Exactly. Which is something I want to avoid.
Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
Forum rules
Before you post read how to get help. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Before you post read how to get help. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
what is the difference?drrummer wrote: ⤴Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:29 pmExactly. Which is something I want to avoid.
If you have auto updates in Linux Mint.. OR you have auto updates in firefox.. it becomes updated either way.
No one is controlling you.
I guess you are new from windows and is used to that windows let the apps update themselves. so that is the issue. not the update engine itself.
if you want my attention...quote me so I get a notification
Nothing is impossible, the impossible just takes a little longer to solve..
It is like it is.. because you do as you do.. if you hadn't done it as you did.. it wouldn't have become as it is. ;)
Nothing is impossible, the impossible just takes a little longer to solve..
It is like it is.. because you do as you do.. if you hadn't done it as you did.. it wouldn't have become as it is. ;)
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
You're using Facebook? I deleted my account several years ago because they were controlling what I could see in my feed and not giving me the option to see what I wanted to see. Additionally, they are not good at keeping one's information private or secure.
A woman typing on a laptop with LM20.3 Cinnamon.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
Wow - so helpful of you.
Anyway, I'm using Facebook container.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
You call it a problem. In my opinion it's just slightly weird wording. All it means is that your updates for Firefox come through the Mint updater system. Why would that be a problem?
If your issue is solved, kindly indicate that by editing the first post in the topic, and adding [SOLVED] to the title. Thanks!
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
There is really a problem, but the problem is not the controlling of the browser, but the really silly wording.
In the screenshot above one can read "controlled by your organization". Who is this organization? On a usually by one user used computer it is the user him-/her-self. But this silly wording makes this quite obvious fact somehow like voodoo. It does not provide any helpful information, but much misunderstanding and even mistrust. What would happen, if this silly sentence would not be written there: Simple answer: Nothing at all.
Even worse is the notification in the about window: updates deactivated by your system-administrator. This is not only misleading, it is simply wrong. The administrator is again usually the user and only in case of Alzheimer disease it would be understandable, if the user had forgotten, that (s)he did it. Actually the user did nothing. But giving a notice, which is for every person, who is able to read, wrong, can never lead into trust. So this notice is as well technically wrong as also from the point of social communication.
It would be so easy to write instead: Updates get automatically handled by the system. That would be honest and the (very most) users would not get nervous.
In the screenshot above one can read "controlled by your organization". Who is this organization? On a usually by one user used computer it is the user him-/her-self. But this silly wording makes this quite obvious fact somehow like voodoo. It does not provide any helpful information, but much misunderstanding and even mistrust. What would happen, if this silly sentence would not be written there: Simple answer: Nothing at all.
Even worse is the notification in the about window: updates deactivated by your system-administrator. This is not only misleading, it is simply wrong. The administrator is again usually the user and only in case of Alzheimer disease it would be understandable, if the user had forgotten, that (s)he did it. Actually the user did nothing. But giving a notice, which is for every person, who is able to read, wrong, can never lead into trust. So this notice is as well technically wrong as also from the point of social communication.
It would be so easy to write instead: Updates get automatically handled by the system. That would be honest and the (very most) users would not get nervous.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
I'm not sure now, but there were some features I couldn't access on the 'managed' version.
For one, 'Updates are disabled by your administrator'.
-
- Level 8
- Posts: 2300
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:40 pm
- Location: England
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
I don't see a problem in your image. What I do see is the same badly worded misleading phrase about management of the browser that we all have in Firefox, the true meaning of which has been explained several times already. It's unfortunate that Mint has not rewritten that phrase but eventually it will be changed. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Cliff Coggin
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
As long as you can't tell us what they were, we can't help in any way.
As above: All it means is that your updates for Firefox come through the Mint updater system. Why would that be a problem?For one, 'Updates are disabled by your administrator'.
If your issue is solved, kindly indicate that by editing the first post in the topic, and adding [SOLVED] to the title. Thanks!
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
Because I would prefer to manage the updates.Moem wrote: ⤴Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:01 amAs long as you can't tell us what they were, we can't help in any way.
As above: All it means is that your updates for Firefox come through the Mint updater system. Why would that be a problem?For one, 'Updates are disabled by your administrator'.
Anyway - my questions is not about the problems it causes, it is where it is located. I am trying to distinguish between the two versions. Everytime I open Gerbera, it opens in the Linux version. I have deleted various files in attempt to rid the machine of it, but it continues to open.
Last edited by drrummer on Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
Because myself I sometime noticed several days of latence before FF “Mint” updates when Mozilla ones existed for all OSes. When updates are often about security.
Last edited by LoVache on Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
You do manage the updates. The updates come through to Update Manager and YOU get to decide whether to apply them or not. That is the way it has always been and nothing changed.
There is no difference between you accepting and applying the updates which come through Update Manager and you accepting and applying the updates which come through Firefox. You are in charge in both cases.
I've been having issues with all versions of Firefox since version 102 and have been ignoring the notifications in Update Manager to install a newer version, because I'm in control. That little wording notice at the top of my browser changed nothing.
(Note: I'm running regression tests right now to help the Firefox programmers find the problem.)
You have not described any problems that Firefox is causing.
If you are having problems with Gerbera, then you should create a topic asking about Gerbera. I am not familiar with Gerbera.
A woman typing on a laptop with LM20.3 Cinnamon.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
That is not related at all to the wording in the browser. Updates for Firefox coming through Update Manager have always lagged the official version. Currently, the lag is smaller than what it was in the past because Linux Mint is no longer making changes to Firefox like it did in the past.
What you are describing is not related to the OP's concern.
A woman typing on a laptop with LM20.3 Cinnamon.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
SMG wrote: ⤴Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:46 amYou do manage the updates. The updates come through to Update Manager and YOU get to decide whether to apply them or not. That is the way it has always been and nothing changed.
There is no difference between you accepting and applying the updates which come through Update Manager and you accepting and applying the updates which come through Firefox. You are in charge in both cases.
I've been having issues with all versions of Firefox since version 102 and have been ignoring the notifications in Update Manager to install a newer version, because I'm in control. That little wording notice at the top of my browser changed nothing.
(Note: I'm running regression tests right now to help the Firefox programmers find the problem.)
You have not described any problems that Firefox is causing.
If you are having problems with Gerbera, then you should create a topic asking about Gerbera. I am not familiar with Gerbera.
I'll explain one more time:
1. The Linux Firefox tells me that updates are managed by my organisation. The option to check or perform updates is greyed out. That is the problem. I'm not even part of an organisation in this instance.
2. Gerbera isn't the problem, it is opening in Linux Firefox by default. This I'm sure if changeable in Gerbera settings. The issue is that Linux Firefox is still on my machine for Gerbera to be able to open it. I want to REMOVE LINUX FIREFOX from my machine.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
SMG wrote: ⤴Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:50 amThat is not related at all to the wording in the browser. Updates for Firefox coming through Update Manager have always lagged the official version. Currently, the lag is smaller than what it was in the past because Linux Mint is no longer making changes to Firefox like it did in the past.
What you are describing is not related to the OP's concern.
It absolutely is related. Because Linux insist on managing that version of Firefox, then there are lags with updates, however small they might be.
Re: Linux Firefox v Official Firefox
I prefer the wording "version compiled by Mozilla". As long as nobody proofs the contrary Mozilla as well as Mint compile from the same source code. It is a principle of open source, than the source code is available for everybody (for altering or simply compiling). Out of this reason is a "switch" from the Linux FF to the Official FF an imagination, it is a switch from A to A.
Out of this reason I wrote here that both are as official as the other, so something like a Linux FF vs. Official FF is simply wrong. It would be as if you would say, only a FF compiled by Mozilla member Q is the real one, and the compilation by R is not.