Asa Dotzler - Firefox and more

Is there anything more that Mozilla could be doing to promote/distribute AUS? It's nearly perfect and it'd be great to see other applications integrating it. I know the code's all there for anyone that wants to dig through LXR, I'm just wondering if there's some obstacle that I haven't foreseen or whether nobody's looking.

"Not being able to use Google office apps and other top 1000 sites"
What are these "other top 1000 sites"? Could you name at least ten of them for testing?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that when a new version of Opera is available, it prompts me right when I start up the browser and asks me if I want to download it. (Granted, it's not automatic, but it's really not that hard to do, either--just click Yes.)

You can clean up default interface in a few clicks, up to this state (modulo skin used): http://frontier.dottedmag.net/screenshots/opera.png

Those "mild performance improvements" put Opera well ahead of Fx (as if 9.23 wasn't sufficiently faster):

http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

Anyway, before complaining about security in Opera, how about fixing your own long-time security holes?

"Help > Check for updates".

Opera will also check automatically on startup and prompt if a new version is available.

But that means that you have to download and install Opera yourself, LionsPhil. What everyone in the Opera forums wants is for Opera to do it automatically like other browsers.

Olli mentioned once in a desktopteam comment that some sort of autoupdater might be available for kestrel, asked on irc recently and they said they are working upon it but have no idea when or if it'll be in 9.5, then again I personally don't see the point implementing an autoupdate feature for a beta/alpha etc, when its hardly going to be testable when there is no newer version available, plus including autoupdate from a final > beta is asking for trouble. I agree it needs such a feature, but I think adding that alone won't guarantee more users. And besides, if firefox cannot fix its 7(when i last read secunia) outstanding vulnerabilities, the point is moot.

Simon, an alpha/beta would actually be a great opportunity for testing an AUS. Such releases are considerably more frequent than final releases, making it easier to test how it goes with the users (not to mention they are more receptive to bugs than final users would be if the AUS was not well-tested enough, and that it's much more interesting for the developers that the beta-testers all are testing the most recent version, not reporting already-fixed bugs).

As for auto-updating from a final to a beta, no (serious) software normally does it. Only betas update to other betas. Firefox, for instance, uses the concept of channels: if you (manually) install a final release, you will subscribe to the release channel; if you install a beta, you'll subscribe to the beta channel; if you install a nightly, you're subscribed to the nightly channel. The interesting point about this method is that even if your beta eventually upgrades to the final version, you'll still get informed about future betas.

I would like to point out something.

"I'm really shocked that Opera has put as much effort as it has in updating features like the Opera email program, while failing to provide this most basic security feature available from all of the mainstream browsers."

You are not only shocked about the thing you mentioned, you are also failing to see an important point. The Opera Mail client is one of the features that makes users keep Opera, which converts simple users to Opera fans. The mail client is very nicely integrated and nice to use.

Obviously, I do not use Thunderbird. I prefer Opera Mail.

Investing resources in improvements for the Opera Mail client is a wise decision. It's better to have good features, instead of half-baked features. I'm not saying Opera Mail had serious issues - just serious performance issues. Probably, current users would end up dumping Opera for Firefox+Thunderbird if Opera would not make such improvements.

You are almost asking for no any other improvements until they finish an auto-updater.

Given the amount of features in Opera, it's very hard to make improvements across the board, while adding more, and more.

First, look at the amount of "cool & new" features in Firefox 2, versus 1.5.

Watching Opera users defend Opera's lack of autoupdate manager and lackluster update mechanism is like watching IE 6 users defend IE's lack of standards and lackluster standards implementation or ten years back watching Linux users defend a lack of polished Linux only programs and lackluster free software programs; a very sad, pitiful, and funny sight. By now almost everyone should realize that a lack of an autoupdate manager is one of the main deal breakers for Opera adoption. When Opera finally gets around to genuine autoupdates, I�ll take it seriously as a desktop browser. Who cares about the new features when the same glaring problems and complaints keep coming up again and again.

Also I'd like to point out, that because that opera is more of a cross-platform browser than firefox is, it is I assume difficult to make a working auto-update system that works cross platform, I mean would you like it if opera preferred to make auto-update just for windows, but forget about the other operating systems you have Opera on? I know I wouldn't. Auto-update imo is most needed for systems that don't allow easy updating of programs like windows does. I'm sure I'd use linux more often if I could update opera more easily than now on that platform.

It's no doubt difficult to make a cross-platform auto updater, but the one in Firefox runs on the core personal computer operating systems.

Sure, Opera would have to deal with the issue of many more platforms, but how many of those platforms actually need an application-based update process? I assume phones take care of their own updating, if any.

Nobody's really answered my first comment: AUS is available in the Mozilla source code, in plain sight on LXR... is there a huge obstacle to using it? It's cross platform (core platforms, at least) and it works. Okay, so it'd need a new interface from scratch, but the back-end seems solid.

==

Just FYI, defensive fanboys: I don't see where Asa suggested Opera receives no new features until an improved update mechanism is offered, he is making an assertion that Opera shouldn't receive any more users. Whether you agree with that or not is an entirely different debate.

My point of view is that feature work and core architecture work are usually in two different development domains, so I don't imagine that shifting focus from mail features to updating would really cut it anyway. It's like saying Firefox shouldn't get any new features until someone's pet bug is fixed, it just doesn't happen.

"Watching Opera users defend Opera's lack of autoupdate manager and lackluster update mechanism is like watching IE 6 users defend IE's lack of standards and lackluster standards implementation"

Or watching Firefox fans (or Asa) defend Firefox's many long-time security holes that are still open. An autoupdater doesn't help if you can't fix your security holes.

"By now almost everyone should realize that a lack of an autoupdate manager is one of the main deal breakers for Opera adoption."

Not really. Most people don't give a damn. It would be nice to have, though, and no one has said anything else, despite your attempt to lie about it. It's one of the most frequently requested features over at the Opera forums.

"When Opera finally gets around to genuine autoupdates, I’ll take it seriously as a desktop browser."

When Mozilla finally gets around to genuine security and fixes all their security holes, I'll take it seriously as a desktop browser. Until that happens, Asa's complaints about Opera ring hollow.

"Who cares about the new features when the same glaring problems and complaints keep coming up again and again."

Indeed, and Mozilla should learn from that and finally address certain long-standing problems that have been left to rot.

Mozilla has a pretty good security record, so I don't how it can suddenly become an avenue for attack by Opera fans vaguely annoyed that Asa doesn't love everything about Opera yet.

According so Secunia, the only open issues with Firefox are extremely minor and low-risk. Generally these issues are open longer because they're tricky to fix.

Opera may fix these smaller bugs faster, and that's great too - more power to them for that. But if a serious vulnerability comes up, and a fix is as forthcoming as it usually is for Opera - what's the turnaround time? What's the hit on the servers because of all of the extra 4MB downloads? How many users decide not to update immediately, or at all, because of the minor inconvenience? These are still important issues, that can't be brushed aside because some pitifully minor security bugs exist in Firefox.

In contrast, Firefox has a ridiculously awesome speed of getting updates out to users and solving most of those problems - something that is a huge benefit if there is actually a serious vulnerability. Yes, Mozilla could probably invest more time/effort into the minor bugs, but I haven't personally looked into how difficult they are to fix and it seems that the security benefit would not be that great.

As a side note, if you want to bitch about security, stick to beating on IE, which has consistently left users at risk from much more severe security holes. Yes, even in IE7.

As far as I'm concerned, assuming that you keep up-to-date, there's really not much of a difference between Firefox and Opera in terms of how secure you are on the web **REALISTICALLY**. But, making the process of keeping up-to-date easier is certainly an admirable goal, and Opera could very much learn from (or benefit from using) Mozilla's AUS. I'm not sure how anyone can really take issue with this assertion. Don't you guys want smaller downloads? :)

"Mozilla has a pretty good security record, so I don't how it can suddenly become an avenue for attack by Opera fans vaguely annoyed that Asa doesn't love everything about Opera yet."

Asa doesn't have to love everything about Opera. He should just focus on fixing his own bugs before making a big deal out of what Opera does, otherwise he comes across as a hypocrite. People are calling him out on his thinly veiled agenda.

"According so Secunia, the only open issues with Firefox are extremely minor and low-risk. Generally these issues are open longer because they're tricky to fix. "

That doesn't change the fact of open security holes. There's also that "chrome:" hole that was known and open for several years.

"What's the hit on the servers because of all of the extra 4MB downloads?"

Opera has dozens of download mirrors, so downloading it is never a problem. Their servers can easily handle it.

"These are still important issues, that can't be brushed aside because some pitifully minor security bugs exist in Firefox."

No one is brushing anything aside. Automatic updates is one of the most wanted feature among Opera users. What people are doing is to point out Asa's hypocrisy. He clearly has an agenda. But before trying to dig up as much dirt as possible on the competition, he should make sure his own track record is perfect. It isn't.

"Yes, Mozilla could probably invest more time/effort into the minor bugs"

Speaking of "brushing aside"...

>>The combination of increased market share and growing popularity among web developers was a real boon for Firefox's website compatibility and without strong compatibility, mass adoption is a fantasy.

So, web developers are writing code for a specific browser or two. Beautiful. If standards were followed, which browser one is using would be irrelevant. That's my dream, not 1 billion Firefox users. Although I do understand that might not be quite as good for Mozilla's bottom line. And here I thought all this time that Mozilla was "passionate about open standards"... yeah, right.

>>...there are just too many sites that still block Opera completely. Not being able to use Google office apps and other top 1000 sites is just a deal-breaker for so many people.

Is it Opera's fault if webmasters block Opera? I remember that there was a similar problem with Picasa. Google would block Opera, although it worked just fine on Opera. Might it not be the same with Google Docs? If so, you can't blame Opera for Google's browser-sniffing tactics. Ahhhh, the benefits of "synergy".

I am a geek. I installed Opera on all of the laptops of my family members. I did it because I thought it's easy enough to use, and yet, almost never targeted by security exploits. So it would protect them from the evils of the Net.

However, due to lack of autoupdate, I discovered that most of them still use the version I installed, which was sometimes years ago. IE, however often targeted, is always at the latest version. Therefore I realised it is actually currently a better choice for secure browsing for nontechies than Opera is.

Now, Firefox is the best of both worlds, but it only recently became available in the local language, so was not an option when I installed Opera for them. Just an other perspective.