On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Mike Shaver wrote: > On 4-Feb-09, at 3:38 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >> I for one get annoyingly frequent XUL errors when opening bookmarks, >> or >> when entering URLs directly into the magnificentbar, after upgrading >> Mozilla (I can't vouch for whether this has happened only for major >> version upgrades - I believe it's happened at least once on a minor >> upgrade). Could it be something related to the dynamic loading of >> javascript & the DOM changing? Thunderbird & the address book has >> similar issues. > > If distro packages are overwriting the files with Firefox running, > then yes, you could get that effect. That's one reason our updater > doesn't work that way. :-/ Another is so that if something goes wrong > with installing update, the user is much more likely to have a working > browser left to use to research a solution! > > The combination of not screwing with the app while it's running, plus > in-band notification, plus shipping small deltas and downloading them > in the background, plus restoring the user's session[*] after upgrade > have given us a really good rate of update installation; it's now less > than 5 days for a given minor update to hit 90% adoption. Our delta > and patching code are available for anyone to use, of course, and > those pieces don't depend on anything else in our stack. > > [*] not yet integrated into X session stuff, or preserving window > position well -- would love some help with that from some experts in > such technology!
As mike points out this is a result of shipping updates through rpm/ deb and those updates being applied while the browser is still running. We dynamically load a lot of resources at runtime and if they move or are renamed, things can get exciting. We don't have this problem on mac or windows where the update is applied when the browser is restarted. It's also not a problem if you're using the Linux builds that we make, since it uses the same update mechanism as mac and windows. (I run nightly builds this way and am prompted by an update dialog every morning.) Historically we've always asked the user to update to the latest version manually - if they don't want to, they don't have to. I'll note, just for reference, that this is not what Google Chrome does. It updates security updates without asking or warning. I don't know what will happen with major updates but it will be interesting to see how users react to this. --Chris _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
