Why use a Windows service instead of installing in the user's %APPDATA% directory like Chrome? Admittedly, there is some wasted disk space if a Windows PC is shared by multiple users, who each install Firefox. But I imagine most Windows PC only have one user account.
There are several ways to tackle this issue. For example, some browsers that offer silent software updates will install into the user's application data folder and hence do not have this problem. We could do the same, but we chose not to because it can be an administrative headache for some people who manage updates themselves and have to maintain an installation for every user.
It is an administrative headache - just as they noted - for some people. The vast majority runs Windows with a single user account. Moreover, installing into %AppData is equivalent to installing into ~/bin - and this is exactly where user's programs should go.
In other words, they have it backwards. They should be defaulting to %AppData with an in-process update mechanism, and optionally let it be installed into an admin-controlled directory, in which case fallback to the service-based updates.
Because you're used to have the choice of installing 'for me' or 'for all users' for aeons now on a Windows system.
Because even my tiny deployments are better and safer if I can make sure that FF is updated for every user of my machines, instead of hoping that they'll get an update next time they browse Facebook.
Because it's wasteful to install the very same software to different places. Yes, storage is cheap on modern hardware. No, not everyone uses FF on modern hardware.
Profiles belong to the user. The application belongs - in a Windows world, in a Linux world - to the system / administrator.
Love the mozilla guys for keeping the expectations intact. Re: "Program Files": Maybe ProgramData would be a decent place to drop updates. Program Files is supposed to be readonly, ProgramData is afaik the place designated for system-wide application data.
Right, and this puts program files into a system directory, but the Start Menu shortcuts into the user's profile. That's not exactly "for me", isn't it?
> Profiles belong to the user. The application belongs - in a Windows world, in a Linux world - to the system / administrator.
That's in a Linux world that is modeled after the Windows one. In a traditional #nix world there are system binaries and there are user binaries. If the user needs something that is not readily available on the box, or if he needs a specific version or whatever, he can install it into ~/bin. Point being, that on Windows this is not even an option. There is no standard location to put user's personal program files into.
Why should a user program require an updater that needs to run with the root privileges? If it were on a #nix box that is locked down comparably to Windows/UAC, Firefox would've been sitting in ~/bin together with all other stuff that the user installs for himself. Windows remains the only mainstream OS that does not even have a notion of user-installed software and mandates (through its guidelines) that all software to be installed into %ProgramFiles%. There is an UAC, but there is no %UserProgramFiles%. This is truly idiotic, if you pardon my late night French, but not a bit surprising.
If you're on a Linux machine the vast majority of people are going to use a package manager to install their software. It ends up in /usr not /home.
I don't get your argument. Sure, you ~can~ install to ~/bin (and I'd guess you could change the FF install path to something outside of UAC protection/virtual folder redirection, maybe even now), but the majority doesn't. Not on Windows, not on Linux. Or are you going to tell me that the gazillion Ubuntu users install FF to ~/bin? How are they updating their packages?
That's great news. Firefox needs this if they're going to stick with the 6 week update schedule. But this is just one of the features where they catch-up. They need more features where they differentiate/stay ahead of the competition in a big way, if they really want to get people's attention.
they don't need to differentiate or get people's attention. they need to do what they're doing: provide a solid product, adhere to standards, and stay quiet and out of the way. a browser isn't supposed to grab attention, it's just supposed to be a tool to view websites on.
Mozilla full-time contributor here. I agree they need to do what they're doing - silent updates are super important for the product right now given the new release cycle.
It's important that Mozilla does differentiate though. Firefox is the only browser that's made by a non-profit organization and puts your interests before business interests. Other browsers can't say that - they all have financial incentives and other agendas for you to use their product. Firefox provides choice so you have full control over your browsing experience.
I wish more people understood the importance of what you just said. Not even the tech community seems to.
Also, I presume the performance issues on OSX are a known issue. I'd love to read a plan for resolution for that. It can take 6 months, I'd feel better knowing it's a tangible goal that's being worked towards as opposed to "we're making improvements as we can".
Call me paranoid, but after I read about this service I immediately started thinking what would happen if the browser was compromised - no UAC prompt and elevated privileges through the service...
I should hope the service does not use the browser to configure itself. It should directly contact mozilla servers including verifying some kind of encryption signature.
So if anything it could mitigate a compromised browser by overwriting it with a good one.
The service wouldn't give the browser elevated privileges. If you're worried about an update being compromised, then don't, since they're delivered over SSL and (I believe) are also signed separately.
