4 ms·

Completely possible, but that's not how it works ATM. EDIT: And at the risk of stating the obvious, the fact that it doesn't work this way should be a hint tha

Completely possible, but that's not how it works ATM. EDIT: And at the risk of stating the obvious, the fact that it doesn't work this way should be a hint that there are complexities involved that make it more complicated than "just" doing it.

phendrenad2 5y ago
I don't agree. The fact that it doesn't work is not necessarily a hint that there are complexities involved. There are a myriad of other possible reasons, such as no one really cares that Firefox forces you to restart the app whenever it updates. People just get used to it.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Or you know, most apps dislike having the executable file itself replaced under them and getting into an unknowably bad state, for basically null benefits. Distros should handle multiple versions of the same program, a la nix, and programs should not optimize for random things like that.
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    That's just a defeatist attitude. Why does the executable need to be replaced? Why can't the new executable be called firefoxNext, and when firefox starts next time, it checks for this file, and if it exists, it quickly starts that instead, which renames itself to firefox, overwriting the old version? What would be wrong with that? EDIT: Oh, I see. This happens when the distro package manager updates firefox. I don't have a solution, since there isn't an easy one that will satisfy all people. So nevermind. shrug Maybe Firefox could create a temporary executable copy of itself and run from there, and run that, so when the original is replaced, it doesn't affect the running process. But, that probably comes with a host of complications that I'm unaware of.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      > it quickly starts that instead, which renames itself to firefox, overwriting the old version? What would be wrong with that? You'd have to enable all users to replace files owned by root somehow - which is a bad idea. Alternatively you'd have to somehow extend the packaging to support owning either/or file and being able to verify the installed files that way - which would be a massive change.
- dblohm7 5y ago
  I've been privy to the discussions at Mozilla about this topic. I can assure you, things are not the way they are out of either laziness or ignorance.

phendrenad2 5y ago

I don't agree. The fact that it doesn't work is not necessarily a hint that there are complexities involved. There are a myriad of other possible reasons, such as no one really cares that Firefox forces you to restart the app whenever it updates. People just get used to it.

kaba0 5y ago
Or you know, most apps dislike having the executable file itself replaced under them and getting into an unknowably bad state, for basically null benefits. Distros should handle multiple versions of the same program, a la nix, and programs should not optimize for random things like that.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  That's just a defeatist attitude. Why does the executable need to be replaced? Why can't the new executable be called firefoxNext, and when firefox starts next time, it checks for this file, and if it exists, it quickly starts that instead, which renames itself to firefox, overwriting the old version? What would be wrong with that? EDIT: Oh, I see. This happens when the distro package manager updates firefox. I don't have a solution, since there isn't an easy one that will satisfy all people. So nevermind. shrug Maybe Firefox could create a temporary executable copy of itself and run from there, and run that, so when the original is replaced, it doesn't affect the running process. But, that probably comes with a host of complications that I'm unaware of.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    > it quickly starts that instead, which renames itself to firefox, overwriting the old version? What would be wrong with that? You'd have to enable all users to replace files owned by root somehow - which is a bad idea. Alternatively you'd have to somehow extend the packaging to support owning either/or file and being able to verify the installed files that way - which would be a massive change.
dblohm7 5y ago
I've been privy to the discussions at Mozilla about this topic. I can assure you, things are not the way they are out of either laziness or ignorance.