As I get it from other comments, this is not a problem with the built-in updater (as on Windows). On linux, when updating via package manager, you should now this can be an issue with any program. Yes, most programs survive running while being updated, but for a complicated piece of software (like a browser) this behavior is understandable.
See the Arch wiki for updating on Arch: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance#Restart_...
The point is that this is poor default user experience, and it should not be this way.
That's why I always update my browsers manually.
This definitely look like an issue with your own setup. But If you did face issues, you can always file a bug.
Not sure which technique the application used, but after few seconds it loaded the error message, and after that I couldn't open new tabs or windows without getting that error.
(Note: I've set new tabs and windows to open with a blank view, which may also make a difference, as there is no default content.)
Similar to most programs, you can change certain behaviors in the settings of the program. For Firefox update behavior:
Settings -> General -> Firefox Updates -> "Check for updates but let you choose when to install them".
Or, you can choose "Automatically install updates" and subsequently check "When Firefox is not running".
Either way should address your issue.
Those settings don’t do anything bec even when I select “Check but don’t install” it still nags me and eventually installs even if corp IT policy is only to update monthly.
I wish there was a way to turn off the nagging too. Why can’t Firefox trust my corp IT to follow their process?
That is definitely possible. In my corporate environment, I don't get any nags or prompts to update, and when I go into settings it shows "Updates disabled by your organization".
It sounds like your IT left the update prompts enabled, perhaps specifically to let you update at your own convenience and hence avoid the problem you complain about when it forces an update while you are using it.
There is some really bloated crap out there, and you can create every bit as much bloat on the server as in the client.
Mozilla (despite its issues) is nowhere near as evil as Google and a browser monopoly is good for nobody.
Manifest v2 will stay supported on FF - uBlock will keep working properly.
It's time to switch. If you would rather have a UI like Arc, give Zen a shot! (It's what I use!)
Mozilla fired its CEO on its private political opinions, expressed as a non-publicized donation.
I consider harassment for political opinions, evil. Privately held political opinions. And Mozilla barred itself from working with a top engineer, inventor of Javascript, for privately-held political reasons, and gave reigns from engineers to business types of people. They kept Mozilla dependent on Google, an economic tie which sidesteps Mozilla from being an alternative to Google.
Some comments say I’m holding a grudge, but Brendan Eich is not the only one harassed, it was a statement from Mozilla, it meant We do not tolerate other opinions
I consider harassment for political opinions, evil. You are free to believe differently, but at least you cannot say with a straight face that Mozilla has a moral standing against Google.
Which part of donating money to ensure a class of people don't get the same rights as the donor is private? That's as public of a move as one can imagine.
Firing people for their opinions is actually fine - if you believe that certain types of people don't deserve rights, for example, and your company has those types of people in it, that's a problem. Freedom of opinion is not guaranteed.
It's easy to keep abortions secret. They're protected by privacy laws, so even HR can't ask about them. Medical issues are secret from the workplace by default.
It's impossible to keep your sexuality secret if you're married. Your marital status at work is public by default. And no one should have to keep the identity of their spouse secret for fear of being treated worse by the CEO.
I do not have an opinion on abortion, and I’d probably lean towards a yes. But Mozilla being capable of making it a problem out of someone’s history, 10 years earlier, a private donation, shows a major issue of intolerance.
The root cause: Mozilla turned woke, and did look into the past of each employee to fire them. The wokists see no problem with that, but for the rest of us, it’s the darkest time for intolerance.
1. Mozilla didn't fire anyone. My understanding is they actually tried to keep him.
2. Public pressure, dollar voting, and boycotts is just the free market at work. The invisible hand is real but it seems to me as soon as the invisible hand starts pushing stuff we all get uncomfortable.
3. Nobody takes anyone seriously who says "woke". That word means absolutely nothing to anyone, it's just a dog whistle. A type of inverse virtue signal that you are not a serious person worth listening to.
Implementing this meant that people who worked for the state, and other neutral institutions, had to work with others who they honestly believed were heretics that would go to hell. Both they and the institution had to learn to keep their tribal conflicts—nominally religious and doctrinal, but in practice tribal—under control. This was difficult, but very valuable to all sides. The truce enabled mutually beneficial cooperation and the prosperity that entailed.
Centuries later, some tribes find themselves in control of certain institutions. The truce, the principle of neutrality, restricts them, and they see little benefit from it. "Why not violate it, and start a fight over this issue where we have the upper hand? We'll win!" Sometimes this takes the form of arguing tendentiously that the other side violated the truce first, and hence their attacks are in fact justified retaliation. Other times they seem ignorant of the value of having a truce, and are likely ignorant of its history (which is not taught well). So they start trampling on it.
Depending on what we imagine their motives to be, and how narrowly we consider them... On that issue in isolation—gay marriage—it's probably "rational". However, violating the truce makes it easier to do more of that, both for them and their opponents. On this issue they have the upper hand, and they'll win. On abortion, they have the advantage, but less so. On other issues (such as putting biological males in women's sports and women's prisons) they have minority support, and if they keep up their attitude of just fighting because "why not?" (subject to tactical considerations), they will provoke the opposition to fight back more and harder, and eventually they'll lose ground on the issues themselves—to say nothing of the costs of the fighting and the lost value due to the broken truce.
They are short-sighted, ignorant, aggressive little barbarians who start smashing the thing in front of them, unaware that it's a pillar holding up many things we and even they hold dear. They know not what they do. I guess this is where we see the deficiencies of current education.
Well done folks, your MAGA browser culture war has ruined browsers just like it ruins everything else it touches.
But maybe they'll actually ban gay marriage again and it will all have been worth it for you.
Firing the CEO was an expression of said free speech.
It has been my perception that it's usually not a principled objection in this case, but mostly people mad because they share those specific beliefs he was fired for.
They didn't fire him. They even tried to get him to stay after he resigned.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/
He made a choice, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't corrected the record.
The point being free speech is a two-way street. Speech without consequences is actually un-free in that sense. Because you're free to say whatever, but I'm not free to say whatever in response.
Now, whether corporate actions constitute speech is kind of another question. But the consensus in the US is that yes, they do. Corporations are allowed to have opinions and make donations, and they're allowed to fire you for having opinions or making donations.
The important thing to note is that free speech, as we understand it, is a protection for private entities from public entities. Meaning it protects you, a citizen, from public censorship. And it protects companies, private entities, from public censorship. So it, in a way, enables private companies to censor. Because the public can't censor their censorship.
Just curious: would you defend a company for firing someone for speaking out in support of gay marriage?
Well companies already do this all the time - this is more so the status-quo. I'm not going to pretend the majority are somehow, in some roundabout way, oppressed. Is this person fired for supporting gay marriage, or being gay? Because obviously that's illegal... you can't fire someone for being part of a protected class. Being a republican or whatever is not a protected class, being gay is. One matters, one doesn't.
- External pressure, including a high profile boycott campaign, was widespread and widely reported
- Brendan Eich remained a Mozilla employee for years after his donation was first publicly discussed (in the LA Times and on Twitter), with no apparent pressure to leave. The board appointed him CEO with full knowledge of his views and knowledge that they were publicly known.
- There were relatively few public statements from Mozilla employees asking him to resign, and none from executives or board members.
- I think it's unusual for companies to explicitly lie and say "we tried to get them to stay". It might even expose them to defamation claims or something. If the board forces a resignation, they'll just say "they resigned" (which is technically true) and leave it at that.
I left because they kept stripping features out that I was used to whether it was my RSS toolbar feeds or something else. I forgot which feature removal was the final straw, or if it was a bug or two that irked me. While I was never a Chrome user, I found Edge was an alternative that I was happy with. I also see a lot of benefit to native browsers. Ironically, that I learned about from Mozilla's own devblogs.
Supporting V2 like this is the exact opposite of what drove me away. I'm cruising so happily on Edge that I'm unsure if I'm willing to do another shift, but I am going to reconsider my life choices.
Or maybe I am wrong about the facts? I never used Edge.
Does librewolf do anything that you can't do via user.js?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1195654
I refuse to accept it. It served it's purpose to help us defeat IE6. That's it. Now it's useless and needs to die IMO.
Pleasantly it also has working adblock and using it helps prevent browser monoculture. So that’s nice too.
Night_Thastus•10h ago
I will say mobile is a bit different. I prefer mobile browser to apps when possible so I can have ad-blocking, but some websites run like complete garbage on mobile browser. They're so slow it's almost unusable. I'm almost 100% certain that's not on the browser itself though.
cosmic_cheese•9h ago
I wish there were something that could thwart the “Chromium by default” assumption at large amongst devs, because it’s making the web worse than it needs to be.
internet_points•9h ago
and invariable it's under a google domain
OkayPhysicist•8h ago
I noticed this exact thing. While a lot of sites worked perfectly fine when I was informing them I was using Firefox, when I started lying, they ran faster. Drove me nuts.
Frontend Devs: If your code reads the user-agent string for any reason but logging/spying, you're doing it wrong.
cosmic_cheese•8h ago
OkayPhysicist•7h ago
If you do it the right way, if/when another browser implements the feature you used, suddenly you support that browser, with no code changes. If you check UAs, then you need to keep tabs on browser updates and manually update your website when features get added to browsers, and you need to check what version people are using because maybe it's out of date, it's a whole thing.
What drives me nuts is that the right way is the easy way.
cosmic_cheese•6h ago
tracker1•7h ago
On the flip side... if you're running something bespoke relying on an older JS engine, it's becoming harder to find pure polyfills/shims that aren't a tangled mess relying on DOM specific features.
While there are some newer features I don't mind seeing early, I've mostly just avoided touching some of the more recent features for now, only to avoid the mess that are the current state of fills.
bigstrat2003•7h ago
I don't think that is possible. It used to be that lazy devs assumed people were on IE, these days lazy devs assume people are on Chrome. In the future if there is a new browser with a majority of the market, lazy devs will assume people use that browser. The problem isn't any one browser, it's that some people are lazy and seek out shortcuts rather than doing things the correct way.
TheAceOfHearts•9h ago
qualeed•9h ago
Night_Thastus•9h ago
ahartmetz•6h ago
kokada•9h ago
I don't think this is an issue anymore, but it shows that a few things have completely performance in different browsers.
rafaelmn•8h ago