back to article Future Firefox to slurp updates silently

Mozilla is changing the way Firefox installs on computers in an apparent concession to enterprise users it previously ruled were irrelevant. Future versions of the open-source browser will download and install silently on your machine, saving you the bother of downloading and authorising the update. It is hoped switching to …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Barry Tabrah

    Get around UAC? Kind of missing the point here

    'The Firefox team is testing a "Windows service approach" to get around the UAC issue; the service would install an optional component that would automate the update install without giving the UAC prompts, Bondy said.'

    Chrome gets around this by running with user privileges in the user folder. What Mozilla are suggesting seems to punch a hole right through a rather important security layer. One small coding bug now makes the entire Windows platform vulnerable to malware, all to prevent a pop-up every 6 weeks.

    Something tells me that this would NOT be the preferred solution for Enterprise. The preferred solution for Enterprise would be a pre-packaged MSI update that they could control the deployment of.

    1. JC_

      Isn't Google punching a hole through security already? AppData is not the intended location for application executables.

      1. Barry Tabrah

        Not punching through, working around

        Chrome is running as a user and is only installed in the user folder using user rights. This is the decision they made to allow for rapid updates. Sure, it breaks standards a little but it keeps the security layer intact.

        Chrome does offer an Enterprise installer that installs to the Program Files folder but sticks with UAC for updates.

        1. JC_

          "Sure, it breaks standards a little" - yes, well, MS could have said that about their Java implementation and IE up until recently!

        2. DrXym

          Working around = punching through

          UAC is there for a reason - to alert the user to programs that require elevated and potentially dangerous permissions. Such as installing new programs. While it may be Google (and Firefox) think they're doing this for good reasons, the reality is if they subvert the UAC mechanism they are undermiming the reason it is there in the first place.

          It's also not hard to envisage the dangers of having multiple stealth updaters floating around in the background. While one would hope that Google / Firefox have the sense to verify signatures and other precautions, that doesn't mean their implementation is bug free. I can imagine the fun and games that would happen if someone managed to DNS poison their update sites and use an exploit to install trojans through these backdoors.

      2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge


        Maybe this shows limitations in the Windows way of storing data. Effectively saying that AppData is the only place a user can write, and should not be used for executables is saying that ordinary, non-privileged users should not be using programs other than what is deployed system wide.

        In an older multi-user model (I'm sure you can guess the one I'm talking about), one of the normal conventions is a bin directory under a user's home directory. User written scripts, locally compiled software and trusted executables from other sources can live there. Add it to the path, and users can then effectively extend the OS to do what they want, rather than being limited by what the system provides. And in a homogeneous networked computing environment, this scales to network computing as well!

        Windows has no such convention. Shame MS could not learn from history.

        1. Oninoshiko

          @Peter Gathercole

          Actually, this convention is nowhere near universal in the UNIX (and UNIX like) world. MANY of us recognize that allowing users to install executeables is a risk. many of us mount /home with noexec to combat this.

          Users should NOT install apps. Shame some self-declared admins couldn't learn from history.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge


            It has been a convention since UNIX made it outside of Bell Labs, which I can testify to since 1978 when I first used UNIX version/edition 6.

            I agree that this does not suit all organisations or even all users in the same organisation, and the flexibility of UNIX allows this *convention* to be controlled where it is necessary. That does not alter the convention, merely the implementation.

            Your statement that "Users should NOT install apps" is as blunt as me saying that they should. Neither can completely cover all situations. I also wonder whether you differentiate between locally written tools, and applications from external organisations, and also whether you also differentiate between compiled code and such things as shell scripts or other interpreted code (which actually can be run as long as you can run the interpreter, even if the noexec flag is set!). Do you also prevent shell access or disable aliases and functions?

            Where I currently work, if the users were not allowed to compile and execute code, they could not work. But that is because our users are scientists who are working on creating computing models. There is no one-size-fits-all model for all organisations.

            I'm not sure if that statement about 'self-declared admins' was aimed at me. If I am not a UNIX system admin (30 years looking after UNIX systems from many vendors in lots of industries, including writing some of the security standards and many operational procedures at some organisations), then I don't know what I am, or what a UNIX sysadmin should look like.

            Believe me, I have been involved in enough hardened UNIX installations to know exactly what you are saying, and the convention stands.

      3. El Andy

        Appdata not the right place?

        Actually, as of Windows 7, the correct location for per-user applications that don't require elevation is a Programs subdirectory under AppData. Windows Installer was even modified to offer an auto-mapping of "Program Files" for per-user installations that would write to this location.

    2. big_D Silver badge

      And how...

      is silently updating going to help corporates test the update centrally, before allowing it to be installed on the network?

      And I agree, Barry, punching a big security hole in the middle of the OS, to get around UAC is just damned foolishness!

      Rewriting it to work with WSUS or something similar, so that it can be pushed out to computers, once tested, would be a much better idea!

    3. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Windows update does it like that

      The best solution would be MS allowing hooks into Windows Update for 3rd party programs, it's something they should really should have got round to by Vista's release.

      Barring that, if Mozilla do it like Windows Update does (which also uses a service), arguably it's the correct approach. And if they have a group policy that allows you to push out Firefox updates when you want to from a local server of your choosing, even better (it's like WSUS and enterprises like WSUS).

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      "Something tells me that this would NOT be the preferred solution for Enterprise."

      Well, in all fairness it wasn't that long ago when some Mozilla employee stated that "the company wasn't concerned with Enterprise customers and probably never would be". (seen in an previous article on El Reg).

      So in that context changes like these make sense... sort off... Personally I think Firefox is really going downhill these days.

  2. Dr Trevor Marshall
    Thumb Down

    What about those users without broadband???

    Oh bloody brilliant. So when I am tethered to my mobile in China/Thailand/Korea, where my data costs $15 a megabyte, Firefox will 'silently' push an update at me? Pretty stupid, guys...

    1. JC_

      That's gonna happen...

      Yeah right. When you're in a country with $15 / MB data charges, there's no way your even letting your phone synchronise without keeping an eye on it, let alone your tethered laptop.

    2. DrXym

      At that price

      I suggest you don't tether at all.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mozilla release policy causing many problems

    I have my XP users logged in as Restricted and can't install software (which has helped against malware). Auto updating has to be manually disabled, else it blindly downloads the update, then can't install.

    Releasing new versions of Firefox & Thunderbird with random version numbers is regularly breaking essential plugins that would otherwise work if the old major.minor numbering scheme had been adhered to. Causing me & my customers unnecessary grief.

  4. Dave Murray
    Thumb Down

    No thanks

    Not silently installing updates like some kind of malware was one of the reasons I've stuck with FF and not tried Chrome. Are they trying to decrease their market share and push users like me to Opera?

    1. Anonymous Coward

      "Are they trying to decrease their market share and push users like me to Opera?"

      YEP! They pushed me to Opera, once they started putting out "updates" to FireKitty weekly.

      FF8 now? Expect to see FF 275 by years end, at the rate they're going. Really brilliant...NOT!

    2. Gerard Krupa

      Re: No thanks

      I thoroughly agree. The FF 6.0.0 update contained a bug that cause me huge problems so I'd be much happier if I can delay updating for a few days so early adopters can root out any major issues that were missed in beta.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge


        I'm sticking with FF3, unless and until I have a compelling reason to switch to a different browser. As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla jumped the shark with FF4, and this is just one more reason to never upgrade.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps it's me but...

    In an enterprise situation, wouldn't it be the enterprise that wants to control how the updates are dealt out, and the last thing they want is a program silently installing its own updates without a veto from the IT dept.

    1. El Cid Campeador

      Damn straight

      Yep. And I don't see anything about being able to point local FF installations to an alternate server hosted within the organization-- now that would be nice but, of course, FF doesn't have Group Policy tools for stuff like that. Fortunately *nix orgs can change repo lists, but, as usual, Win users are SOL.

      Yes, I know there are third-party tools for FF. If your org lets you use whatever you want, fantastic. Unfortunately a LOT of orgs require a painful approval process (or refuse to approve other software) which makes using them unlikely or flat out impossible.

  6. Anonymous Coward


    Baker said that Mozilla "erred on the side of caution".

    No, Mozilla didn't err at all. Users err on the side of "What the fuck is that annoying dialogue box doing. Oh fuck, I'll just click it to make it go away. Why do these software companies insist on making me think about important things when all I want to do is update my status on Arsebook?"

  7. InsaneLampshade

    "Firefox, version 8, which is expected in early 2012"

    Uhh, someone forgot all about the rapid release cycle.

    Release date is expected to be November 8th for Firefox 8:

    Firefox 9 is expected in December, and Firefox 10 in January 2012.

  8. nichomach

    Would it be THAT difficult... bung a service together that runs locally on an enterprise's server(s) and allows them to distribute approved updates? That way, they'd only download once (so nice and bandwidth-friendly), they could be tested for compatibility and then released to the users.

  9. Test Man

    Getting round UAC prompts

    They could do what Google does... and have the installation completely in the user's User folder.

    1. Tom Chiverton 1 Silver badge

      Like portable FireFox you mean?

  10. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

    Silent update - MEH!

    My firewall will still detect that the program has changed and will ask if I want to give it access to the interwebs...

    FAIL, I'll still be asked

    FAIL, what if I'm using <insert name of browser> but I don't have internet access, support will still have to push the update to users

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Zonealarm pop ups

      Well, actually I too thought that would be problematic as every time Firefox updates I get the pop up warning from Zonealarm warning me that the program has been changed.

      However... this does not happen on Nightly 10, which updates by itself with no pop ups either from Windows UAC or from Zonealarm.

      So I think they may have solved it...

  11. Tom Chiverton 1 Silver badge

    This has nothing to do with enterprise or not.

    Users can not be trusted to update their machines themselves, so the machine must do it for them. This applies to the O/S and all the apps, I'm looking at you Adobe/Oracle - do I really need to be told Yet Another Version is out ? Just do it !

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge


      This way lies anarchy. Just imagine if a virus writer found a way to hijack the deployment process. Instant huge botnet. Just as you cannot trust users, you also cannot trust automatic update processes. Even it they are signed by security certificate.

    2. Doug Glass


      Ever had an update break all your Add-ons? Guess not huh?

  12. Sporkinum


    I am assuming they will give you the choice to be either automatic or notify only. I downloaded 7 the day it came out, only to find out it broke noscript and adblock. I ended up rolling back to 6.02, waiting a few days, and then trying again. Certain addons are a requirement, and if they break, I will not update.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      By "broke noscript" did you have the same experience as me on upgrading to 7... namely Firefox just decided to delete the entire addon, not simply disabling it, just deleted it entirely, without even telling me too!

  13. Tim 11

    But what about plug-ins?

    All this seems to ignore the fact that unlike chrome or IE, plugins built against one version of firefox don't work in the next. At least the current cumbersome method of updating FF gives the user to stick with the version that actually supports their plug-ins

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      "At least the current cumbersome method of updating FF gives the user to stick with the version that actually supports their plug-ins"

      That's as maybe but Mozilla stop issuing security updates for old versions of FF with undue haste. So by sticking to a version that supports your pluging you could end up with a browser full of holes. A rock and a hard place?

    2. Tom Chiverton 1 Silver badge

      You missed the bit where this is now fixed, as FF checks plugins for if they touch changed code, and if they don't, allows them to run.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        wrong solution

        The right solution would be to not auto-upgrade if any installed addons will be broken by the upgrade.

        How you then get users to update their addons without a dialogue box... I don't know.

    3. Doug Glass


      So here I sit fat, dumb and happy running 3.6.23. Yeah yeah ,,,, I know. BFD DILLIGAFF?

  14. Anonymous Coward

    I'm not impressed with Mozilla's dumb number game

    Its seriously intensely irritating.

    They're more needing to fix their sync issues -- hasn't been working at all for quite a few days now (the last time it ate everything -- bookmarks, the lot then returned them all fucked up and broken). And THIS message if you try to delete your sync account (which you currently can't):

    "Oh dear. Looks like one of the dinosaurs escaped again. We keep them away from the data, so that should be safe. Please try again later when we've wrestled him back onto the treadmill."

    Seriously. What do they think they are playing at?

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      And they think they will be taken seriously an enterprise environment with messages like that?

  15. Lamont Cranston

    Happy enough for auto-updates to be an option,

    but I don't want to have to install them. I like to control what goes on my PC.

    Faster startup sounds nice, though.

  16. Yag

    well well well...

    I guess i'll keep the 3.6 for quite some time...

  17. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    They're still not taking the enterprise seriously. How many corporate users do they suppose have admin rights at all? Many don't. If they want to give FF a chance in the enterprise then they need to come up with a corporate admin tool for the browser so that adminstrators can manage the installation of and upgrades to Firefox.

    How a about some sort of plugin for SCCM?

    1. nichomach

      Distribution via

      WSUS'd be handy...

  18. Annakan
    Thumb Down

    What is the definition of a program that :

    installs itself as a "chron/scheduled" task

    installs itself as a service

    installs itself as a startup program

    re-install itself in those locations each time it is started

    Download stuff silently from the internet

    Send stuff silently to central servers ?????

    For me that was the very definition of a malware and that is exactly what chrome does. And the fact that the installer is "open sourced" is a big lie since I don't control what is really bundled with the chrome installer.

    And now Mozilla want to do the same thing ?

    As for prefetching it is again a very bad decision that means longer boot and startup times (loading potentially never used DLLs), more memory consumed, more caches misses, it is dumb and I go all the way to remove each of such pre-fetch / fast load programs (adobe, office, open office, and so on and so on ):

    And as mentioned above by others, I don't want downloads to happen "silently", sometime I am on a bad link, a costly one or whatever, as far as i know Mozilla, Google and al don't PAY for my net BILLS

    At some point I just want to say "HEY GUYS YOU DON'T OWN MY COMPUTER !!!!"

    And playing copycat is always a loosing game, the chrome interface is a fail and forcing it to the gut of users in FF6 infuriated me to no end ....

    I still like the browser and its add-on mentality, but Mozilla has lost touch with reality.

    1. bradavon

      Chrome isn't open source, Chromium is. That you do have access to the source code, Chrome you do not.

  19. Number6

    Too many

    It's becoming a pain in the arse with the frequent updates. I'd rather have a slower cycle with properly-tested new features and bugfixes, with the occasional security fix if they do screw up.

  20. Danvighar


    Howabout a silent-install package, either of the self-extracting exe or a good ol' msi file, that could be distributed by my patch management server?

    If they did that instead, I could endorse firefox on my network.

  21. John Sanders

    For all you comentards

    Disable extension compatibility checks

    1) go to about:config

    2) right click and create a new boolean value named: extensions.checkCompatibility.7.0 and set it to true.

    3) restart Firefox

    Add some add-ons stir and browse.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Add-On Compatibility

      Even easier if you don't want to hack about:config, just install:

      and force compatibility with a single click....

    2. Ilgaz

      What a genius idea

      So, some innocent text extension can go insane and let you send $100000 instead of $100 at your BANK WEBSITE.

      Do you really use Firefox? They check compatibility for a reason: It is very, very, very powerful extension scheme. Even the browser UI itself can be classified as extension in major scheme of things.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "So, some innocent text extension can go insane and let you send $100000 instead of $100 at your BANK WEBSITE."

        I'm not sure that's even possible.

        1. Ilgaz

          No it is that powerful

          Firefox extension mechanism is massively powerful and they try to find a way to make it lighter, safer without making developers mad.

          It is comparable to OS X Input Manager mechanism where Apple had to take serious steps while retaining compatibility. Mozila isn't Apple though so it will take a while.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @John Sanders:

      > 2) right click and create a new boolean value named:

      > extensions.checkCompatibility.7.0 and set it to true.

      Pretty sure you meant set it to false. False = don't check, just run 'em.

  22. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Every six weeks is lame

    IE is updated every month.

    Am I trolling? I don't know. You decide.

    1. Ilgaz

      But IE 9 can show IE 6 pages

      IE guys code it in a way that whatever runs in IE 7 (for example) keeps running in IE 9. That even includes web pages, extensions and interaction with web pages.

      Without a official MSI, official "administrator guide", active directory etc. flawless support, "enterprise" is no go.

      First they have to respect the installation system of the OS they ship to. It is .pkg for OS X (not drag) and MSI for Windows. OS X happens to accept drag&drop (thanks to launch services etc) but really, accepted method for OS X is .pkg

  23. Dibbles

    Background process

    As pointed out above, this may well have an impact on add-ons that don't work on more recent versions. What happens if I want to roll back to a previous compatible version of FF?

    Also, Chrome does this by having a resource-hungry background process constantly checking for updates (I think?) - on a work system already overloaded with firewalls, anti-malware and various scans, this is not a desirable attribute!

  24. Mike_JC

    Updates to Firefox & UAC

    I find UAC such a nuisance that I just keep it permanently disabled.

  25. This post has been deleted by its author

  26. You Are Not Free

    Why don't all you moaners just use a browser that has a fully managable update process, like Internet Explorer?

    Honestly, you're all just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      Sounds like a good idea... soon I find a browser that has a fully managable update process, like Internet Explorer -- that is NOT Internet Explorer.

  27. Sir Runcible Spoon


    I wasn't 100% sure which version I was on whilst reading this article, so I had a look in help->about, as you do.


    You are currently on the <b>release</b> update channel."

    Wait, what?! What are the odds that an update would come down just as I was reading about FF updates? Apparently 1:1

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon


      It upgraded me from 6.0.2 (or 6.2 can't remember now) to 7.0.1 and I didn't get a choice in the matter.

      It kindly offered to look for updated plugins for the ones that broke in the new version (it didn't find any).

      FF is fast becoming dead to me, and there'll be no going back I tells ya! Christ, when I occasionally have to fire up IE8 I can hardly tell the difference. If the colour schemes matched I probably wouldn't know which one I was using at first glace.

  28. colinm

    I usually run Firefox on Linux with root owning the files and chowning them temporarily when I upgrade. I can't see this method working too well in the future.

  29. LAGMonkey

    its ALIVE!!!

    blooming FF updated itself automatically the other day to v7.0.1 and promptly borked the java-script that i have to use with Juniper Networks and citrix to login to my corp server.

    No big deal, i understand these things happen, so i down graded and specifically told the "new" old version i had just installed to NOT update unless i told it to.

    Two hours later and FF updated and is back to v7.0.1.. WTF?!

    its alive i tells ya!

  30. Scorchio!!


    I'm being slowly and ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that I need to find another browser, and it is not Firefox. Nor is it Chrome.

  31. Mick Russom

    FIREFOX - now a bad attempt to copy chrome.

    FIREFOX - now a bad attempt to copy chrome.

    Im migrating away from Firefox. They are taking out all the powerful features that used to separate them from Chrome.

    HP fired Apotheker, how to we fire the losers destroying firefox?

  32. LaeMing

    What a headache!

    Due to being nailed to IE7 for back-end-system compatibility, I had to get FF added to the student labs image where I work, so students could actually use modern course-necessary web-standard content. FF has been a huge headache for me and our IT people from about a week after it went in.

    I am actually looking forward to the IE8 upgrade this break (we only upgrade teaching labs between academic sessions to avoid disrepencies with in-use teaching materials) in the hope that we can get FF off the systems for next year. That just says it all, really!

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It took to version 8 to figure out that a service would be the best way to maintain updates in a system protected area?

    I fear that their solution would just run as Local System, or they would create a new service account and grant it administrator privileges - instead of just ACL'ing the Firefox folder to sandbox any changes should the service account get owned...

  34. Someone Else Silver badge
    Thumb Up


    "One niggle for customers using Firefox with Windows is that they must update their User Account Controls (UAC) preferences in the Microsoft desktop with each new version of Firefox."

    Well, I've never needed to update UAC preferences on any Windows Mozilla update I've done. but then, I run XP....

  35. Anonymous Coward

    Please, don't add another stupid service just waiting for updates!

    Please Mozilla, don't be fool and don't add another useless service just using system resources waiting for an update. There are already too many of those silly services. I no longer install Google Earth because of what it installs.

    Windows is not a bad operating systems, but there are too many developers who didn't undertand how to code properly under Windows and think their software is the only one running there.

    There are far better ways to update - and if the user has no rights to change its configuration there could be very good reasons, especially in a corporate environenment. I deployed a logon script that deletes any executable in appdata, for example...

  36. Infernoz Bronze badge

    Mozilla has lost the plot on releases!

    Googles' 'solution' chokes big time, I hate it and their crappy service, because I keep having to find the folder to delete the previous version which it failed to delete, which makes Secunia PSI unhappy! The service and the User data approach are big fat fails of ideas!

    1. Updates MUST have options like: ignore, notify, download and notify, download and install. No silent install and definitely not by their own unsafe service!

    2. Stop with the brain fart major version increment chaos, it keeps breaking extensions with max versions sensibly set to the current major version number; this is a regular annoyance for the WebRunner extension and many other extensions, and is soooo... retarded! Use minor versions for feature updates, and revisons for patches, leave major version increments ONLY for really BIG stuff not the current hacking.

    3. Provide MSI files with a silent install option for corporate uses, to keep them happy; this is the ONLY way! The MSI could even just be a wrapper around a suitably enhanced Mozilla installer.

    This lot should be easy for a organisation like Mozilla; so get cracking!

  37. Microphage

    Try the zipped WIN32 version or Portable Apps ...

  38. Fatman

    WTF??? Mozilla?????

    I have been a Firefox user since the days of 1.0, and I am not too pleased about some of the comments coming from (and actions taken by) Mozilla these days.

    OK, I see why Mozilla went to a faster schedule, because BIG version jumps were always running late. The problem usually was that some feature blocked the release, causing delays. This 'faster release' schedule is an attempt to get finished features out the door as they are completed. The whole number version jump causes serious problems for some addons; which should work, but do not because they are 'max version limited'. As previous poster pointed out, install addon compatibility reporter to get around this.

    The comment that Asa Dotzler made about 'enterprises not being ""worthy"" ' (my words) of Mozilla's efforts must have been received with enormous amounts of laughter in Redmond. I would not doubt that Stevie B even had a chuckle or two; and he may even had verbally expressed what he thought of that decision. (I will leave it up to the reader to characterize what Stevie B may have uttered.)

    Mozilla seems to have back peddled a bit, because there has been some recent discussions about an 'extended support release'. I bet 'enterprise' customers most certainly offered their 'feedback'.

    Perhaps Mozilla should approach this quandary, with an option for the user, a sort of "one time choice", along the lines of:

    ( ) I do not know my ass from a hole in the ground; I am too stupid to give a shit about keeping my computer up to date, and therefore, I WANT YOU TO KEEP FIREFOX UP TO DATE!


    ( ) WHO the fuck do you think you are?? This is MY COMPUTER, I KNOW what the fuck I am doing, so LEAVE THE GOD DAMMED THING ALONE!!!!!! Assholes.

    Once this choice is made, never ask for it again (but allow the user to change their mind at a later date).

    At least this is primarily a WindoZE issue, because any real Linuxer allows the package manager to deal with updates.

  39. Anonymous Coward

    Enterprise is one thing … what about us Linux distribution developers that keep having to download new releases, compile, test, patch if necessary, then release new packages?

    Anyone noticed that Firefox on Gentoo/MIPS hasn't been available since v3.0?

    Anyone noticed that Thunderbird on Gentoo/MIPS hasn't been available since v1.5?

    The speed of the hardware I work with, and the free time I have these days, means I typically don't get around to testing and patching (and invariably they do need patching) packages for user consumption, which is why some Linux distributions (us included) are lagging behind.

    While leaving things sit for 5+ years (e.g. IE 6) isn't acceptable, nor is releasing 86400 new revisions a day. We need a happy medium fellas, give us a break!

  40. Atonnis

    Screw Mozilla...

    The only reason Firefox is any use is because of adblock and flashblock- the two most useful addons around - otherwise it's a PITA.

    As regards to the enterprise - I've blocked installation of Firefox on our company computers and I'm not turning that around any time soon. Mozilla wants to say F-U to the enterprise? Well, then it can slowly disappear from the day-to-day awareness of the users.

    Now here's just hoping for adblock and flashblock add-ons for IE9...that would be ideal.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Number Game

    Ok Mozilla, you want to play the 'numbers game', well here is one for you 3.6, cause that's where i'm staying until you stop playing increment the version number to make us look good.

  42. Thomas Allen

    Not so silent

    "Please restart your browser for the updates to take effect..." - and when did I allow you to do any updates anyway?

  43. bradavon
    Thumb Down

    I hope Firefox make sure this service approach is optional. I hated UAC in Vista but in Windows 7 it makes entire sense and I'm all for the odd (and it is odd) UAC prompt.

    If Mozilla really must follow Chrome's (and now Spotify) approach, for Christ sake install into AppData. It's certainly better than installing a service of all things!

    Given how often Firefox is actually updated, are UAC prompts really that annoying? Are the "masses" really annoyed at how often often Firefox is now updated? I seriously doubt it. So a Firefox prompt appears once or twice every 6 weeks (taking into account point updates). So what?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like