 16, 2012)

CerbrusNL said:


> Are you seriously comparing 3.6 with 12/13?
> 
> Why is the auto-update even a problem? Why would you not want a updated (aka improved / stabilized / bugfixed etc) version of your browser?



I guess it because I don't want a new UI forced on me, I loved the way 3.6 looked and I didn't appreciate having to make adjustments with addons just to make 12 similar to it. I can appreciate the bug fixes and security updates, but new UI's are crap half the time.



Runefox said:


> The major release numbers don't mean anything anymore, at least not for Chrome and Firefox. The whole point now is that the browser stays consistent and silently updates bugfixes and security patches.



Why are they calling it 13, 14, 15, etc. when itâ€™s the same browser then? At least this time it went from 13 to 13.0.1 or something like that, but whatâ€™s the point of it if itâ€™s not new? Are they just deserate to look like they are making new versions when they're not?


----------



## zachhart12 (Jun 16, 2012)

thoron said:


> I guess it because I don't want a new UI forced on me, I loved the way 3.6 looked and I didn't appreciate having to make adjustments with addons just to make 12 similar to it. I can appreciate the bug fixes and security updates, but new UI's are crap half the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they calling it 13, 14, 15, etc. when itâ€™s the same browser then? At least this time it went from 13 to 13.0.1 or something like that, but whatâ€™s the point of it if itâ€™s not new? Are they just deserate to look like they are making new versions when they're not?



I liked 3.6 too, but it's ancient. I wouldn't use it if i were you.  Meh who cares about the version numbers?


----------



## Elim Garak (Jun 16, 2012)

They changed the versioning.
Also auto updates are good and needed, otherwise users will keep their security issue ridden version because they are too lazy to update.


----------



## thoron (Jun 16, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> They changed the versioning.
> Also auto updates are good and needed, otherwise users will keep their security issue ridden version because they are too lazy to update.



When did browsers versions and security updates start going hand in hand? Oh how I miss the days when they simply put out security updates and patches. When did the trend start where the developers would make a security update and a few bug fixes and then decides it should be called 13 instead of 12? In the past security updates and bug fixes would have simply made it become 12.0.1 or something of that nature. I'd have no problem with the automatic updates if the idiot developers weren't potentially forcing ugly UI's along with them.


----------



## Elim Garak (Jun 16, 2012)

They add smaller updates as well, the major versions are features being added. What they are doing is upgrading the current version which might have a different ui rather then making new versions and patching security bugs in old versions for a year at the same time. Which makes more sense since less resources need to be spent. Updates will always bring things you like or not. It's not hard to adapt and you can get shit like the status bar back with an Addon even though all of its functions are there anyways. Forced updates are also good for Site owners so they can take advantage of the latest functions such as webgl and html and don't have to worry about keeping work arounds for old browsers.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Jun 17, 2012)

thoron said:


> I guess it because I don't want a new UI forced on me


Nothing's stopping you from making look like 3.6.



thoron said:


> new UI's are crap half the time.


Why do you want a bloated UI that makes you hunt through menus? You might as well install Google, Yahoo, and Bing toolbars and other stuff like that.


----------



## thoron (Jun 17, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> They add smaller updates as well, the major versions are features being added. What they are doing is upgrading the current version which might have a different ui rather then making new versions and patching security bugs in old versions for a year at the same time. Which makes more sense since less resources need to be spent. Updates will always bring things you like or not. It's not hard to adapt and you can get shit like the status bar back with an Addon even though all of its functions are there anyways. Forced updates are also good for Site owners so they can take advantage of the latest functions such as webgl and html and don't have to worry about keeping work arounds for old browsers.



Now if only there was a way to make the UI developers not make the browsers look bad. For the most part it seems like the the UI's don't change much between versions, add a feature here and there, fix a bug, patch a hole in the UI security. As a hole though the way it renders websites doesn't seem to really change, sure it might load slower, but many find that exceptable if they like the version they are using. I personally only want the security updates and fixes. I really don't care for the new features, or new layouts. New layouts and pointless features are the really the only reason I resist the new versions.



Leafblower29 said:


> Nothing's stopping you from making look like 3.6.
> 
> 
> Why do you want a bloated UI that makes you hunt through menus? You might as well install Google, Yahoo, and Bing toolbars and other stuff like that.



At least FF allows for that, but the older less "streamlined" versions aren't really all that bloated visually but then I like to keep addons and attachments to a minimum.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 17, 2012)

My Firefox UI experience is Classic Compact with every toolbar except Navigation turned off.  Maximum window real-estate for page content.


----------



## Elim Garak (Jun 17, 2012)

I really don't get whats wrong with the new FX UI, it looks and function great.
It takes about 5 minutes to adapt to it. I mean, if my grandmother can do it so should you.(She knows little about computers, she can type like a boss though, she studied stenography(shorthand) and typing on typing machines).


----------



## thoron (Jun 17, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> I really don't get whats wrong with the new FX UI, it looks and function great.
> It takes about 5 minutes to adapt to it. I mean, if my grandmother can do it so should you.(She knows little about computers, she can type like a boss though, she studied stenography(shorthand) and typing on typing machines).



There's nothing wrong the UI's per say, my opinion is simply goverened by how it looks and I've already made it look mostly like FF 3.6 by getting Staus-4-Evar. My only concern is that with the trend of making everything more and more streamlined I'll have to load it down with addons just keep it looking some what decent in my eyes.


----------



## Jaxinc (Jun 18, 2012)

I grow tired of each 'security' update suddenly killing numerous add-ons that the maker has to play catch up with. I haven't had a stable working version of Foxytunes in 4 revisions now... starting to annoy me. That's just one of my add-ons that dies with each up-date and there is also the fact that Firefox now thinks ANY java related plug-in is a security risk and disables it! So I have to constantly re-enable the java plug-in on start up every day.... THAT is annoying.


----------



## kayfox (Jun 18, 2012)

Jaxinc said:


> [...]also the fact that Firefox now thinks ANY java related plug-in is a security risk and disables it!



Considering how many emails I get from Oracle's security mailing list, Im not surprised Java is considered harmful.*

*Also, Java was the hole that BEAST (CVE-2011-3389) exploited to steal Paypal cookies.


----------



## Elim Garak (Jun 18, 2012)

If it disables java it's out of date.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 20, 2012)

Jaxinc said:


> I grow tired of each 'security' update suddenly killing numerous add-ons that the maker has to play catch up with. I haven't had a stable working version of Foxytunes in 4 revisions now... starting to annoy me. That's just one of my add-ons that dies with each up-date and there is also the fact that Firefox now thinks ANY java related plug-in is a security risk and disables it! So I have to constantly re-enable the java plug-in on start up every day.... THAT is annoying.



Three of the four most recent PC repair jobs to cross my desk were malware clean-up that used Java plug-in exploits.  Firefox is just as vulnerable as Internet Explorer with regard to plug-ins.  Update Java, or not only will you be asking for trouble, but you won't even realize you might be in trouble until you're neck-deep in it.


----------



## Jaxinc (Jun 20, 2012)

Java updated, firefox updated, still does it -.-

I miss 2.5


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 20, 2012)

Jaxinc said:


> Java updated, firefox updated, still does it -.-



Does the Firefox plug-in check agree that it's updated?  I've seen issues on 64-bit PCs making sure the right bitness was installed.



Jaxinc said:


> I miss 2.5



To be honest, I miss Mozilla Firebird.  Those were the days.


----------

