Never search for updates option missing/removed
Categories
(Firefox :: Settings UI, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: saturos.ice, Unassigned)
References
Details
|
||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
|
||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
|
Reporter | |
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
|
||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
I concur with you saturos, and moreover, any means of blocking automatic update checks now will most likely also prevent manual checks. I had it set to "never check for updates' but I'd go to the "about" dialog and do a manual check when I wanted to. My choice.
When Windows 10 designed to take control over updates from users, that was a bad thing, not a good thing. Yes, right now it's only checking for updates that we've lost control of, but it's a slippery slope. If they feel no pushback, what will be the next shoe to drop?
What's sad is that many power users probably disable all telemetry so the bumbling users and newbies are more heavily reflected in usage stats. A high price to pay for privacy indeed.
What I stated in my own bug reports https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1590668 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1590727 (both now closed as "duplicate"...)
but missing here:
this decision also badly reflects into other packages using mozilla, particularly Thunderbird.
And also the supposed "workaround" consists of steps need to be puzzled together from various hints on the web that are only loosely correlated.
|
|
||
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #2)
This was an intentional change in bug 1420514.
I'm a little unclear on something. That original ticket has been closed for commenting with the claim that "advocacy" should be limited to the forums. But wasn't the act of creating that bug ticket a form of advocacy? Wasn't the process of debating whether it should be fixed or rejected the result of various developers and customers advocating for different positions? It seems to me that "Sylvestre Ledru" and "Kirk Steuber" were just tired of critical comments piling up so they decided to shut down them.
Now, suppose I opened a ticket with the title, "Revert the commits for bug 1420514". Would that be closed without debate, punitively, or would a debate of the pros and cons be allowed for that ticket, just like any other ticket?
It seems the "justification" for "fixing" the other issue was just that the "never check" option was "dangerous." But the users who selected "never check" are adults, and many are power users. Mozilla itself is for those smart enough not to go with Chrome just because it's distributed like a virus and has a higher market share. We like open source and Freedom, ... and also CHOICE. We do not like to be treated like children.
|
|
||
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
Some info that might be useful:
It looks like the setting "app.update.interval" in about:config is still there. I haven't tested that it still works, but it stands to reason if it were disabled it should've been removed. By default it's 12 hours (43200), but assuming it's represented by a 32-bit number, setting it to 1,000,000,000 translates into one check every 30 years or so. I did verify that if I set it to 1,000,000,000 it took the value and it was persisted.
Details: https://www.trishtech.com/2014/02/change-how-often-firefox-checks-for-update/
|
|
||
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to javascriptjedi from comment #10)
(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #2)
This was an intentional change in bug 1420514.
I'm a little unclear on something. That original ticket has been closed for commenting with the claim that "advocacy" should be limited to the forums. But wasn't the act of creating that bug ticket a form of advocacy?
A lot of the tickets that are created in this tracker aren't created as a form of "advocacy" but after the discussion has taken place (either on IRC/newsgroups/mailing lists or other on-the-record spaces, or in a hallway somewhere, or after 42 meetings with 100 different stakeholders, or...). I don't know whether that was the case here, but there's actually almost no debate in the bug before links to "try runs" (running proposed patches against our continuous integration) start appearing. So it seems likely that this was the case here, in which case, no, it wasn't a form of advocacy but a record of a decision that had been made.
Wasn't the process of debating whether it should be fixed or rejected the result of various developers and customers advocating for different positions?
Right, but as noted it didn't happen on the bug and, importantly, it involved reasons for the decision.
It seems to me that "Sylvestre Ledru" and "Kirk Steuber" were just tired of critical comments piling up so they decided to shut down them.
Well, things like "This is such an anoying nonsense. I fell more and more urged to switch to chromium." (one of the tagged comments on that bug) aren't actually "critical comments". They advance no argument, certainly not new arguments, and it's debatable whether they even pass the bar as to whether they're civil.
Now, suppose I opened a ticket with the title, "Revert the commits for bug 1420514". Would that be closed without debate,
Yes.
punitively,
No - closing a ticket isn't a "punishment".
or would a debate of the pros and cons be allowed for that ticket, just like any other ticket?
The debate was already had and I expect none of the comments so far have given new reasons - or at least new reasons deemed important enough to change course. More and more individuals saying "I used this and I miss it now that it's gone" may constitute "reasons" in a certain sense, but open source isn't a democracy and in any case that type of decisionmaking clearly doesn't scale due to the biases involved - people would comment on changes they didn't like but not on changes they did like, so everything would be reverted all the time.
Nor have they really considered the reasoning for the change. It's unlikely that having a new debate would do that, certainly not to the point where it would change people's minds that this was worth doing. Note also the bugzilla etiquette guide which says:
No obligation. "Open Source" is not the same as "the developers must do my bidding." Everyone here wants to help, but no one else has any obligation to fix the bugs you want fixed. Therefore, you should not act as if you expect someone to fix a bug by a particular date or release. Aggressive or repeated demands will not be received well and will almost certainly diminish the impact of and interest in your suggestions.
Stepping back for a second, would you really think it productive to allow changes to be debated indefinitely? I would hope you want me and other developers to work on improving the browser, not on explaining the same things to different people, over and over again.
It seems the "justification" for "fixing" the other issue was just that the "never check" option was "dangerous."
I note that the rationale in the user story in bug 1420514 does not use the word "dangerous". It does say that enabling it exposes users to severe security issues, which is a statement of fact. I'd suggest reading:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1420514#c129
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1420514#c136
But the users who selected "never check" are adults, and many are power users.
I'm sure you are, but not everyone will be - it was just a radio button, and the above comments (and the interactions we have with users that Mike describes) show that a significant number of people change this option without due care and attention.
You're also assuming that users are selecting the option themselves, which isn't really always the case, which is another reason for this change. The previous option was easy for malware to hijack. There is still an option to disable updates, but it is deliberately something that takes more work (and admin access to the machine in question), not just a radio button you can change and then forget about.
We like open source and Freedom, ... and also CHOICE.
Right, and choice you still have, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1420514#c137 . But yes, we made this harder, and we had good reasons to do so, and we will not indefinitely debate that choice.
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
|
||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
So I understand that firefox and thunderbird are not aiming at power users anymore.
Even power users often do not get a choice from their boss which which programs shall be used. So it is too easy to just dismiss power users to look elsewhere.
But for the power users that DO have a choice: maybe you have advice: which program, or maybe an old version for Firefox/Thunderbird is a better choice for the power user then? You can't go back 10 years as these browsers just won't work properly with today's standards.
Let me give some more specific comments also
This 'treat users as children' approach unfortunately is happening everywhere, both in software and society. I'm also a power user and it now takes me months to set up all software to acceptable levels due to all this.
a significant number of people change this option without due care and attention
By "significant" do you mean "at least 20%" or so? As even 0.01% can be statistically significant, yet useless in practice. What is backing this up?
When people start digging into the preferences, it's clear that they are unsatisfied with the default and at least somewhat power users. So I think it's unfair to claim this. Isn't it more likely that they are not well informed about how to fix their issue and get lost in the maze of about:config?
And this 'feature' is not just a bit harder to turn off. Look at the amount of discussion it took to get it fixed in my case, that's maybe an hour of work for just this single checkbox. And check the number of mis/half informed comments and webpages on this. IMHO the amount of work (mainly research on how to do it) for fixing a single thing is ridiculous.
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to w.pasman from comment #13)
But for the power users that DO have a choice: maybe you have advice: which program, or maybe an old version for Firefox/Thunderbird is a better choice for the power user then? You can't go back 10 years as these browsers just won't work properly with today's standards.
Have a look at Waterfox or Palemoon. They are probably what you are looking for and what I call my "safe harbor" for now, as I am tired of investing hours up to days to restore a UI of Firefox that I am used too, that will present everything to my liking and will not disappear upon every restart or update.
I am just too stubborn to completely give up on Firefox, hoping things will change some day. That is my reason for still writing bugs (not duplicates, if I know it).
Windows 10 was mentioned. If behaving like most devs these days - why can't we even have the option to delay any update or check for (35) days, like in the case of MS? Clearly after months or years of issues they have been convinced to implement this as a relief. It surely would not satisfy everyone either (collateral "damage"/grief is seemingly accepted anyway), but it would not upset just everyone in that group, even those who just want a bit more time or control.
(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #12)
Well, things like "This is such an anoying nonsense. I fell more and more urged to switch to chromium." (one of the tagged comments on that bug) aren't actually "critical comments". They advance no argument, certainly not new arguments, and it's debatable whether they even pass the bar as to whether they're civil.
Now, suppose I opened a ticket with the title, "Revert the commits for bug 1420514". Would that be closed without debate,
Yes.
punitively,
No - closing a ticket isn't a "punishment".
or would a debate of the pros and cons be allowed for that ticket, just like any other ticket?
The debate was already had and I expect none of the comments so far have given new reasons - or at least new reasons deemed important enough to change course. More and more individuals saying "I used this and I miss it now that it's gone" may constitute "reasons" in a certain sense, but open source isn't a democracy and in any case that type of decisionmaking clearly doesn't scale due to the biases involved - people would comment on changes they didn't like but not on changes they did like, so everything would be reverted all the time.
The annoying nonsense thing is arguably impolite, but still expression of a being (I usually avoid typing such pathetic lines, but you hopefully get the point). Neglecting users dissatisfaction and dissent with the decision, does not seem very civil either and is probably also the reason for it being understood as punishment. However this is not an excuse for opening bugs or any other discussion that way.
What I am curious about after reading the last part is what "new reasons" could convince one or more devs who made a certain decision to the disliking of users, to really revise their position? Specifically on the check for update topic, as reasons clearly depend.
Description
•