Firefox auto update

[Beatnikboy]

Firefox 2.0.0.14 has been available for a while now but in Mint it hasn't updated.
The option to auto update in Firefox is grayed out.
Why is this? Aren't they usually security related?

[Fred]

Beatnikboy,

Yes, they usually are security related.... Windows security related.

Fred

[Beatnikboy]

Yes, they usually are security related.... Windows security related.

Fred

Thanks Fred,
Seems my Puppy Linux install is Windoze based then, as it auto updated ages ago.

[atlef]

As I understand, Mint updates are directly connected with Ubuntu updates. If Ubuntu has updated to 2.0.0.14, then Mint will also get it.
But you can of course do this yourself.
If you want to download the latest version from the site, place it on your Desktop. Then:
cd ~/Desktop
tar xvzf firefox-2.0.0.14.tar.gz
cd firefox
./firefox

Make sure firefox is closed when you do this.

atlef.

[Fred]

Beatnikboy,

Seems my Puppy Linux install is Windoze based then, as it auto updated ages ago.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. My point was that most of the security related updates affect and apply to Windows installs rather than Linux installs. It doesn't mean there is one version number for Linux and another for Windows.

I am fairly familiar with Puppy Linux, use it myself as a tool kit. If you have Puppy installed conventionally to a hard drive, you run in root all the time. This is very unwise, and you should be more concerned with venerabilities. Puppy doesn't have a security team nor the infrastructure to push security fixes to its users, therefore it is dependent on upstream fixes to the applications themselves.

As atlef pointed out, Mint uses the Ubuntu repos. Ubuntu has a rather large and active security team. They are constantly issuing security updates. Just because the version number hasn't changed doesn't mean that Ubuntu and diriviatives are venerable. Actually, Ubuntu venerabilities are dealt with pretty rapidly.

Sometimes a bit of research is in order before jumping to conclusions. The higher version number is not necessarily indicative of a better or more secure program, within the context of the overall system it is running on.

Fred

[Beatnikboy]

Beatnikboy,

Seems my Puppy Linux install is Windoze based then, as it auto updated ages ago.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. My point was that most of the security related updates affect and apply to Windows installs rather than Linux installs. It doesn't mean there is one version number for Linux and another for Windows.

Fair enough, I was just a little concerned that I was getting one of those dismissive "Linux can't get virus's" type replies. Which of course it can. Its just more difficult to write them for Linux and well......there aren't any currently in the wild. But as Linux gains in popularity it maybe worth remembering this.

Anyway, a couple of Ubuntu user that I know and love are indeed using Firefox 2.14, so I guess they have manually updated.
Thanks for the "how to" atlef

A note on Puppy Linux

No I don't have Puppy installed conventionally to a hard drive. Puppy is not really designed to work that way, but it can be done.

I have it installed frugally ie a copy of the iso on the HD (I'm sure you know this Fred) with a save file, a folder with a Linux file system inside it.

This way of running affords many advantages, ie. If I were to be become victim to the "nasties" or some sort of corruption, I can simply delete these files from the HD and then restore them from the cd and an external backup I have made of my save file. Hey presto I'm back up and running in a few minutes.

Also if I need to visit site of a dubious nature or simply want to feel confident during a spot of online banking, I can boot from the cd and load the whole OS directly into ram, no HD required. Then when I power off anything nasty disappears.
I think from this perspective Puppy is very safe indeed, whether running root or not.

Thanks for the replies, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, I just need to get my head around how these larger Distro's work.

Beatnikboy

[kenetics]

Mint uses a branded version of Firefox, which identifies the user agent as Linux Mint and helps generate revenue for Mint. It has to be updated by Mint before being put in the repos. See the following for more information and Clem's explanation:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9504&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=mint+firefox

Ken

[Beatnikboy]

Ken thanks for the Info.

Mint uses a branded version of Firefox, which identifies the user agent as Linux Mint and helps generate revenue for Mint. It has to be updated by Mint before being put in the repos.
Ken

Ahh, Cash, branding and Distrowatch stats.

That makes much more sense to me than Freds suggestion about the Ubuntu repo's and....

Sometimes a bit of research is in order before jumping to conclusions. The higher version number is not necessarily indicative of a better or more secure program, within the context of the overall system it is running on.

Especially since I have discovered that version 2..14 has been available for Ubuntu for a few days now.
-
Sadly I have already edited my Mintgoogle search engine page as it didn't have the UK specific button.

Question answered,
thanks very much!

Beatnikboy

[Fred]

Beatnikboy,

Even though 2.0---14 may now be in the Ubuntu repos, The accuracy of my post still stands. That is the way the system works. I didn't just dream it up my friend. You have no security problem if you run the 2.0---- 13 branded version in Mint.

Title: Crash in JavaScript garbage collector
Impact: Critical
Announced: April 16, 2008
Reporter: Mozilla Developers
Products: Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey

Fixed in: Firefox 2.0.0.14
Thunderbird 2.0.0.14
SeaMonkey 1.1.10
Description

Fixes for security problems in the JavaScript engine described in MFSA 2008-15 (CVE-2008-1237) introduced a stability problem, where some users experienced crashes during JavaScript garbage collection. This is being fixed primarily to address stability concerns.

Attachments
Apple Crash Report (23.58 KB, text/plain)
2008-03-27 20:28 PDT, Kohei Yoshino no flags Details
Windows Vista Talkback Log (126.52 KB, text/plain)
2008-03-27 21:44 PDT, Kohei Yoshino

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Fred

[Beatnikboy]

Fred

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Fred

No it certainly doesn't.

My OPing asked why I could not auto update.
This has been answered.

Your post tells me that "critical" updates that are fixed in 2..14, Mint uses 2..13, are being withheld because "some users" IE a minority, are expressing stability concerns.

Firefox has updated, Ubuntu has updated, everyones updated. Why not Mint?

Branding thats why! And I have no problem with this, so long as the updates don't lag for too long,

But isn't this a good case in point for the upstream updates you criticised?

After all Linux is all about freedom and choice.

Beatnikboy