>Rationale: >The "Never check for Updates" option is easy to enable and forget about. Once enabled this exposes users to severe security issues and it seems unwise to expose this feature in the preferences? This also contributes to orphaned users.
>Requirements: >- Remove "Never check for Updates" option >- Keep "Check for updates but let me chose to install them" so users can remain in control of what gets installed on their devices. >- Updates can be disabled via the policy engine
This is a good thing you dumbfuck. Anyone who cares will just edit about:config. But yes, you should never ignore updates.
Evan Perry
Stop using the damn thing, let Mozilla die.
Chase Cooper
wrong
Brandon Howard
Nice argument. Except it's objectivity right.
Ryder Foster
>use a good os >package manager included >firefox is updated with everything else >the setting you point out doesn't even have an effect Works for me faggot
Michael Perez
>about:config No, the about:config preference is disabled as well. They don't work anymore.
Lincoln Perez
I will.
Brandon Ward
>>- Keep "Check for updates but let me chose to install them" so users can remain in control of what gets installed on their devices. >>- Updates can be disabled via the policy engine Woah, it's fucking nothing. Regular users receive security updates, autists like (You) can stay on an old, insecure version of Firefox for whatever retarded reason you desire. >forced updates Nice clickbait.
Justin Gonzalez
Stop spreading fud retard. This is currently only in nightly and nightly always needed forced updates. Even if it does get into stable Firefox as long as you installed it through your repos you'll be fine. And even if you didn't, updates are a good thing and evading them is completely retarded. You can be sure that they won't leave out the option to disable these updates in about:config on the stable version.
James Hall
No. This is a recent change. Here is a build from the beginning of July.
about:config "browser.search.update" is not working anymore.
There is a beginning for everything. It will nag you with ypdate popups though.
Eli Bailey
See, I understand why people are upset about this because Mozilla has a habit of adding stupid shit no one asked for, like Pocket, and they don't want to get constantly bugged to install updates but if you don't like it either use the policy setting to turn it off or just move to another fucking browser. There's basically nothing between them now.
Daniel Bennett
>people are defending this. I feel that Firefox is used almost exclusively by "boomers" that are so invested into it, they near the "Apple fanboy" levels of retardation.
Jack Cook
>This is a recent change Nobody said otherwise. I said it's expected from a nightly build to do so and Mozilla should have done this years ago.
>he fell for the FUD
Cameron Rodriguez
All Firefox updates contain security fixes. There is no point in not updating. This is no Windows 10 where updates will contain more spyware, reset privacy settings and forbide access to Group Policy and Services. Firefox updates always contain security updates and new privacy features.
Jayden Richardson
No, I think the user should be given the choice to update whenever they want to. Think if you're on a connection with a data cap.
Christian Nelson
>This is no Windows 10 where updates will contain more spyware >what is pocket
Gabriel Taylor
more spyware, reset privacy settings and forbide access to Group Policy and Services >What is pocket? >What is no more XUL? >What is no sandboxing with ALSA?
David Diaz
Then you shouldn't use a Firefox version for developers. Are you a developer? Then it's expected that you use the latest nightly and if you need an older version to test anything you can compile it from source and disable updates in the code. Not a developer? Then why the fuck are you not on the stable build? They are literally warning you about nightly updating daily before you get to download it. You have no right to complain.
Pocket is open source and can be completely disabled.
XUL was a mistake. >no sandboxing with ALSA I agree this was a mistake
Carson Nelson
Pocket is a service to sync and access bookmarks between devices, even those without Firefox. The giant button on the URL bar is literally a bookmarklet and does nothing if you don't push it (and even then it sends no information whatsoever unless you've signed in to Pocket.) As for the "Snippets" feature, it doesn't send any of your data to Pocket and can be disabled either through the Settings GUI or about:config. >>What is no more XUL? A necessary change. XUL was a security and maintenance nightmare. You can't expect them to work on the browser and keep that shit of a format alive. >>What is no sandboxing with ALSA? 1. Firefox's ALSA code is unmaintained and has been for years. Compiling it in official builds would be irresponsible. 2. The code is still there and any features or modifications you want for it, you can send them upstream. 3. Every GNU/Linux distribution defaults to Pulse because it's not fucking 2011anymore. Only retarded contrarians or those with very old sound drivers keep using ALSA.
Carson Cruz
This is step one Step two removes the ability to choose to install updates because "why would you want severe security issues?"
Grayson Nguyen
>Then you shouldn't use a Firefox version for developers. Are you a developer? This will make it to stable.
>Pocket is open source That's your argyument? This makes it okay to harvest your data?
So this 800KiB extension is only a button? Really? I have my doubts.
>Pocket Why Mozilla even integrated it and seriously does anyone use this? I was using it when it was called RIL, but then it was presenting a simple list where when visiting one of the links it will be automatically move to an archive list. Now it seems an overcomplicated design of a trivial functionality.
Dylan Barnes
Gentoo doesn't have this problem
Landon Torres
Nice attempt at moving the goalposts. Your rhetoric doesn't change the fact that it's just like Win10 forced updates. > You can't expect them to work on the browser and keep that shit of a format alive. Nowadays I can't even expect them to maintain browser at all. They seem more interested in drawing new icons and implementing advertisements. >1. >2. >3. None of those give any justification for the LACK OF SANDBOXING with ALSA. It's a critical security issue that doesn't exist in chromium.
Austin Powell
>This makes it okay to harvest your data? How is it harvesting data? >So this 800KiB extension is only a button? Really? I have my doubts. You can check the code on GitHub. Pocket has more functionlaity now that they've introduced Snippets (a feature that can be easily disabled) but the giant button on the URL bar only loads the webpage.
Christopher Hughes
>Pocket has more functionlaity now that they've introduced Snippets So it's also serving ads. Glad you realised that.
Justin Collins
>Nice attempt at moving the goalposts. I didn't. He was asking what Pocket was. >Your rhetoric doesn't change the fact that it's just like Win10 forced updates. In Windows 10 the computer will download updates without asking the user, shut itself down without asking the user to install said updates; and the updates themselves contain more spyware and reset the user's privacy settings. Firefox will only search for updates automatically. The users can restart the browser whenever they desire to install them, or check a little checkmark in Settings so the browser doesn't download the updates at all and only checks for updates. >Nowadays I can't even expect them to maintain browser at all. They seem more interested in drawing new icons and implementing advertisements So Quantum, Servo and all the new security and privacy features don't exist in your world? >None of those give any justification for the LACK OF SANDBOXING with ALSA Yes. 1 clearly states the ALSA code hasn't been maintained in years. In other words nobody has touched that code in YEARS. How would they add a feature for a portion of the codebase they don't touch? Yes. As I've already said Snippets is easily disabled and doesn't send any data.
Angel Carter
>Yes. As I've already said Snippets is easily disabled and doesn't send any data. I'd prefer to completely remove the pocket .xpi. But if Fx autoupdates I can't know when it's back.
Liam Bailey
>windows 10 updates dont include security fixes The delusion is strong in this one.
Ryan Nguyen
Then just diasable the extension through about:config. Yes, they do. Nice goalpost moving by the way.
Lincoln Cox
If Firefox had no intention of installing updates agreed your will, why would they disable the option not to check?
Tyler Watson
>people These aren't people, these are Mozilla own employees either damage controlling or poor souls entrapped so hard by the lies that they are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.
Jordan Adams
I don't just want it disabled. I don't want it at all.
Ryan Turner
>it's a conspiracy !!! Jej. >The "Never check for Updates" option is easy to enable and forget about. Once enabled this exposes users to severe security issues and it seems unwise to expose this feature in the preferences? This also contributes to orphaned users That's their rationale. As for the why woudn't they force updates, it's also explained in the OP's post: >updates can be disabled via the Policy engine The Policy engine is a new feature to make it easier to deploy Firefox for enterprises. They will not remove the option from the policy engine because there are legit use cases where an enterprise may want to stay with an older version of Firefox.
Isaac Gutierrez
How is pocket harvesting your data, especially if it's disabled?
Then use IceCat. You're autistic.
Nolan Morgan
>especially if it's disabled Is it? Really?
Robert Allen
> it seems unwise to expose this feature in the preferences? Ending statements with question marks is a sign of estrogen overload. Blame women for this.
Easton Perez
>Yes, they do. Nice goalpost moving by the way. How did I move the goal posts? You deliberately sidestepped around Windows 10 including security fixes in all their updates when everything bad you listed about Windows 10 updates is what Firefox is doing.
They reset settings, they remove about:config settings, they add spyware and advertising. You try to make Firefox look better than Windows 10 when they're doing the exact same shit. How fucking dishonest can you be?
Nicholas James
Yes. If you don't think it is then prove it, and show the part in the source code responsible for this.
>They reset settings, they remove about:config settings, they add spyware and advertising. When did Firefox ever reset settings or about:config? The version jump to quantum doesn't count for obvious reasons. But even then, I have never experienced this nor have I heard that anyone has this issue.
Luis Foster
>use OS that spies on you and installs updates as it pleases >"waah, mozilla informs me of available updates, fuckin' nazis" You deserve what you get for taking the corporate cock, no linux distro has this problem.
Michael Butler
>They reset settings NM, they don't. >they remove about:config settings Yes. Moat of the times they move it to a different setting though. They also add a bunch of new settings all the time. About:config is not a stable thing. >they add spyware No, they don't. >and advertising Snippets is easily disabled. >You try to make Firefox look better than Windows 10 when they're doing the exact same shit. When does Firefox shut itself down with no user input to update? When does Firefox track what you do inside or outside of Firefox with no way to disable this behaviour? When does Firefox completely remove the option to disable automatic updates?
Nicholas Hughes
>Windows There's your problem
Justin Williams
>When did Firefox ever reset settings or about:config? Except that time that doesn't count.
Kevin Wood
>When does Firefox track what you do inside or outside of Firefox with no way to disable this behaviour? When does Windows 10 track what you do outside Windows 10?
That's fine. I always have it on "Check for updates but let me chose to install them" anyways.
Michael Scott
They probably didn't do it then. It was an entire engine remake, of course it doesn't count.
Alexander Perry
ESR 60 won't have this problem
Jack Hall
The goalpost is now in another galaxy.
Joseph Jackson
Yes goy, use chromium instead
Jeremiah Hernandez
who are LE, TN, and CN?
Gavin Allen
>no linux distro has this problem. It would be completely impossible given that you need to give a password for updates unless you installed a distro that out of the box lets you update without needing to su/sudo.
Kayden Moore
There is literally nothing wrong with forced updates. Stop being luddites.
Jacob Bennett
are there any quantum forks?
Logan Bell
>This is a good thing you dumbfuck. Anyone who cares will just edit about:config. But yes, you should never ignore updates. a faggot will come in 6 months, once they've removed all the options and say >you dumbfuck, just add it yourself in the code and compile it yourself.
Caleb Roberts
They will not remove it because it's now a Policy feature.
Eli Williams
>They will not remove it because it's now a Policy feature. now you have to configure firefox as if you're running an enterprise edition. This makes so fucking much sense.
Adam Bailey
How about I access your connected oven without you knowing and """accidentally""" cook you and your flat to ashes?
Cameron Barnes
> He doesn't get his Firefox updates through his package manager When will Wangblows and crapOS users learn
Leo Anderson
It's literally a checkbox. Alternatively, you could stop being such an autistic kid and let the browser check for updates.
Jacob Ward
You can download firefox for linux from their ftp server. not all of us use the firefox package that comes along with our distro.
Bentley Sanders
Don't try to diminish it by "conspiracy" stuff. If they want user to have control, they leave the option. As they removed it, there is only one logical conclusion
Overall, just more reasons to not look back at Firefox.
Hunter Rogers
I don't have a connected oven. Like I get you're trying to be snarky, but taking muh slippery slope argument to the next extreme is quite literally the childish take.
Jonathan Myers
But why wouldn't you use the package? The only reason I can see is if you always want the most recent version, in which case the forced updates surely shouldn't bother you.
Nolan Gray
Al they removed was the option to not check for updates. Hell, they didn't technically remove it, they moved it to the Policy engine. Everything else is a conspiracy theory.
Ryder Campbell
Who still 56.0.2 here?
Jeremiah Fisher
This. I don't do this anymore, but I did it while I ran nightly.
Either using latest version or using nightly and keeping it always up to date. I personally don't care if software auto-updates, browsers definitely should since they're the biggest attack target for malware. I update the system whenever there's an update available and I'm sure most Linux users do, how is this different than just having firefox auto-update? Automatic updates are more convenient in this case.
Lincoln Flores
>Still using Firefox when Waterfox exists
David Bailey
You wouldn't like it for your software to perform worse than before because of forced updates..
Caleb Phillips
Literally never happened. >inb4 placebo garbage Keep it to yourself you irrelevant luddite fuck.
Jose Thompson
Waterfox is useless. >only point ever was to have 64bit firefox We have 64bit firefox now. >b-but privacy features! Waterfox has absolutely 0 fixes for any privacy issues of firefox and is equally "malicious". See spyware.neocities.org/articles/waterfox.html Not to mention that it lags behind in updates. IceCat is better than Waterfox in every way.
Quantum performed better. Browser performance is only increasing. You can always roll back or reinstall an older version from archives.
Lincoln Scott
Well it happens all the time in vidya gaymes. >durr, update your game or we lock you out of it >oops, some new bug appeared, thanks for the shekels though :^)
Camden Morgan
>Hell, they didn't technically remove it, It can no longer be configured in GUI settings or about:conf. It's like saying win10 technically has option not to update.
In the and is yet another anti-feature.
Juan Cox
>compile with no update shit wew lad
Ian Brooks
Guido, Kernighan and Thompson
Jayden Richardson
thanks, but who the fuck is Guido?
t. embarrassed to not recognize Kernighan and Thompson
James Green
>autistic kid firefox has been fucking up its UI in the options and moving stuff left and right, renaming them with each version, that it's fucking impossible to keep a track. For everyfucking version you have to add one more step to your configuration of the firefox settings. It becomes ridiculous to need as much time as you need for your distro installation, to configure firecuck. before ff27.0 there were a shitload of default options that worked. the nu-default options are copied over from chrome. And yes, I have a huge problem with firecuck becoming a copy of chrome.
Adrian Rodriguez
This IS wise move, but it's also kinda jerkish.
Isaac Turner
i'm still on firefox 54 and not planning to update ever since quantum came out.
Oliver Wilson
Guido van Rossum, Python's creator
Nolan Thomas
All they had to do was support my add-ons and I would have updated.
Samuel Moore
>- Keep "Check for updates but let me chose to install them" so users can remain in control of what gets installed on their devices.
You're all fucking retards.
Matthew Brooks
No, just OP
Isaac Foster
This! Package Manager master race doesn't have this fucking problem.
Brody Phillips
>>Rationale
Adam Green
>dumbfuck shut up zucc no one likes you
Christopher Hall
wrong pkg manager is lagging behind there's no reason to use your distro's firefox when mozila provides one that can auto update also it's retarded to redownload the whole thing again when the update is usually 5-10 times smaller
Charles Reyes
it's may be disabled by your distro's maintainer not mozilla retards
Zachary Smith
>Every GNU/Linux distribution defaults to Pulse >uh-bundoo >pedora >Every
Charles Sullivan
Compile from source
Luke Garcia
>there's no reason to use your distro's firefox it helps you avoid forced updates from some shady upstream developer
Brayden Wood
>Ubuntu >Fedora >CentOS >OpenSUSE >Debian >Arch >all the enterprise distributions >all the derivatives of the former It would be easier to list distros that don't default to Pulse. Even Devuan defaults to it.
Brayden Hughes
>Ubuntu >Fedora >fedora >OpenMEME >ubuntu > wut >fedora > ^ you sure showed me
Samuel Adams
. . . by waiting for the downstream packager to take his time and force them eventually
Charles Lee
ac_add_options --disable-updater
Owen Thompson
Yeah sure, let's make every application and library autoupdate on its own independantly, what a great idea.