Mozilla Maintenance Service

I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.

What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/13/2012 7:01:16 PM
mozilla.support.firefox 24318 articles. 8 followers. Post Follow

50 Replies
19915 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 10

Sailfish wrote the following on 3/13/2012 12:01 PM:
> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>
> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>

Here's some info:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update

Other than that, that's all I know about it.

Lance
*****
0
Lance
3/13/2012 9:05:42 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Lance graced us with on 3/13/2012 
2:05 PM:
> Sailfish wrote the following on 3/13/2012 12:01 PM:
>> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>>
>> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>>
> Here's some info:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update
> 
> Other than that, that's all I know about it.
> 
Thanks, that's quite a bit of information; although, I didn't read what 
happens if I uninstall it? I'm about to find out, I guess. :)

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/13/2012 9:38:31 PM
On 03/13/2012 10:38 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Lance graced us with on 3/13/2012
> 2:05 PM:
>> Sailfish wrote the following on 3/13/2012 12:01 PM:
>>> I just noticed the subject program in my Win7 Program & Features list.
>>>
>>> What is it and what are the implications if I uninstall it?
>>>
>> Here's some info:
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update
>>
>> Other than that, that's all I know about it.
>>
> Thanks, that's quite a bit of information; although, I didn't read what
> happens if I uninstall it? I'm about to find out, I guess. :)
> 
Keep us updated. I'm curious as well.
0
Gelomida
3/14/2012 12:20:03 AM
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
0
Chris
3/14/2012 2:57:59 AM
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 :)

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/14/2012 3:58:21 AM
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.

Jeff
0
Jeff
3/15/2012 12:12:32 AM
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.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/15/2012 1:09:57 AM
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,

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)


0
Gelomida
3/15/2012 10:04:36 AM
On 15/03/2012 6:04 AM, Gelomida wrote:
> 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,
>
> 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)

+1

Updates should never be allowed to interfere with actual work.

Wolf K.
FF3.6.27, TB 7.0.1
0
Greywolf
3/15/2012 1:52:57 PM
On 12-03-15 6:04 AM, _Gelomida_ spoke thusly:
> 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,
>
> 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)

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.

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/15/2012 4:57:51 PM
Chris Ilias a �crit :
> 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 ?

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.
0
Jean
3/15/2012 5:50:20 PM
On 12-03-15 1:50 PM, _Jean-Marc Desperrier_ spoke thusly:
> Chris Ilias a �crit :
>> 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.
I don't even suggest trying it. :)

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/15/2012 6:28:04 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on 
3/15/2012 9:57 AM:
> On 12-03-15 6:04 AM, _Gelomida_ spoke thusly:
>> 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,
>>
>> 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)
> 
> 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.
> 
If I do that, will it uninstall the Mozilla Maintenance Service 
application? I'm really anal about having anything installed on my 
system that I don't need.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/15/2012 6:54:51 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on 
3/15/2012 9:57 AM:
> On 12-03-15 6:04 AM, _Gelomida_ spoke thusly:
>> 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,
>>
>> 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)
> 
> 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 don't see that option in Fx12.0a2, circa 2012-03-13, am I missing 
something?

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/15/2012 6:57:25 PM
On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Greywolf wrote:
> On 15/03/2012 6:04 AM, Gelomida wrote:
>> 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,
>>
>> 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)
>
> +1
>
> Updates should never be allowed to interfere with actual work.
>
> Wolf K.
> FF3.6.27, TB 7.0.1

I believe the plan is to load the update, but it won't take effect until 
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.

0
Ron
3/15/2012 8:45:04 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on 
3/15/2012 1:45 PM:
> On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Greywolf wrote:
>> On 15/03/2012 6:04 AM, Gelomida wrote:
>>> 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,
>>>
>>> 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)
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Updates should never be allowed to interfere with actual work.
>>
>> Wolf K.
>> FF3.6.27, TB 7.0.1
> 
> I believe the plan is to load the update, but it won't take effect until 
> 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.
> 
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.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/15/2012 9:27:57 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on 
3/15/2012 2:27 PM:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on 
> 3/15/2012 1:45 PM:
>> On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Greywolf wrote:
>>> On 15/03/2012 6:04 AM, Gelomida wrote:
>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Updates should never be allowed to interfere with actual work.
>>>
>>> Wolf K.
>>> FF3.6.27, TB 7.0.1
>>
>> I believe the plan is to load the update, but it won't take effect 
>> until 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.
>>
> 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.
> 
Opps! I just reinstalled the latest Aurora update and noticed that 
Mozilla does, indeed, ask the question during the installation. I must 
have missed it the last time I did an install?

Sorry Mozilla folks for painting you with the same stink-eye brush I 
reserve for other products.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/15/2012 9:42:39 PM
 =0D
Thanks, Sailfish=0D
=0D
I have now removed all traces of Mozilla Firefox from the drive=0D
=0D
The problem stemmed from the inabilty to open items without iether a long
delay ot a messge that Internet Explorer could not open the selected item=
=2E=0D
=0D
Maybe I will try to install it on a separate Windows 7 SP1 drive (note: I
have plug-in 350 GB hard drives)=0D
=0D
I note you clam to be a Netscape Champion (Wow I thought Netsape, which I
used in the past, no longer exists)=0D
=0D
Daniel.=0D
=0D
 =0D
 =0D
 =0D
 =0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
 =0D
From: Sailfish=0D
Date: 15/03/2012 21:45:36=0D
To: support-firefox@lists.mozilla.org=0D
Subject: Re: Mozilla Maintenance Service=0D
 =0D
My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on 3/15/2012
2:27 PM=0D
:=0D
 My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on 3/15/2=
012
1:45 PM: On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Greywolf wrote:=0D
On 15/03/2012 6:04 AM, Gelomida wrote:=0D
On 03/15/2012 01:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote:=0D
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:58:21 -0700, Sailfish wrote:pleased to report that
nothing unpleasant has become of it ... so far :)=0D
=0D
You don't want updates to be applied in the background?=0D
=0D
No,=0D
=0D
 Just two example:=0D
 I rarely accept updates while on battery and on a low performance wirele=
ss
network.=0D
=0D
I never accept updates while working on something busines critical close =
to
a dead line. (I'm not talking days, but hours)+1=0D
=0D
 Updates should never be allowed to interfere with actual work.=0D
=0D
 Wolf K.=0D
FF3.6.27, TB 7.0.1=0D
=0D
I believe the plan is to load the update, but it won't take effect until =
the
next time FF loads.  This is acceptable to me, but then Idon't use FF for
business oriented projects.  I can see how one might anticipate some
complications if an update happens in the middle ofworking on a project.=0D
=0D
Apple and Google do something similar (a stealth update installation) wit=
h
their software installation what with Google Update and Apple=0D
Update and I find both of those annoying and somewhat shady. I mean, ther=
e'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 somethin=
g
similar with Windows. imo, they should ask before deciding to install it,
even for Aurora installations.=0D
=0D
Opps! I just reinstalled the latest Aurora update and noticed that Mozill=
a
does, indeed, ask the question during the installation. I must=0D
have missed it the last time I did an install?=0D
 =0D
Sorry Mozilla folks for painting you with the same stink-eye brush I rese=
rve
for other products.=0D
 =0D
--=0D
Sailfish - Netscape Champion=0D
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/=0D
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/=0D
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/=0D
_______________________________________________=0D
support-firefox mailing list=0D
support-firefox@lists.mozilla.org=0D
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox=0D
To unsubscribe, send an email to support-firefox-request@lists.mozilla.or=
g?subject=3Dunsubscribe
0
d
3/16/2012 12:08:17 AM
My bloviated meandering follows what d.arbib@gmail.com graced us with on 
3/15/2012 5:08 PM:
> 
> I note you clam to be a Netscape Champion (Wow I thought Netsape, which I
> used in the past, no longer exists)
> 
Old Netscape Champions never dir, they just CSS3 fade away :)

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/16/2012 1:09:07 AM
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.

Thanks for that, Chris.

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.
0
Greywolf
3/16/2012 3:48:48 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Greywolf graced us with on 
3/16/2012 8:48 AM:
> 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.
> 
> Thanks for that, Chris.
> 
> 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.
> 
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.

I falsely claimed that it was installed stealthily originally but 
discovered afterwards that I had apparently ignored where it asked the 
question during the installation process.

[snip /]

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/16/2012 5:41:48 PM
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:48:48 -0400
Greywolf <wekirch@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
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.   
0
UTF
3/16/2012 7:32:52 PM
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
set it to not auto update.

Jeff
0
Jeff
3/16/2012 11:13:14 PM
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>.

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/16/2012 11:41:32 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on 
3/16/2012 4:41 PM:
> 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>.
> 
Dunno, here's mine:
http://projectit.com/multimedia/image/png/Fx11OptionsAdvancedUpdate.png

Mac vs. Windows difference?

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/17/2012 1:06:39 AM
On 12-03-16 9:06 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
> 3/16/2012 4:41 PM:
>> 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>.
>>
> Dunno, here's mine:
> http://projectit.com/multimedia/image/png/Fx11OptionsAdvancedUpdate.png
>
> Mac vs. Windows difference?

No, my screenshot was of Windows XP. For an image of what the Mac 
preferences panel looks like, see 
<http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Options%20window%20-%20Advanced%20panel#os=mac&browser=fx11>.

I did notice that your screenshot says "Firefox updates". Aurora builds 
are branded as "Aurora" not as Firefox. You sure that's the Aurora 
options window?

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/17/2012 3:20:37 AM
My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on 
3/16/2012 8:20 PM:
> On 12-03-16 9:06 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
>> 3/16/2012 4:41 PM:
>>> 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>.
>>>
>> Dunno, here's mine:
>> http://projectit.com/multimedia/image/png/Fx11OptionsAdvancedUpdate.png
>>
>> Mac vs. Windows difference?
> 
> No, my screenshot was of Windows XP. For an image of what the Mac 
> preferences panel looks like, see 
> <http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Options%20window%20-%20Advanced%20panel#os=mac&browser=fx11>. 
>

I asked about Mac since it was what you used to post in TB.

> I did notice that your screenshot says "Firefox updates". Aurora builds 
> are branded as "Aurora" not as Firefox. You sure that's the Aurora 
> options window?
> 
It was of Fx11.0FINAL but it looks exactly the same on my Aurora build:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0a2) Gecko/20120313 Firefox/12.0a2

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/17/2012 4:55:40 AM
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:55:40 -0700, Sailfish wrote:

>My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on 
>3/16/2012 8:20 PM:
>> On 12-03-16 9:06 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
>>> 3/16/2012 4:41 PM:
>>>> 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>.
>>>>
>>> Dunno, here's mine:
>>> http://projectit.com/multimedia/image/png/Fx11OptionsAdvancedUpdate.png
>>>
>>> Mac vs. Windows difference?
>> 
>> No, my screenshot was of Windows XP. For an image of what the Mac 
>> preferences panel looks like, see 
>> <http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Options%20window%20-%20Advanced%20panel#os=mac&browser=fx11>. 
>>
>
>I asked about Mac since it was what you used to post in TB.
>
>> I did notice that your screenshot says "Firefox updates". Aurora builds 
>> are branded as "Aurora" not as Firefox. You sure that's the Aurora 
>> options window?
>> 
>It was of Fx11.0FINAL but it looks exactly the same on my Aurora build:
>
>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0a2) Gecko/20120313 Firefox/12.0a2

I think it might be because you uninstalled the maintenance service.
The option might not be available if the service is not installed.

Jeff
0
Jeff
3/17/2012 2:56:01 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Jeff Grossman graced us with on 
3/17/2012 7:56 AM:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:55:40 -0700, Sailfish wrote:
> 
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on 
>> 3/16/2012 8:20 PM:
>>> On 12-03-16 9:06 PM, _Sailfish_ spoke thusly:
>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Chris Ilias graced us with on
>>>> 3/16/2012 4:41 PM:
>>>>> 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>.
>>>>>
>>>> Dunno, here's mine:
>>>> http://projectit.com/multimedia/image/png/Fx11OptionsAdvancedUpdate.png
>>>>
>>>> Mac vs. Windows difference?
>>> No, my screenshot was of Windows XP. For an image of what the Mac 
>>> preferences panel looks like, see 
>>> <http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Options%20window%20-%20Advanced%20panel#os=mac&browser=fx11>. 
>>>
>> I asked about Mac since it was what you used to post in TB.
>>
>>> I did notice that your screenshot says "Firefox updates". Aurora builds 
>>> are branded as "Aurora" not as Firefox. You sure that's the Aurora 
>>> options window?
>>>
>> It was of Fx11.0FINAL but it looks exactly the same on my Aurora build:
>>
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0a2) Gecko/20120313 Firefox/12.0a2
> 
> I think it might be because you uninstalled the maintenance service.
> The option might not be available if the service is not installed.
> 
If so, that would certainly explain it.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/17/2012 3:22:20 PM
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
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
0
Christian
3/18/2012 10:24:36 PM
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/>

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/18/2012 10:41:10 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what Christian Riechers graced us with 
on 3/18/2012 3:24 PM:
> 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
> 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?
> 
UA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/12.0
Fx: Firefox-12.0b1_20120317

It's not showing on mine but I disabled it during the installation. This 
suggests that it needs to installed before that option shows up in the 
Options>Advanced Update tab.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/18/2012 11:55:34 PM
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
0
Ann
3/19/2012 1:10:36 PM
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?

-- 
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/
0
Jay
3/19/2012 2:26:01 PM
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.

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/19/2012 5:48:20 PM
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
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
0
Christian
3/19/2012 6:50:20 PM
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:
>> 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
0
Christian
3/19/2012 6:54:57 PM
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 
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
0
Ann
3/19/2012 7:33:23 PM
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 
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

0
Ann
3/19/2012 7:59:25 PM
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.

-- 
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/
0
Jay
3/19/2012 9:48:38 PM
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:50:20 +0100
Christian Riechers <chriechers@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. ;)

> 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.
0
UTF
3/20/2012 2:26:45 AM
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 
linux need running?
0
goodwin
3/20/2012 4:38:11 AM
On 03/19/2012 09:38 PM, goodwin wrote:
> 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
> linux need running?

Sorry - meant to set a f/u
0
goodwin
3/20/2012 4:51:28 AM
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 
found Firefox betas quite stable.  Alphas on the other hand are 
more iffy.

AW
0
Ann
3/20/2012 12:45:18 PM
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.

-- 
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/
0
Jay
3/20/2012 12:53:06 PM
On 03/20/2012 03:26 AM, �Q� wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:50:20 +0100
> Christian Riechers <chriechers@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
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 suid root program could do that, but it isn't really a good idea from
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
0
Christian
3/20/2012 7:00:35 PM
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...
0
goodwin
3/20/2012 11:31:53 PM
My bloviated meandering follows what goodwin graced us with on 3/20/2012 
4:31 PM:
> 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...

Slightly different in that it's an Aurora channel feature and they are 
given the option to not install/enable it during installation.

-- 
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
0
Sailfish
3/21/2012 12:28:50 AM
On 12-03-20 7:31 PM, goodwin wrote:
> 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...

The silent update feature is Windows-only.

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/21/2012 1:07:41 AM
On 12-03-15 1:50 PM, Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:
> Chris Ilias a �crit :
>> 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 ?

No. For more info, see <http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/133/>.

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
3/27/2012 3:26:08 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Firefox NOT Supporting Standards Based Web Services
Name: Buck Email: bsmolowatgmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox NOT Supporting Standards Based Web Services Comments: Dear Firefox folks, After searching high and low for a contact managment application that suited my narrow needs, I found Qasper ( www.qasper.com ). I soon learned that the product only works with MSIE6. ARGH!! I wrote to the developers and received the following email. Please comment on it for me - it is contrary to what I expected. Thanks Buck Qasper Tech Support techsupport at qasper com to me show details Apr 8 (16 hours ago) The...

Firefox 3.6 does not support Text Services Framework or SAPI
Name: Product: Firefox Release Candidate Summary: Firefox 3.6 does not support Text Services Framework or SAPI Comments: It would be incredibly useful if Firefox supported Text Services Framework at least, if not SAPI. This would make it accessible to users of speech recognition. Text Services Framework DOES NOT replace SAPI. Text services framework supports dictation, while SAPI supports total voice control including dictation. It is preferable to have SAPI support, but if you can't do that then at least consider text services framework, please. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100105 Firefox/3.6 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

Firefox Support?
Hopefully someone will answer this. I have seen several posts asking about Firefox support in NW65SP3 with no responses. I see that support should be there in SP3, but it isn't working on any of the servers in our school district. I am running FF 1.0.4, and the 4.0.5 iPrint client. We are still receiving the message that iPrint is not installed. Is there something that I need to do on the server to enable iPrint support for other browsers? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy M. Musa Community Consolidated School District 93 ...

Firefox or not Firefox
Name: M B Fletcher Email: mf38794atntlworlddotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox or not Firefox Comments: You asked why I took it off but did not ask more than the basics. I put security but in fact I put on Fire fox today and found a GOOGLE front page for searching when I had nothing there before. I wondered if I had been hijacked or you had done a very stupid update. I still do not know for sure. I do not ever use Google that I know of. The biggest spy on computers in the world and you should know better. If I find it is correct on Firefox I will go back to IE. At...

firefox support
Name: hen Product: Firefox Summary: firefox support Comments: firefox should support Firefox 2.x.x.x and 3.x.x - 5 years to 7 years should be good support Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092417 Firefox/3.0.3 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

why not support firefox
Name: Email: michelwongatyahoodotcom Product: Firefox Summary: why not support firefox Comments: Dear Sirs I notice that many China website e.g. http://v.163.com/tvlist/borpage_81.html not support firefox but only IE. The box said : "您现在使用浏览器(如FireFox)无法正常观看,请使用 IE(Internet Explorer)浏览器打开此页面!". This is only 1 example, but there are many more cases like this from China sites. Another 1 is CCTV(http://vod.cctv.com/podcast/index), but after I ungrade to 3.5.3 recently, CCTV China pop-up a small box asking me to plugin, after that I can view it. Please improv...

Support Firefox
Name: Product: Firefox Summary: Support Firefox Comments: In US, online banks can be accessed by using firefox, which is not the case in China since in China banks usually issue a plug-in which is a pre-requsite and is only compatible with IE. I believe this problem hinders the more poluparization of FIREFOX in China. But in US, this is hardly a problem, I prefer Firefox. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; zh-CN; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.6 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response...

Firefox support
There is a new IPrint client (4.05) on Novell's site. Does this version support Firefox? Thanks. MC No issues for iPrint 4.0.5 under Firefox 1.0.1 and 1.0.2. I also had no issues under earlier iPrint clients either. >>> Mike<curt@fordhamprep.org> 4/14/2005 10:55 AM >>> There is a new IPrint client (4.05) on Novell's site. Does this version support Firefox? Thanks. MC Michael Fraser wrote: > No issues for iPrint 4.0.5 under Firefox 1.0.1 and 1.0.2. > > I also had no issues under earlier iPrint clients either. > >...

Firefox support
I have been experimenting around with Mozilla's Firefox browser, here are my questions: 1. has anyone else been looking into this, if so what have you found for compatibility 2. I have found that only 1 of the page layouts render correctly in Firefox, does anyone know why, or if this is being worked on? Thanks again for your time and knowledge 1. has anyone else been looking into this, if so what have you found for compatibility Some of the html editors don't work that well or at all in FF. 2. I have found that only 1 of the page layouts render correctly in Firefox, does an...

Firefox support should be ...
-- i think -- Firefox support should last 5 years to 7 years for Firefox 2.x.x.x and 3.x.x ...

Service Support?
Will Prism have the standard crappy windows service support that VS has? After creating services with Delphi I really did not like the way it was done in C# and VS. Even the simple service framework that Colin Wilson wrote a long time ago is more flexible and easier to work with than the VS services. I particularly like Colin's because you can run it as a console application during development with a simple command line switch I have not tried what is available in VS 2008 so maybe it's better now. Later, -- Tony Caduto AM Software Design http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com...

FIrefox support
I have had a message posted now for about two weeks in here and no replies - I'm used to the old Netscape support group that seemed to be very involved in anyone's issues - a lot of discussion and support. Does anyone have suggestions for links for technical support for Firefox browser? I like the browser and would like to switch over from Netscape but I need some help. Appreciate any ideas and links. On 23.09.2007 01:29, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused technical80@yahoo.com to generate the following:? : > I have had a message posted now for about two weeks in here and no > replies - I'm used to the old Netscape support group that seemed to be > very involved in anyone's issues - a lot of discussion and support. > Does anyone have suggestions for links for technical support for > Firefox browser? I like the browser and would like to switch over from > Netscape but I need some help. Appreciate any ideas and links. > > your previous message is still there 19th September news://news.mozilla.org:119/1190164277.257977.174570@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com re-post (QUOTE) I'm a new user to Firefox. Although it works ok - I'm not getting my displays to work properly. For example on the Yahoo home page in the left menu I get the verbiage ( ex sports), but not the icon. Same for all the pages. Downloaded current Flash - but no help (suggestion from tech at office). Also I get some windows that are cl...

Firefox Not supported
Name: Chris Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox Not supported Comments: Firefox not supported on NatWest online banking. Running Firefox version 3.1b3 Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; en-GB; rv:1.9.1b3) Gecko/20090305 Firefox/3.1b3 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

support/what support
Name: William Johnson Email: william0992atsbcglobaldotnet Product: Firefox Summary: support/what support Comments: your support? department for Firefox issues is nothing but a circular maze of unbelievably confusing information that is of no use for the layman and I would dump this piece of trash if I didn't need it for certain websites. I don't know how to reprogram the many bugs or fix the many websites broken by this thing and its "error console" with no directions as to what to do with it. What is it's purpose if there is no help function for it? ...

firefox services
Name: qotba Product: Firefox 2 Beta 2 Summary: firefox services Comments: very satisfyed with firefox services Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.1b2) Gecko/20060821 Firefox/2.0b2 ...

Firefox web services calls failing
Seems there are alot of people hvaing this error in FF.If you are running firebug you will see this wehn callsa WebService:[Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80040111 (NS_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE) [nsIXMLHttpRequest.status]" nsresult: "0x80040111 (NS_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE)" location: "JS frame :: http://localhost/ScriptResource.axd?d=vhIhLMYW5B4t5DgtK2x27YWvVxUiMHXlQkyoowHl8wI7lmbyqgYvK-y4WMh27tqIYTiGR6Qiw_UIEW4_FxAhkYuvGgJQMQNcaW0Uqa8LkDk1&t=633198294080000000 :: Sys$Net$XMLHttpExecutor$get_statusCode :: line 4166" data: no] return this....

Firefox 3.0 has broken the little AppleScript support remaining in Firefox
Name: James Yost Email: mrpersonatearthlinkdotnet Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox 3.0 has broken the little AppleScript support remaining in Firefox Comments: In previous versions of Firefox there was slight AppleScript support. Version 3 has broken what remained (i.e. properties of window n). The Macintosh community would welcome more AppleScript support - At least a "do javascript" command from AppleScript would help a great deal. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14 From URL: http...

Firefox add-on "slogger" no longer supported with Firefox 3.x
Hello everyone, I did some research on my own to find a replacement or a way to make it work with Firefox 3.x since I found it so convenient. Since this was not really successful I turn to the group if anyone has advice :-) slogger is an add-on that (as I configured it) keeps a monthly log of URLs that I loaded (with timestamps) and a text-only-version of the pages (named with the timestamp) so that I can do full-text-search. Whenever I didn't remember where I had been seeing some information I searched through these logs and I did find what I was looking for quite often (I wrote a BAT for it since I use it quite often). And I was able to quickly see where I've been when including the availability of removing noise via grep... Of course now that I have FF 3.0 and it doesn't work anymore I can simply start googling for what I'm searching but drilling down what I have already done before (and don't remember exactly when) is frustrating. These are the things I found so far: How-to to make slogger work with FF 3.0 (but only when triggered manually which is useless): http://firefoxjourney.blogspot.com/2008/06/enable-slogger-0620061221-with-firefox3.html Another add-ons I will try some time: WebMynd: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/6416 Breadcrumbs: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/2954 -- Armin ...

Partially self-built Firefox OS (was: Re: Supported locales in Firefox OS and OEMs)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > I _hope_ (as in, it fits with our principles, I think it was the case, > but I am not closely involved) that one thing we do require is for the > phones to be unlockable. So people can, at least theoretically, install > other builds of Firefox OS, including versions with different locales, > after they have purchased the phone. Of course, this would require > CyanogenMod-like engineering because the phones will have proprietary > drivers in them. Having to install a new native code...

Service Pack for IE Standad missing in FireFox can't use Firefox for MSN or Banking
Name: Georgina Grunden Email: ggrundden_at_dodo.com.au Product: Firefox Summary: Service Pack for IE Standad missing in FireFox can't use Firefox for MSN or Banking Comments: Is there a connection between the Service Pack 1 &/ SP2 of Microsoft and IE that is preventing FireFox being competitive. I always need to use the IE Browser to make these connections. Can this be rectified from the FireFox team. OR do I require the SP 1 &/or 2 to access banking and the above programs on FireFox. Kind Regards G Grunden Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Wind...

All version of Firefox (including Firefox 3.6.6) can not support some function (such as 巴士小巴 button) of the following website
Name: All version of Firefox (including Firefox 3.6.6) can not support some function (such as 巴士小巴 button) of the following website Email: All version of Firefox (including Firefox 3dot6dot6) can not support some function (such as 巴士小巴 button) of the following website Product: Firefox Summary: All version of Firefox (including Firefox 3.6.6) can not support some function (such as 巴士小巴 button) of the following website Comments: All version of Firefox (including Firefox 3.6.6) can not support some function (such as 巴士小巴 button) of the following website http://www.centamap.com/gc...

Firefox 3.5.2 doesn't support my Norton toolbar and I want to roll back to an earlier version of Firefox
Name: Gloria Schaab Email: glschaabatymaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox 3.5.2 doesn't support my Norton toolbar and I want to roll back to an earlier version of Firefox Comments: Firefox 3.5.2 doesn't support my Norton toolbar and I want to roll back to an earlier version of Firefox. Is that possible? If so, how? If I can't find a way to make the two compatible, I don't want to use Firefox. Please assist. Gloria Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090624 Firefox/3.5 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.o...

UEGENT
Name: Jerry Ward Email: jerrydotward686atcomcastdotnet Product: Firefox Summary: UEGENT - I need to re install Firefox 3.0x not 3.5 due to I need F5 network support which isnt supported by 3.5 Comments: How can I re installed version 3.0X? I cant find it on your web site. Thanks for any help. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090624 Firefox/3.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC ...

The SQL Server Service Broker for the current database is not enabled, and as a result query notifications are not supported. Please enable the Service Broker for this database if you wish to use not
Hello,          I receive this error  "The SQL Server Service Broker for the current database is not enabled, and as a result query notifications are not supported.  Please enable the Service Broker for this database if you wish to use notifications." I attach the database in Management Studio to query and enable the broker using the scrip below but to no avail. ALTER DATABASE DataName SET ENABLE_BROKER ‘''<<------successfulandSELECT is_broker_enabled FROM sys.databases WHERE name = 'Database name' ‘'''<<-------value is 1 Global.asax ...    Sub Application_Start(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As EventArgs)        System.Data.SqlClient.SqlDependency.Start(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings("dataConnectionString1").ConnectionString)    End Sub...Web.config ...    <connectionStrings>        <add name="dataConnectionString1" connectionString="Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\jbp_data.mdf;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True"         providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />        <add name="ASPNETDBConnectionString" connectionString="Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=|Dat...

Hi, I realise that the browser Firefox does not support Yahoo Radio. I only only use Internet Explorer to play Yahoo Radio. I suggest that any future browser of Modzilla Firefox should be made enabled
Name: francis Email: franciswriteratyahoodotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Hi, I realise that the browser Firefox does not support Yahoo Radio. I only only use Internet Explorer to play Yahoo Radio. I suggest that any future browser of Modzilla Firefox should be made enabled to receive Yahoo Radio. Thanks.... Comments: See above my summary Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...