Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mozilla Maintenance Service
871 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris Ilias
Mar 13, 2012, 10:57:59 PM3/13/12
to
On 12-03-13 3:01 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>
> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
I assume you are on the Aurora channel. The Mozilla Maintenance Service
is part of the silent update feature. If you uninstall it, updating will
fall back to the old way (with a Windows UAC prompt).
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>
> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
I assume you are on the Aurora channel. The Mozilla Maintenance Service
is part of the silent update feature. If you uninstall it, updating will
fall back to the old way (with a Windows UAC prompt).
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
Message has been deleted
Jeff Grossman
Mar 14, 2012, 8:12:32 PM3/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:58:21 -0700, Sailfish wrote:
>My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
>3/13/2012 7:57 PM:
>and am pleased to report that nothing unpleasant has become of it ... so
>far :)
You don't want updates to be applied in the background? With Aurora
and Nightly (which update every day) it is nice to have it in the
background without any prompts. Also, they are working on updating in
the background while the program is running. You will still need to
restart to being using the newer version, but you won't have to wait
for it to update when you first start Firefox.
Jeff
>My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
>3/13/2012 7:57 PM:
>> On 12-03-13 3:01 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>>>
>>> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>>
>> I assume you are on the Aurora channel. The Mozilla Maintenance Service
>> is part of the silent update feature. If you uninstall it, updating will
>> fall back to the old way (with a Windows UAC prompt).
>>
>I'm on all the channels Beta, Aurora and Nightlies. I did uninstall it
>>> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>>>
>>> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>>
>> I assume you are on the Aurora channel. The Mozilla Maintenance Service
>> is part of the silent update feature. If you uninstall it, updating will
>> fall back to the old way (with a Windows UAC prompt).
>>
>and am pleased to report that nothing unpleasant has become of it ... so
>far :)
You don't want updates to be applied in the background? With Aurora
and Nightly (which update every day) it is nice to have it in the
background without any prompts. Also, they are working on updating in
the background while the program is running. You will still need to
restart to being using the newer version, but you won't have to wait
for it to update when you first start Firefox.
Jeff
Message has been deleted
Gelomida
Mar 15, 2012, 6:04:36 AM3/15/12
to
On 03/15/2012 01:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:58:21 -0700, Sailfish wrote:
pleased to report that nothing unpleasant has become of it ... so
>> far :)
>
> You don't want updates to be applied in the background?
No,
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:58:21 -0700, Sailfish wrote:
pleased to report that nothing unpleasant has become of it ... so
>> far :)
>
> You don't want updates to be applied in the background?
Just two example:
I rarely accept updates while on battery and on a low performance
wireless network.
I never accept updates while working on something busines critical close
to a dead line. (I'm not talking days, but hours)
Greywolf
Mar 15, 2012, 9:52:57 AM3/15/12
to
Updates should never be allowed to interfere with actual work.
Wolf K.
FF3.6.27, TB 7.0.1
Chris Ilias
Mar 15, 2012, 12:57:51 PM3/15/12
to
On 12-03-15 6:04 AM, _Gelomida_ spoke thusly:
You can turn off silent updates by going to
Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
Jean-Marc Desperrier
Mar 15, 2012, 1:50:20 PM3/15/12
to
Chris Ilias a écrit :
automatically reinstall it ?
Since, I also have it installed without having done anything, and it
didn't exist when I installed Aurora, so some recent version of Aurora
must have installed it automatically. So having done that once, it may
do it again if it sees it's missing.
> You can turn off silent updates by going to
> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
OTOH if you uninstall the auto-updater, isn't there a risk that Fx will
> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
automatically reinstall it ?
Since, I also have it installed without having done anything, and it
didn't exist when I installed Aurora, so some recent version of Aurora
must have installed it automatically. So having done that once, it may
do it again if it sees it's missing.
Chris Ilias
Mar 15, 2012, 2:28:04 PM3/15/12
to
On 12-03-15 1:50 PM, _Jean-Marc Desperrier_ spoke thusly:
I don't even suggest trying it. :)
> Chris Ilias a écrit :
>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>
> OTOH if you uninstall the auto-updater, isn't there a risk that Fx will
> automatically reinstall it ?
I don't know. Probably.
>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>
> OTOH if you uninstall the auto-updater, isn't there a risk that Fx will
> automatically reinstall it ?
I don't even suggest trying it. :)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ron Hunter
Mar 15, 2012, 4:45:04 PM3/15/12
to
the next time FF loads. This is acceptable to me, but then I don't use
FF for business oriented projects. I can see how one might anticipate
some complications if an update happens in the middle of working on a
project.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ron Hunter
Mar 15, 2012, 8:57:44 PM3/15/12
to
On 3/15/2012 4:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 3/15/2012 1:45 PM:
> Apple and Google do something similar (a stealth update installation)
> with their software installation what with Google Update and Apple
> Update and I find both of those annoying and somewhat shady. I mean,
> there's been a large thread recently regarding drive-by Firefox add-ons
> being a major source of malware and now I find out that Mozilla it doing
> something similar with Windows. imo, they should ask before deciding to
> install it, even for Aurora installations.
>
Google updates silently, without asking. Apple Update always tells me
what it found that is new, and asks if I want to install it. Perhaps
you need to check your settings.
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 3/15/2012 1:45 PM:
> with their software installation what with Google Update and Apple
> Update and I find both of those annoying and somewhat shady. I mean,
> there's been a large thread recently regarding drive-by Firefox add-ons
> being a major source of malware and now I find out that Mozilla it doing
> something similar with Windows. imo, they should ask before deciding to
> install it, even for Aurora installations.
>
Google updates silently, without asking. Apple Update always tells me
what it found that is new, and asks if I want to install it. Perhaps
you need to check your settings.
Message has been deleted
Greywolf
Mar 16, 2012, 11:48:48 AM3/16/12
to
On 15/03/2012 12:57 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
[...]
But why should I have to know this kind of thing?_As a user_ I should
not have to fiddle with these kinds of program settings. The only
settings that I _as a user_ want are those that affect the way the
program works: how the document looks, for example. Updates are
"maintenance", and for that I want as little hassle as possible.
IMO, the problem is that there is no standard way of handling updates,
which means there is a plethora of user expectations. So no matter what,
someone will get annoyed, because we all have different expectations,
each formed by the first few programs we updated. What annoys you won't
annoy me, and vice versa.
It would be a lot simpler and lot easier on everyone's nerves if we all
had the same expectations. IOW, if the industry all handled updates the
same way. Personally, I vote for "An update for XYZ is available" with
boxes for "Apply Now", "Download and let me install", and "Not Now,
Thanks". No program, etc, should ever update without the user's permission.
Standards create user expectations and habits, thereby saving time and
minimising aggravation. The computer industry seems to be pathologically
averse to standards. Why? I have my theories, you have yours.
Regardless, it's time to work towards standards. User convenience trumps
developer preferences and "intellectual property".
HTH,
Wolf K.
[...]
> You can turn off silent updates by going to
> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
Thanks for that, Chris.
> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
But why should I have to know this kind of thing?_As a user_ I should
not have to fiddle with these kinds of program settings. The only
settings that I _as a user_ want are those that affect the way the
program works: how the document looks, for example. Updates are
"maintenance", and for that I want as little hassle as possible.
IMO, the problem is that there is no standard way of handling updates,
which means there is a plethora of user expectations. So no matter what,
someone will get annoyed, because we all have different expectations,
each formed by the first few programs we updated. What annoys you won't
annoy me, and vice versa.
It would be a lot simpler and lot easier on everyone's nerves if we all
had the same expectations. IOW, if the industry all handled updates the
same way. Personally, I vote for "An update for XYZ is available" with
boxes for "Apply Now", "Download and let me install", and "Not Now,
Thanks". No program, etc, should ever update without the user's permission.
Standards create user expectations and habits, thereby saving time and
minimising aggravation. The computer industry seems to be pathologically
averse to standards. Why? I have my theories, you have yours.
Regardless, it's time to work towards standards. User convenience trumps
developer preferences and "intellectual property".
HTH,
Wolf K.
Message has been deleted
»Q«
Mar 16, 2012, 3:32:52 PM3/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:48:48 -0400
Greywolf <wek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Personally, I vote for "An update for XYZ is available" with
> boxes for "Apply Now", "Download and let me install", and "Not Now,
> Thanks". No program, etc, should ever update without the user's
> permission.
The default option, automatic updating, isn't going to change. The
Greywolf <wek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Personally, I vote for "An update for XYZ is available" with
> boxes for "Apply Now", "Download and let me install", and "Not Now,
> Thanks". No program, etc, should ever update without the user's
> permission.
data Mozilla collected before making that decision made it clear that
with that default, most users have a browser that's up-to-date, whereas
without that as default a very large chunk of them have a browser
riddled with exploitable vulnerabilities. (IIRC, the number was in
the 20-30% range.) The entire internet is better off the fewer
machines are owned by black hats, and they made their decision based
on that. It's one of those "the needs of the many outweigh the needs
of the few who don't like it" things.
All that's changing with the addition of this service is that
limited-access account users will no longer have to click through
Window's permissions dialog whenever they update. This goes for
users who have Fx set to notify them of updates or who initiate the
update checks manually as well as those sticking with the default
automagic updating.
Jeff Grossman
Mar 16, 2012, 7:13:14 PM3/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:27:57 -0700, Sailfish wrote:
>Apple and Google do something similar (a stealth update installation)
>with their software installation what with Google Update and Apple
>Update and I find both of those annoying and somewhat shady. I mean,
>there's been a large thread recently regarding drive-by Firefox add-ons
>being a major source of malware and now I find out that Mozilla it doing
>something similar with Windows. imo, they should ask before deciding to
>install it, even for Aurora installations.
You can configure if Firefox is auto updated in the settings. You can
>Apple and Google do something similar (a stealth update installation)
>with their software installation what with Google Update and Apple
>Update and I find both of those annoying and somewhat shady. I mean,
>there's been a large thread recently regarding drive-by Firefox add-ons
>being a major source of malware and now I find out that Mozilla it doing
>something similar with Windows. imo, they should ask before deciding to
>install it, even for Aurora installations.
set it to not auto update.
Jeff
Chris Ilias
Mar 16, 2012, 7:41:32 PM3/16/12
to
On 12-03-16 1:41 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
> setting was set. It's not part of "Options" setting but, rather, an
> option that is presented during the installation process.
Nope. Here's a screenshot
<http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>> On 15/03/2012 12:57 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>
> I believe Chris referenced the wrong place for where that particular
>>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>
> setting was set. It's not part of "Options" setting but, rather, an
> option that is presented during the installation process.
Nope. Here's a screenshot
<http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Christian Riechers
Mar 18, 2012, 6:24:36 PM3/18/12
to
On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-03-16 1:41 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>> On 15/03/2012 12:57 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>>>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>>>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>>
>> I believe Chris referenced the wrong place for where that particular
>> setting was set. It's not part of "Options" setting but, rather, an
>> option that is presented during the installation process.
>
> Nope. Here's a screenshot
> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>
The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets installed when
> On 12-03-16 1:41 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>> On 15/03/2012 12:57 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>>>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>>>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>>
>> I believe Chris referenced the wrong place for where that particular
>> setting was set. It's not part of "Options" setting but, rather, an
>> option that is presented during the installation process.
>
> Nope. Here's a screenshot
> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>
installed updating from FF11 beta.
But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work in FF12
beta, or is this still work in progress?
--
Christian
Chris Ilias
Mar 18, 2012, 6:41:10 PM3/18/12
to
<http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
Message has been deleted
Ann Watson
Mar 19, 2012, 9:10:36 AM3/19/12
to
On 18/03/2012 6:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-03-18 6:24 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>> On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. Here's a screenshot
>>> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>>
>> The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets
>> installed when
>> installed updating from FF11 beta.
>> But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work
>> in FF12
>> beta, or is this still work in progress?
>
> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>
>
Perhaps it was that feature that caused my Avast Anti-virus to
> On 12-03-18 6:24 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>> On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. Here's a screenshot
>>> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>>
>> The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets
>> installed when
>> installed updating from FF11 beta.
>> But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work
>> in FF12
>> beta, or is this still work in progress?
>
> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>
>
throw a hissy fit when I upgraded to Firefox 12.0 beta recently?
The silent update service didn't get installed.
AW
Jay Garcia
Mar 19, 2012, 10:26:01 AM3/19/12
to
On 19.03.2012 08:10, Ann Watson wrote:
Sounds confusing to me. If the silent update feature didn't install (how
do you know it didn't) then Avast would not have complained, no? Do you
have UAC disabled?
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
do you know it didn't) then Avast would not have complained, no? Do you
have UAC disabled?
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Chris Ilias
Mar 19, 2012, 1:48:20 PM3/19/12
to
start a new thread, and try to give specific details, as well as your
info from Help-->Troubleshooting_Information.
Christian Riechers
Mar 19, 2012, 2:50:20 PM3/19/12
to
On 03/18/2012 11:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-03-18 6:24 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>> On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. Here's a screenshot
>>> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>>
>> The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets installed when
>> installed updating from FF11 beta.
>> But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work in FF12
>> beta, or is this still work in progress?
>
> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>
My question was about the update service (a.k.a. Mozilla Maintenance
> On 12-03-18 6:24 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>> On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. Here's a screenshot
>>> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>>
>> The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets installed when
>> installed updating from FF11 beta.
>> But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work in FF12
>> beta, or is this still work in progress?
>
> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>
Service) not being started on my Vista laptop.
How is a FF update supposed to be installed when the corresponding
service is not started?
When I try to start it manually I get the following pop-up message:
"The Mozilla Maintenance Service service on Local Computer started and
then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they are not in use by
other services or programs."
The start type is set to 'Manual'.
Any clues how this is supposed to work?
Also, will the update service be available for the Linux version?
Thanks.
--
Christian
Christian Riechers
Mar 19, 2012, 2:54:57 PM3/19/12
to
On 03/15/2012 02:09 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Jeff Grossman graced us with on
> 3/14/2012 5:12 PM:
>>> 3/13/2012 7:57 PM:
>>>> On 12-03-13 3:01 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>>>> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>>>> I assume you are on the Aurora channel. The Mozilla Maintenance
>>>> Service is part of the silent update feature. If you uninstall it,
>>>> updating will fall back to the old way (with a Windows UAC prompt).
>>>>
>>> I'm on all the channels Beta, Aurora and Nightlies. I did uninstall
>>> it and am pleased to report that nothing unpleasant has become of it
>>> ... so far :)
>>
>> You don't want updates to be applied in the background? With Aurora
>> and Nightly (which update every day) it is nice to have it in the
>> background without any prompts. Also, they are working on updating in
>> the background while the program is running. You will still need to
>> restart to being using the newer version, but you won't have to wait
>> for it to update when you first start Firefox.
>>
> I don't prefer auto-updates with any software. I use each channel
> primarily to periodically test my themes and extensions. Rather than
> have it update often, it better for me to decide when I want the update.
>
According to this web site given somewhere else in this thread you can
still control updates with the service installed.
http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/
Quote:
"None of the work I’m describing here takes away your ability to control
updates, of course. You can choose to be prompted for each update if you
want, but for most people that’s just a nuisance. And on fresh installs,
when Firefox really *is* a new program on the system, UAC will always
double check that you actually meant to install it. (You did, didn’t you?)"
Uninstalling or removing the update service sounds silly to me.
--
Christian
> My bloviated meandering follows what Jeff Grossman graced us with on
> 3/14/2012 5:12 PM:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:58:21 -0700, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
>>
>>> 3/13/2012 7:57 PM:
>>>> On 12-03-13 3:01 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>>>> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>>>> I assume you are on the Aurora channel. The Mozilla Maintenance
>>>> Service is part of the silent update feature. If you uninstall it,
>>>> updating will fall back to the old way (with a Windows UAC prompt).
>>>>
>>> I'm on all the channels Beta, Aurora and Nightlies. I did uninstall
>>> it and am pleased to report that nothing unpleasant has become of it
>>> ... so far :)
>>
>> You don't want updates to be applied in the background? With Aurora
>> and Nightly (which update every day) it is nice to have it in the
>> background without any prompts. Also, they are working on updating in
>> the background while the program is running. You will still need to
>> restart to being using the newer version, but you won't have to wait
>> for it to update when you first start Firefox.
>>
> I don't prefer auto-updates with any software. I use each channel
> primarily to periodically test my themes and extensions. Rather than
> have it update often, it better for me to decide when I want the update.
>
According to this web site given somewhere else in this thread you can
still control updates with the service installed.
http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/
Quote:
"None of the work I’m describing here takes away your ability to control
updates, of course. You can choose to be prompted for each update if you
want, but for most people that’s just a nuisance. And on fresh installs,
when Firefox really *is* a new program on the system, UAC will always
double check that you actually meant to install it. (You did, didn’t you?)"
Uninstalling or removing the update service sounds silly to me.
--
Christian
Ann Watson
Mar 19, 2012, 3:33:23 PM3/19/12
to
On 19/03/2012 10:26 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 19.03.2012 08:10, Ann Watson wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 18/03/2012 6:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> On 12-03-18 6:24 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>>> On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Here's a screenshot
>>>>> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>>>>
>>>> The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets
>>>> installed when
>>>> installed updating from FF11 beta.
>>>> But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work
>>>> in FF12
>>>> beta, or is this still work in progress?
>>>
>>> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
>>> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps it was that feature that caused my Avast Anti-virus to throw a
>> hissy fit when I upgraded to Firefox 12.0 beta recently? The silent
>> update service didn't get installed.
>>
>> AW
>
> Sounds confusing to me. If the silent update feature didn't install (how
> do you know it didn't) then Avast would not have complained, no? Do you
> have UAC disabled?
>
It was an assumption I made when Avast wanted permission to
> On 19.03.2012 08:10, Ann Watson wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 18/03/2012 6:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> On 12-03-18 6:24 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>>> On 03/17/2012 12:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Here's a screenshot
>>>>> <http://ilias.ca/screenshots/aurora-silentupdate.png>.
>>>>
>>>> The option is there in FF12, and the update service gets
>>>> installed when
>>>> installed updating from FF11 beta.
>>>> But it cannot be started (yet). Do silent updates already work
>>>> in FF12
>>>> beta, or is this still work in progress?
>>>
>>> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
>>> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps it was that feature that caused my Avast Anti-virus to throw a
>> hissy fit when I upgraded to Firefox 12.0 beta recently? The silent
>> update service didn't get installed.
>>
>> AW
>
> Sounds confusing to me. If the silent update feature didn't install (how
> do you know it didn't) then Avast would not have complained, no? Do you
> have UAC disabled?
>
change a .tmp file (I don't remember which but it wasn't terribly
obvious at the time where the .tmp file was located) when Firefox
was updating to 12 beta. I denied the Avast
permission request but Firefox installed fine anyway so I assumed
it was the update service that caused the permission request. As
it turns out, it was the wrong assumption because the update
service did install as well.
AW
Ann Watson
Mar 19, 2012, 3:59:25 PM3/19/12
to
On 19/03/2012 1:48 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-03-19 9:10 AM, Ann Watson wrote:
>> On 18/03/2012 6:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
>>> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it was that feature that caused my Avast Anti-virus to
>> throw a
>> hissy fit when I upgraded to Firefox 12.0 beta recently? The
>> silent
>> update service didn't get installed.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "throw a hissy fit". It would be
> best to start a new thread, and try to give specific details, as
> well as your info from Help-->Troubleshooting_Information.
>
There is no real problem, Chris, other than the fact that when I
> On 12-03-19 9:10 AM, Ann Watson wrote:
>> On 18/03/2012 6:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> It landed on the beta channel this past week.
>>> <http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/16/silencing-updates/>
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it was that feature that caused my Avast Anti-virus to
>> throw a
>> hissy fit when I upgraded to Firefox 12.0 beta recently? The
>> silent
>> update service didn't get installed.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "throw a hissy fit". It would be
> best to start a new thread, and try to give specific details, as
> well as your info from Help-->Troubleshooting_Information.
>
installed the update to Firefox 12 beta, Avast asked permission
to change a .tmp file and since I could not immediately figure
out where that .tmp file was located I denied the request. The
update installed fine regardless and I now see that I do have
something called the Mozilla Maintenance Service as well.
Should have read the release notes first like I did for the
Thunderbird 12 beta update!
Of course, I would hate to think that Firefox was over-ruling my
Avast-permissions decisions but there is no proof of this.
AW
Jay Garcia
Mar 19, 2012, 5:48:38 PM3/19/12
to
On 19.03.2012 14:59, Ann Watson wrote:
--- Original Message ---
--- Original Message ---
> There is no real problem, Chris, other than the fact that when I
> installed the update to Firefox 12 beta, Avast asked permission to
> change a .tmp file and since I could not immediately figure out where
> that .tmp file was located I denied the request. The update installed
> fine regardless and I now see that I do have something called the
> Mozilla Maintenance Service as well.
> Should have read the release notes first like I did for the Thunderbird
> 12 beta update!
>
> Of course, I would hate to think that Firefox was over-ruling my
> Avast-permissions decisions but there is no proof of this.
And just keep in mind (I figure that you do) that you're running two
> installed the update to Firefox 12 beta, Avast asked permission to
> change a .tmp file and since I could not immediately figure out where
> that .tmp file was located I denied the request. The update installed
> fine regardless and I now see that I do have something called the
> Mozilla Maintenance Service as well.
> Should have read the release notes first like I did for the Thunderbird
> 12 beta update!
>
> Of course, I would hate to think that Firefox was over-ruling my
> Avast-permissions decisions but there is no proof of this.
"beta's", not releases and anything can happen and things can change
daily, sometimes for the worse until fixed the next day, etc.
»Q«
Mar 19, 2012, 10:26:45 PM3/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:50:20 +0100
Christian Riechers <chrie...@netscape.net.invalid> wrote:
> My question was about the update service (a.k.a. Mozilla Maintenance
> Service) not being started on my Vista laptop.
> How is a FF update supposed to be installed when the corresponding
> service is not started?
> When I try to start it manually I get the following pop-up message:
> "The Mozilla Maintenance Service service on Local Computer started and
> then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they are not in use
> by other services or programs."
> The start type is set to 'Manual'.
> Any clues how this is supposed to work?
Firefox will start updater.exe, and updater.exe will start the
Christian Riechers <chrie...@netscape.net.invalid> wrote:
> My question was about the update service (a.k.a. Mozilla Maintenance
> Service) not being started on my Vista laptop.
> How is a FF update supposed to be installed when the corresponding
> service is not started?
> When I try to start it manually I get the following pop-up message:
> "The Mozilla Maintenance Service service on Local Computer started and
> then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they are not in use
> by other services or programs."
> The start type is set to 'Manual'.
> Any clues how this is supposed to work?
service, including passing parameters to the service. See
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update#Applying_an_update_from_Firefox.27s_perspective>.
(NB: that wiki page shows the *plan* for the service, and some of the
details may have changed in actual implementation, but AFAICT at
least the "how it works" overview is still right. Try the parameters
listed at your own risk. ;)
> Also, will the update service be available for the Linux version?
app with user-level permission to start a system service on a Linux
system, but I could be wrong.
goodwin
Mar 20, 2012, 12:38:11 AM3/20/12
to
On 03/19/2012 07:26 PM, »Q« wrote:
>> Also, will the update service be available for the Linux version?
> I don't think so, but I can't be sure. AFAIK, there's not a way for an
> app with user-level permission to start a system service on a Linux
> system, but I could be wrong.
Interesting point - but that doesn't sound right - what service does
>> Also, will the update service be available for the Linux version?
> I don't think so, but I can't be sure. AFAIK, there's not a way for an
> app with user-level permission to start a system service on a Linux
> system, but I could be wrong.
linux need running?
goodwin
Mar 20, 2012, 12:51:28 AM3/20/12
to
Ann Watson
Mar 20, 2012, 8:45:18 AM3/20/12
to
On 19/03/2012 5:48 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 19.03.2012 14:59, Ann Watson wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> There is no real problem, Chris, other than the fact that when I
>> installed the update to Firefox 12 beta, Avast asked permission to
>> change a .tmp file and since I could not immediately figure out where
>> that .tmp file was located I denied the request. The update installed
>> fine regardless and I now see that I do have something called the
>> Mozilla Maintenance Service as well.
>> Should have read the release notes first like I did for the Thunderbird
>> 12 beta update!
>>
>> Of course, I would hate to think that Firefox was over-ruling my
>> Avast-permissions decisions but there is no proof of this.
>
> And just keep in mind (I figure that you do) that you're running two
> "beta's", not releases and anything can happen and things can change
> daily, sometimes for the worse until fixed the next day, etc.
>
You mean Avast was a beta version too - yikes! I've usually
> On 19.03.2012 14:59, Ann Watson wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> There is no real problem, Chris, other than the fact that when I
>> installed the update to Firefox 12 beta, Avast asked permission to
>> change a .tmp file and since I could not immediately figure out where
>> that .tmp file was located I denied the request. The update installed
>> fine regardless and I now see that I do have something called the
>> Mozilla Maintenance Service as well.
>> Should have read the release notes first like I did for the Thunderbird
>> 12 beta update!
>>
>> Of course, I would hate to think that Firefox was over-ruling my
>> Avast-permissions decisions but there is no proof of this.
>
> And just keep in mind (I figure that you do) that you're running two
> "beta's", not releases and anything can happen and things can change
> daily, sometimes for the worse until fixed the next day, etc.
>
found Firefox betas quite stable. Alphas on the other hand are
more iffy.
AW
Jay Garcia
Mar 20, 2012, 8:53:06 AM3/20/12
to
the last minunte or even a security issue that pops up.
Ron Hunter
Mar 20, 2012, 2:10:00 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012 7:53 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 20.03.2012 07:45, Ann Watson wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 19/03/2012 5:48 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 19.03.2012 14:59, Ann Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>
>> You mean Avast was a beta version too - yikes! I've usually found
>> Firefox betas quite stable. Alphas on the other hand are more iffy.
>
> No, the two FF betas. And even a beta can exhibit stabilitiy problems at
> the last minunte or even a security issue that pops up.
>
So can, and do, release versions. I have been using the Firefox beta
> On 20.03.2012 07:45, Ann Watson wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 19/03/2012 5:48 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 19.03.2012 14:59, Ann Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>
>> You mean Avast was a beta version too - yikes! I've usually found
>> Firefox betas quite stable. Alphas on the other hand are more iffy.
>
> No, the two FF betas. And even a beta can exhibit stabilitiy problems at
> the last minunte or even a security issue that pops up.
>
versions for a long time. I haven't had a crash since 10/29/11.
Christian Riechers
Mar 20, 2012, 3:00:35 PM3/20/12
to
On 03/20/2012 03:26 AM, »Q« wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:50:20 +0100
> Christian Riechers <chrie...@netscape.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> My question was about the update service (a.k.a. Mozilla Maintenance
>> Service) not being started on my Vista laptop.
>> How is a FF update supposed to be installed when the corresponding
>> service is not started?
>> When I try to start it manually I get the following pop-up message:
>> "The Mozilla Maintenance Service service on Local Computer started and
>> then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they are not in use
>> by other services or programs."
>> The start type is set to 'Manual'.
>> Any clues how this is supposed to work?
>
> Firefox will start updater.exe, and updater.exe will start the
> service, including passing parameters to the service. See
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update#Applying_an_update_from_Firefox.27s_perspective>.
> (NB: that wiki page shows the *plan* for the service, and some of the
> details may have changed in actual implementation, but AFAICT at
> least the "how it works" overview is still right. Try the parameters
> listed at your own risk. ;)
Thanks, that explains it. I was somehow expecting a service permanently
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:50:20 +0100
> Christian Riechers <chrie...@netscape.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> My question was about the update service (a.k.a. Mozilla Maintenance
>> Service) not being started on my Vista laptop.
>> How is a FF update supposed to be installed when the corresponding
>> service is not started?
>> When I try to start it manually I get the following pop-up message:
>> "The Mozilla Maintenance Service service on Local Computer started and
>> then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they are not in use
>> by other services or programs."
>> The start type is set to 'Manual'.
>> Any clues how this is supposed to work?
>
> Firefox will start updater.exe, and updater.exe will start the
> service, including passing parameters to the service. See
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update#Applying_an_update_from_Firefox.27s_perspective>.
> (NB: that wiki page shows the *plan* for the service, and some of the
> details may have changed in actual implementation, but AFAICT at
> least the "how it works" overview is still right. Try the parameters
> listed at your own risk. ;)
running.
One detail is a bit disturbing though. In the 'Applying an update from
Firefox's perspective' section it says:
Firefox shuts itself down
My understanding was that FF keeps running and will pop-up a reminder
when not restarted within 24 hrs after applying the update.
>> Also, will the update service be available for the Linux version?
>
> I don't think so, but I can't be sure. AFAIK, there's not a way for an
> app with user-level permission to start a system service on a Linux
> system, but I could be wrong.
a security point of view.
I believe the way Chrome updates itself on Linux is by setting up an at
job. But either this doesn't work properly or I don't keep it running
long enough for this being triggered. Haven't really looked into the
details, as FF is and will continue to be my primary browser.
Even if not with a service, I'd hope that some sort of silent update
mechanism for FF on Linux will be implemented too.
--
Christian
goodwin
Mar 20, 2012, 7:31:53 PM3/20/12
to
On 03/20/2012 12:00 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
<snip>
> I'd hope that some sort of silent update
> mechanism for FF on Linux will be implemented too.
that sort of goes against the grain with linux, doesn't it?
linux is all about security and control - I, for one, would like a
prompt for any s/w change.
isn't this one of the bones of contention with FF and enterprise users -
the constant interruptions of new releases? /they/ don't want auto
anything...
<snip>
> I'd hope that some sort of silent update
> mechanism for FF on Linux will be implemented too.
linux is all about security and control - I, for one, would like a
prompt for any s/w change.
isn't this one of the bones of contention with FF and enterprise users -
the constant interruptions of new releases? /they/ don't want auto
anything...
Message has been deleted
Chris Ilias
Mar 20, 2012, 9:07:41 PM3/20/12
to
Chris Ilias
Mar 26, 2012, 11:26:08 PM3/26/12
to
On 12-03-15 1:50 PM, Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:
> Chris Ilias a écrit :
> automatically reinstall it ?
No. For more info, see <http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/133/>.
> Chris Ilias a écrit :
>> You can turn off silent updates by going to
>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>
> OTOH if you uninstall the auto-updater, isn't there a risk that Fx will
>> Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->Update, and unchecking "Use a background
>> service to install updates". You don't have to uninstall anything.
>
> automatically reinstall it ?
No. For more info, see <http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/133/>.
0 new messages