Submitted by “Firefox 1.5.0.4 is a security update that is part of our ongoing program to provide a safe Internet experience for our customers. We recommend that all users upgrade to this latest version.” You guessed it, general bugfix and security fix release.
“Firefox 1.5.0.4 is a security update that is part of our ongoing program to provide a safe Internet experience for our customers. We recommend that all users upgrade to this latest version.” You guessed it, general bugfix and security fix release.
Nice popup window notified me of the update. It’s DONE, DONE, DONE! (monty python reference)
I just upgraded to 1.5.0.3 a few days ago, and to 1.5.0.2 a month ago. This is getting to be like Windows.
I upgraded to 1.5.0.3 quite a while ago.
EDIT: You don’t have to upgrade. You could actually _read_ the changelog to see if the fixes are important to you. Most security issues tend to be quite theoretical.
Edited 2006-06-02 20:38
I don’t know about you, but I prefer frequent updates over insecure, unpatched code. Now they still need to fix the Windows installer…
Would you rather they leave the software unpatched?
Hey, you can always counter any complaint by simply asking if we would rather have the alternative, but that’s kind of an empty comment. Of course I want Firefox to remain an excellent, safe browser. It’s been my browser of choice for some time now.
But I think my comparison is fair because in the past, security updates haven’t been needed very frequently.
Fair enough, if all that were being fixed were new bugs introduced between point releases.
But I think my comparison is fair because in the past, security updates haven’t been needed very frequently.
Since these are all pre-existing bugs, I think it is fair to say that security updates were desperately needed in the past, they just weren’t being made available.
Since these are all pre-existing bugs, I think it is fair to say that security updates were desperately needed in the past, they just weren’t being made available.
And that is true of Windows too. It is the similarity of circumstance that I lament. It should be obvious to even casual observers that it wouldn’t make any sense to lament that the bugs are being fixed.
You know, one of the reasons I post things on sites like this is to sharpen my communication skills. But when several people take my comment in an odd direction and run with it, I know I need more practice.
I don’t know, I’m liking this less and less… Gecko is starting to look very very buggy, and not as secure as I’d hoped. Not to mention that Firefox seems to get larger with each version, very much like Mozilla before it.
Also, I’m very annoyed that Mozilla.org creates all these big plans for XULRunner, and then repeatedly fails to update it along with other products, even in the face of critical security issues.
(Again: still waiting for GTK-Webcore development to unfreeze itself. Still waiting for the Gnome devs to fire up GTKHTML again. Still waiting for anything providing a good alternative to the bloated piece of garbage known as Gecko.)
A new updated look every few months would be cool.
Really cool !
Agree ?
Yeah, they should make it look more like Microsoft Office 2007!
“Firefox 2007” … that sounds about just right.
Another 2.2 days, another Firefox security hole.
WOW!
Thankfully IE7 is coming before the Firefox trainwreck destorys us all..
With the IE7, there is not the need to use this anymore in Windows..
I don’t see why frequent security updates are a bad thing. Firefox has an automatic update tool anyway, so all you have to do is restart your browser when it tells you it’s just installed a security update.
If the security experts are finding 3 vulnerabilities per week, then weekly updates are justified. The nature of the modern web is that new vulnerabilities are being discovered all the time. The browser with the least unpatched exploits (or underpatched users) will be the most secure, and a combination of frequent updates and automatic updating accomplishes these goals.
I don’t mind the frequent updates, as long as they don’t get more frequent than once per 24 hours.
What would be great was if there were some way to integrate the updates at runtime. But that might not be possible because of the way Windows handles executable images in memory.
> What would be great was if there were some way to > integrate the updates at runtime. But that might not > be possible because of the way Windows handles > executable images in memory.
And good thing. That, at least, isn’t a security disaster waiting to happen.
“with IE7 there is no need to use this” … are you insane? Yes IE7 is a lot better than IE6 but still has a horrible UI design. As far as the update release schedule goes … updates are a lot better than leaving the code unpatched. Also Firefox seems to consume a little bit less RAM than the previous release so thumbs up from me.
This is a very important build, it fixes a *very* bad bug that’s been in FF forever.
http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/181
Edited 2006-06-05 06:54