FireFox wanting to Update more and more...

Why is this...

Quick fixes for increased issues or is FireFox plugging security holes. Is the resource useage in your experince going up or down. It seems they are under attack for bloat. Share your thoughts. I think FireFox is at a cross roads.

 

I'll definitely give Mozilla and Firefox credit for responding to perceived problems much faster than MS.

And this latest update, to .11, must have been next to nothing, it set a new speed record for downloading and installing even on my dialup.

 

I like Firefox historically, but it does seem that patches and fixes are coming more and faster... also my impression from other people's comments is that v3 will put it on the road to ruin... but only time will tell I guess... K-Meleon for me is more what I wish Firefox were but isn't...

 

Yes the last update did run quickly and I totally agree, K-Meleon is more what I wish FireFox was but isn't

I just can not figure out if the updates are because of more and more discovered problems or just quick responses to found problems another words, "lets not wait and group our patches lets fix this now". I just wonder if it is still as secure as it use to be.

Certainly more then IE 7.

 

Hello,
I don't understand the problem. Updates are good. That means someone is doing something to improve the product and the more frequently the better.
Mrk

 

I've been using V3 in Altiris virtual for a couple of weeks now, and so far not a single slow down or problem of any kind. I've used it on graphics heavy sites, and run it with a huge number of tabs open, plus never cleared its cache or anything else. Like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going. I've also installed several add-ons. Seems a bit lighter than V2.

So far, I like it, but as a whole from seeing comments here and there, I seem to be the minority.

 

Its cool to see someone else using altiris!

In regards to firefox i feel it has gotten 'heavier' over time. It just feels slower these days. I have no evidence to base this on other than my own perception. Personally i feel opera and k-meleon perform much better.

 

Q: What would Firefox without any updates since 2002 look like?
A: IE7

 

mercurie mentioned Kmeleon, which I'd never used. I downloaded it just out of curiosity and, as usual running it in Altiris, I was impressed. I hit a very graphic intensive site with lots of animation that drives me nuts. I use it to check loading time of the various browsers.

Kmeleon didn't slow down AT ALL. It loaded the site just as fast as Seamonkey and Firefox with graphics blocked and adblock running, and compared to IE7 was like lightning. I see no need to block graphics or even install adblock, if it's available for Kmeleon. Just click on tools and privacy and block images etc if you want. Very impressive and fast browser. I might drop Seamonkey and Firefox and stay with Kmeleon.

Sorry, off topic (as usual). Thanks for mentioning it, mercurie. I'd planned to check Kmeleon out some time ago and totally forgot.

 

That is a positive way to look at the situation, and probably true as well. However, that doesn't mean there isn't another way of looking at the same situation that is equally true: ("Mozilla scrambles to patch Firefox for second time this week") that a serious bug was overlooked, and required a second update in the same week.

 

Yes, two regressions within as many releases does seem to indicate there is a procedural problem, doesn't it?

 

Sure, speed of response creates its own problems sometimes. Probably the closest analogy that comes to mind is when an a-v, responding quickly to a new threat, causes a number of FP's in the process.

But I'll definitely give them credit for the quick response to the real threat, rather than berating them for the FP's which are no more than a nuisance and easily checked. Especially if they're equally quick in then correcting the FP's.

 

Yep, K-Meleon is great, I like it mostly for it's lightness and speed..

Back on topic, I think the Firefox people have always been pretty quick to fix issues, but nowadays there are just more of them surfacing, perhaps because more people are now picking at Firefox than before..

 

You are most welcome Chuck57, friendly creature Bellgamin turned me on to it. Works good on my resource challenged PC 1 too.

 

Good point. Keep in mind that the security problems with IE and with Win itself, while considerably due to MS having an attitude problem, are also because both are so widely used that they're obvious targets for malware-developers. As Firefox (and other "alternate" browsers) becomes more and more popular, it'll attract a lot more attention from them and will require security patches that much more often. Actually we're already starting to see that, which I think is essentially what Kerodo is saying.

 

My impression is that the frequent updates for Firefox are security fixes.
FF hasn't slowed down for me.K-Meleon is very good browser and I found that it's compatable with more sites than K-Ninja was.

 

Firefox has of course more patches and therefore more updatings, because it has much more users than 3 years back and that makes it an interesting target for the bad guys. One day the same will happen to Opera.

 

Sorry to hear you say this as this is what I too was afraid it might be. To hear it from someone else helps validate the thought.

 

Hello,
Have you talked to the bad guys and asked them?
Or is this just a general feeling, like "someday a huge meteor will pwn earth?"
Mrk

 

I have a better idea. Let's all just turn a blind eye to all those meteorite fragments which are already peppering planet Mozilla - because we all know that having to fix more and more security problems is a Positively Good Thing.

 

No, but I remember how it was when I was a member at SWI. You couldn't say anything bad regarding Firefox, the safest browser in those days and a bunch of reason, why it was the safest.
Nowadays, they do nothing but patching Firefox.
If Linux was the most used OS in the world, I think Linux would look like a Swiss Cheese.

 

Hello,

I really am amazed.

WHEN WAS PATCHING SOFTWARE A BAD THING??

Patching means:
- Someone cares
- Someone takes care to provide the users with improved software

The more frequent it is, the better the security and usability provided.

The way you put it: if a bug is found in Firefox, let's wait 4 years before we release it, that way, no one will know or care, and there will be no patching, but the people will say - Firefox is not being patched, that's good, because patching is bad.

As to Firefox being safest, what makes you say it isn't? Where is your professional, statistical and any other data / facts to backup your claims. And remember, it's "innocent until proven guilty." You cannot say it sucks. You must prove it.

solcroft, yes fixing more and more problems is a GOOD thing.

I'm truly amazed.

THIS GOES FOR ANY SOFTWARE, NOT JUST FIREFOX.

Software that does not get fixed / improved - stagnates. The more people work on bugs and problems, the more they reveal them and patch them, the better the software gets.

Mrk

 

I really am amazed.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PATCHING SOFTWARE IS NOT THE ISSUE?

It also means the software had security flaws. THIS is the issue. Someone didn't do their job right the first time, and have to resort to constant hole-plugging now to clean up the mess. In the case of Firefox, looking at the changelog, it was practically RIDDLED with flaws. A program with patched flaws is better than a program with unpatched ones, but that doesn't make it better than a program with no flaws (metaphorically speaking, that is).

I really love how you play on this. Any doubts about Firefox's security needs to be backed up with solid concrete proof, while claims about Firefox being safest are perfectly logical and are to be taken as true until proven otherwise. You are getting hopelessly confused about concepts here - this has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty, this has to do with dubious advertising and snake-oil marketing. "Safest"? Come on, now. What makes you say that?

 

Actually, if one program's changelog showed it was "riddled with flaws", doesn't mean another program whose changelog is minimal meant the opposite. Could be that more people are looking into it, either proactively or reactively.

Anyway did FF fix it's security vulnerabilities before malware authors could exploit them, or after? And the latest patch wasn't security-related, was it?

 

I thought they're working on FF3?