- 7-Zip Portable
- AbiWord Portable
- Audacity Portable
- ClamWin Portable
- Command Prompt Portable
- FileZilla Portable
- GIMP Portable
- KeePass Portable
- Miranda IM Portable
- Mines-Perfect Portable
- Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition
- Mozilla Sunbird, Portable Edition
- Mozilla Thunderbird, Portable Edition
- Notepad++ Portable
- Nvu Portable & KompoZer Portable
- On-Screen Keyboard Portable
- OpenOffice.org Portable
- Pidgin Portable
- PokerTH Portable
- PuTTY Portable
- Sudoku Portable
- Sumatra PDF Portable
- Virtual Magnifying Glass Portable
- VLC Media Player Portable
- winMd5Sum Portable
- More apps...
Bug: Software update will overwrite local Firefox's registry settings Submitted by John T. Haller on December 1, 2007 - 1:18pm.
Firefox's updater has a bug where a portable or secondary install of Firefox will overwrite the locally installed Firefox's registry settings when version update is performed. It appears this bug was introduced within the last few point releases of Firefox 2.x. It's filed as Bug 406335 within Bugzilla. Please vote for this bug if you have a Bugzilla account. What you should do Either avoid auto-updating and download a new version of Firefox Portable for each version or allow Firefox Portable to update before allowing your local version to update (the portable version would steal the registry settings and the local one would steal them back in this case). You can also re-install the local version to fix this issue. And, before anyone asks: no, I can't set updating to disabled by default. ( categories: )
|
"...before anyone asks: no,
"...before anyone asks: no, I can't set updating to disabled by default"
but we can do it ourselves
I always have and always will.
I never allow autoupdate since it caused problems for me back in the 1.5.0.x days.
"As for me and my house, we will trust in the ... ahh, I mean John
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
Vote for?
John,
What does it mean to "vote for" a bug?
Am I right in thinking it means something like,
"Yes, I think this is important, please fix/work on it."
Tim
[edit: Never Mind, I searched
]
"Bugzilla has a "voting" feature. Each product allows users to have a certain number of votes. ... With your vote, you indicate which bugs you think are the most important and would like to see fixed..."
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting.html
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
Removed Firefox installation
LOGAN-Portable (Homepage) - December 1, 2007 - 8:57pmAt one point I installed Firefox on my system and used it as secondary browser. I just now have deinstalled it and will not install it again until there is a solution to have firefox not use registry at all. How does firefox remember the setting to not use AutoUpdate if the user sets it? Is the portable edition using some ini to keep settings in? I hope so so the installer or launcher could just generate the ini and put the option in it to not use autoinstall. (hmm wish it could even be changed to redirecting to portableapps.com to download a new version there
I looked at the file prefs.js in the profile folder. When I disabled all autoupdates I see these added:
user_pref("app.update.enabled", false);
user_pref("browser.search.update", false);
user_pref("extensions.update.enabled", false);
Can't the installer or launcher just generate these entries for the user so the Portable Apps version of FireFox will never even ask for an auto update?
"How does firefox remember
"How does firefox remember the setting to not use AutoUpdate if the user sets it? Is the portable edition using some ini to keep settings in?"
Basically Yes, I believe it is somewhere in the profile.
"so the installer or launcher could just generate the ini and put the option in it to not use autoinstall"
John is not allowed to do that if he is distributing FF with the permission of Mozilla. Hence,above ...
"And, before anyone asks: no, I can't set updating to disabled by default."
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
Well hes not changing
LOGAN-Portable (Homepage) - December 1, 2007 - 9:15pmWell hes not changing anything to firefox or how its being installed. let the launcher just write a preference. Or is John also not allowed to set a preference for the application after the unmodified FireFox was installed? (Basically it would not be john making the change but the user by launching the launcher
As I posted above it's in Profile\prefs.js and showed the 3 settings that were added.
It's a Legal thing,
It's a Legal thing,
Not a Technical thing.
The changes he has made from a default install of FF he has done with permission. If I recall there were some other changes that he had made in earlier versions of FFP that he had to remove in later versions to keep Mozilla happy.
When John says can't, he means can't.
Read the following:
http://portableapps.com/support/firefox_portable#performance
These are things that John could change "technically" if he were allowed but "can't" legally, this is why he gives us instructions to change them ourselves.
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
Okay
LOGAN-Portable (Homepage) - December 1, 2007 - 9:29pmOkay, I take it as it is... I assume FireFox doesn't preferences to have a custom default for the browser. Anyway, I already removed the regular installed FireFox mainly because the unneeded use of the registry and was planning to switch to the portable version only...
Once I thought Open Source meant freedom...
http://www.mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html#prefs
"but here's a tip: prefs or other JavaScript that you don't want overwritten (e.g. comments) can be put in a file called user.js in the same directory, which is under the user's control and is read but never written by Mozilla."
"Once I thought Open Source
"Once I thought Open Source meant freedom..."
The code for the program is Open Source, the Name and graphics are not [I'm sure I'm not stating this correctly but you see the point] John or you can change ANYTHING you want, but you can't call it FireFox and DISTRIBUTE it After you have made those changes without Mozilla's permission.
This is one reason FF is distributed without plug-ins or Add-ons/extensions. It is not allowed with out Mozilla's permission and I get the impression they are strict about it.
It is a way of standardizing what is in fact FireFox and what is "Altered Fox".
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
gentoo disables auto-updates
xenoterracide - February 11, 2008 - 8:35pmgentoo disables auto-updates and has retained the trademark. actually as far as I know (could be wrong), one could make any changes they wanted but depending on those changes might have to remove the firefox trademark from the binary.
That's the point
"one could make any changes they wanted but depending on those changes might have to remove the firefox trademark from the binary"
We distribute FF, not KindaFox, SortaFox, BetterFox, JustLikeFox, etc. Mozilla set the rules in their agreement with John, we follow those rules.
Though I'm hoping "they" are willing to make an exception in this case till the bug is fixed.
Who are "THEY" anyway?, Wish I knew
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
Done
Patrick Patience (Homepage) - December 2, 2007 - 12:45amMade an account and 'voted'.
My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. - RMS
Might,
it be a good idea to stocky this temporarily.
'...and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...' JFK
Developer & Moderator
Definitely
We definitely need to stocky this for Christmas
Waiting for Rocks'n'Diamonds Portable? Fear not, it's coming soon.
Thanks
Mir (Homepage) - December 3, 2007 - 5:56pmI primarly use firefox at work where we only have IE 6 and are unable to install programs on the internal hard drive and/or install anything that edits the registry.
I was having an issue with Firefox where it would give me the splash screen but would load no further. It got to the point where i had to kill the process and remove the program from the drive.
I found the issue when i used a portable program to check the specs of the computer i mainly use firefox on and it showed that firefox 2.0.0.9 was installed on the computer itself. I had been using 2.0.0.8 PAF until it updated on me .
At least i now know i am not the only one with this issue.
3 Votes !?!
{as of 5:30pm Chicago Time Dec 03 2007}
Come on guys,
There must be more than 3 people in this group that are Mozilla members?
If we want this thing fixed it needs support.
In fact I think the Status: has been changed to UNCONFIRMED.
WE can Confirm it can't we
Now before anyone I asks me why I haven't voted, I'm not a member. I generally don't sign up for group memberships till I've had a chance to get the lay of the land.
]
[Heck I lurked in this group for three months before signing up, not many people other than John can say they've been around longer than me
I also don't like to join things for Ad-Hoc issues, so I'm not recommending that people join up just for this situation and spam the Mozilla board, but I'm sure more than 3 of you have a membership, Ahe? [faking a Canadian accent to get support from you know who
]
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
I did Vote
Patrick Patience (Homepage) - December 3, 2007 - 7:11pmBut I really don't wan't my e-mail publicly displayed to spam. Is it somehow spam proof, or what it just a not to smart decision?
My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. - RMS
Bugzilla Is Dumb
Any email address you use for any bugzilla system will be harvested by every email harvester out there. That's why my login is bugzilla@ but in my name is says mail me at bugzilla2@. bugzilla@ only allows mail from bugzilla.
Live with purpose.
Oh, Okay
Patrick Patience (Homepage) - December 3, 2007 - 9:30pmYea, really not a smart move.
My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. - RMS
Can you change it?
Can you change your email address?
(1) If so get a free yahoo email account and call it :
PatAtBugzilla @ yahoo.com or something like that.
(2)If not perhaps you could send an email to:
bugzilla-admin [@] mozilla.org
explain the situation and ask them to delete your account so you can create a new one.
Then try (1)
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
John, I'm confused
John, I'm confused
]
[not that that's anything unusual
In searching at bugzilla I see that you have 1000 votes that you can use for FF in bugzilla. But you have only used 2 of those 1000. One of those votes has been given to the problem in question. The other vote is very old, going back to June of 2004 [I think].
Was this done on purpose?
My reading of the rules is that you are given a certain number of votes that you can use, as You wish, for the product in question. If I read this correctly you and Patrick, could have given this bug MORE than one vote based on how important the bug was to you.
Were you aware of this?
If so is there a reason you only gave it one vote given that you have 998 left.
see:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting.html
"Depending on how the administrator has configured the relevant product, you may be able to vote for the same bug more than once. Remember that you have a limited number of votes. When weighted voting is allowed and a limited number of votes are available to you, you will have to decide whether you want to distribute your votes among a large number of bugs indicating your minimal interest or focus on a few bugs indicating your strong support for them."
and
"Indicate how many votes you want to give this bug. This page also displays how many votes you've given to other bugs, so you may rebalance your votes as necessary."
or am I just missing something here?
Tim
"The Wheels of John grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small"
No Weighting
Mozilla's configuration of Bugzilla only does one vote per bug. Weighted voting is an optional feature of Bugzilla.
Live with purpose.
@ John and others
Simeon - December 5, 2007 - 11:21amI know that the same bug is also in Thunderbird.
Does anyone know something about Sunbird???
Do you need/want to make a separate bug report for Thunderbird???
"I was just out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way" - James Bond in Diamonds are forever
voted
bluebell_rose - December 5, 2007 - 3:32pmanyways I voted. I don't autoupdate if John has packaged a new verison of firefox portable
Firefox portable issues with 2.0.0.11
cuteboyucsc - December 10, 2007 - 7:17amI found an error while browsing yahoo mail beta with above release. Even though we have Flash player 9.0 or above installed it never loads chat inside yahoo mail.In addition, even in Gmail it takes long time to load chat. But all these works fine on installed Firefox.
that
Simeon - December 10, 2007 - 7:21amdoesnt REALLY belong in this thread, does it???
"I was just out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way" - James Bond in Diamonds are forever
Re:issue with firefox 2.0.0.11 when updated
cuteboyucsc - December 10, 2007 - 7:34amI'm new to this.I don't know whether it belongs or not. I want to fix this issue. I have saved all my passwords with password manager.So, i can't get rid of portable Firefox.Thanks.
sorry for
Simeon - December 10, 2007 - 7:41amyelling at you
How did you install the flash?
what about other pages that need flash? Do they work?
"I was just out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way" - James Bond in Diamonds are forever
Re:issue with firefox 2.0.0.11 when updated
cuteboyucsc - December 10, 2007 - 7:50amYa.Other pages work. I have downloaded flash player from adobe and installed. But when i browse yahoo mail it always ask to download flash player!
Another thing, i have updated the software sequentially from 2.0.0.1 up to now when the new versions released. I downloaded the fresh 2.0.0.11 and tried.It works fine!
yeah
Simeon - December 10, 2007 - 9:50ami´m glad it works. sometimes john improves the launcher and I think the 0.8 version launcher had some extension-compatability improvements...
"I was just out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way" - James Bond in Diamonds are forever
How do I update portable Firefox on a Flash Drive?
xelaw - December 27, 2007 - 12:27amOK, I understand there's a problem in automatic updating. I've seen it:
I have a SanDisk Cruzer Flash Drive, which came with Firefox 1.5. Whenever I use it asks to update to a later version of 1.5, but when I say it's OK to update, it doesn't know what to do. (I don't want to change anything on the host PC.) In any case, I'd like to update it to to FF 2.0.
How do I do this without changing any of the FF settings, losing bookmarks, etc., and not doing anything to the host PC?
You have the U3 version of Firefox
Simeon - December 27, 2007 - 3:44amdont you?
You cant update the U3 version to FF 2.0.
But here is a tutorial you could try to copy your old settings over to a new version.Just make sure you only copy the stuff so it you mess something up you still have your data!
"I was just out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way" - James Bond in Diamonds are forever
Thanks for the link
xelaw - December 27, 2007 - 2:05pmThanks. I'm going to try this as soon as I get a chance.
I'd be
Simeon - December 27, 2007 - 4:06pmvery happy if you could post the results.
"I was just out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way" - James Bond in Diamonds are forever
Yay!
bluebell_rose - February 20, 2008 - 3:03amI just got a message from bugzilla that it's being looked at.
Is this part of bug ? or not known until now?
DADSGETNDOWN - February 28, 2008 - 5:34amHello, I'm Dan. 43. Not a know it all but get around pretty good
I'd say I am in the median.
)
on Computers, er Usually
I don't have many programs installed, (I keep it to a minium, slow computer, P3 550
I had FFP I believe 2.0.0.8.
I downloaded 2.0.0.11 But didn't get a chance to install before the next one came out.
So I am using FFP and it said something about a update was available.
I thought it was going to take me to download and give me a chance to save it
But well you know it didn't.
and when it finished, I thought it said it needed to or would restart but never did, So I did it manually after about 20 minutes.
When it started it said it was successful.
THEN I stumbled upon the Bug 406335 information. ( which sucks since I always try and find out issues and procedures and such before installing. ah Well..
So I have never had anything except IE6 SP2.
and used these 2 versions of FFP from my USB Drive.
I decided to open up REG and search for "firefox".
And there are a boat load of firefox listings in there.
Local machine and all sorts of places, I unplugged USB, used CCLEANER, and IE's delete temp, cache and history etc.
then restarted computer.
and ofcourse there they are.
So before I say MORE, I will ask.
IS this the bug ? or supposed to be ?
Should I copy them all and put them here?
Does someone want my REG to see ?
AND More importantly how do I get rid of them, just do that search and delete all instances of it? and if so any others
I should look for?
This is a known bug, that's
ZachHudock - February 28, 2008 - 8:17amThis is a known bug, that's exactly what this topic title says lol. The upgrade feature built into Firefox as a standard will break the portable version because it updates/adds all the normal Firefox registry keys, but directs them at the portable version.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Remedy ?
DADSGETNDOWN - March 2, 2008 - 7:14pmI wasn't sure if I had to have had, past or currently a local
version, ( which I never have) For the bug to be produced or not.
(The way I read the TOPIC,
((Software update will overwrite local Firefox's registry settings))
that is the way it should be, although now, obviously not
OR they read this and find out more.)
Under What should I do ?...Above it says.
(or allow Firefox Portable to update before allowing your local version to update)
again I never had a local version. Still don't even though ADD/REMOVE has one!
In effect that is NOT exactly what the topic says.
But yep definitely directs them to the portable.
Whether you have a Local or not.
So a remedy/Fix could would be what ? part or all of these?
Use ADD/REMOVE Programs OR CCLEANER, and Remove Mozilla FireFox
(2.0.0.12) ?
It is in my ADD/REMOVE.
(There is no Mozilla or Firefox in my start/programs menu or
on my computer for that matter.)
Then Search and Registry for
"Portableapps" and delete all the instances of it?
maybe also "FireFox".?
and Mozilla ?
I don't see a system restore at the time of this action I did.
Although I did Scan at windows Live one care on Feb 25 which created a restore point, and since I haven't installed any programs I wonder if this would be the way to go.?
I can't remember what day FireFox updated though, I can not seem to see a date it was installed.
Luckily...
mod_wastrel - March 28, 2008 - 9:38amI use only the Portable Editions of Fx and Tb, so I have no conflicts. I use several instances of Fx all running at the same time to do different things, so trying to use a local instance, too, would just get in the way. PortableApps all the way. Still, bugs should be squashed whenever and wherever possible (software bugs, I mean).
Yup, seems like a bug...
Hikertrash - April 7, 2008 - 3:33pmBefore I saw this thread yesterday (searching for a ThunderbirdPortable problem) I had updated FirefoxPortable and today noticed the icon was missing and function on my start menu wasn't working. (brought me to the open with menu)
I reinstalled over itself and both are back. Only took a minute.
Open source doesn't mean freedom, Free means freedom
insaniac99 - April 8, 2008 - 12:15pmthere are two big splits in the open source communities, the regular open source style that firefox uses for its binaries and then there is the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org) that runs off of the GNU (www.gnu.org) public license (gpl).
in the fsf they believe that anyone should be able to take the software, modify its code if they choose, distribute it (for free or for a price, they don't care), and basically do whatever they heck they want to, as long as they then provide the source code for free to anyone who asks.
the open source community just believes in distributing the source code to those who ask. typically the users can distribute it for free, but not for a profit and, like the case with firefox, they retain rights to certain parts of the program, in this case the trademark and images along with some proprietary functionality.
from http://directory.fsf.org/project/firefox/ :
"The developers note that the official binaries on http://mozilla.org/ are definitely proprietary; they contain additional freedom-subtracted software (talkback functionality, artwork, etc) therefore only the source tarball is free software. (Also, the Mozilla Foundation requires that users of their binaries agree to a contract before running them.)"
what this means is that the source code for firefox is under the GPL, but they then went further with stuff they want to keep to themselves. this means that if john wanted to he could compile the source code (after editing it if he wanted) and then distribute it for free here with no restrictions other than changing the name to something other than firefox (Debian uses the name Iceweasal) with a different logo. the difference to the user will only be slight, but most people wouldn't think to search for a program named Iceweasal when they want Firefox
so Open Source doesn't mean free. Free Software means free, people should be commended for supporting the open source movement but at the same time they need to be reminded that the true goal is the free software movement and to encourage developers to support Free Software instead of Open Source
further reading:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
Thanks, that was very well
ZachHudock - April 8, 2008 - 12:23pmThanks, that was very well written and explains things a lot better than most of the current info about that posted throughout these forums.
Most of the long-time members already know about this. John has special permission from Mozilla to repackage the applications in his portable format, but he can't add any plugins, add-ons or themes, or modify the default settings (except disabling cache).
Welcome to PortableApps.com
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
thanks, I actually wrote it
insaniac99 - April 8, 2008 - 12:33pmthanks, I actually wrote it in reply to Logan's "Once I thought Open Source meant freedom..." comment but didn't realise the reply textbox was going to post to the main set of discussion after I registered for the first time.
Yup, the "Add Comment" link
ZachHudock - April 8, 2008 - 12:47pmYup, the "Add Comment" link at the top will put it in the main discussion, but clicking "reply" at the end of the post you wish to respond to will add it as a response.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
actually, I clicked the
insaniac99 - April 8, 2008 - 12:52pmactually, I clicked the "register" portion of the "Login or register to comment" that was under logan's post. after I registered and logged it it directed me straight to a comment box. I mistakenly assumed that it was still the reply to logan and not back to the main discussion.
no worries, welcome to the
ZachHudock - April 8, 2008 - 12:56pmno worries, welcome to the forums....lets get this topic back on track now though lol
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
thanks, do you know if john
insaniac99 - April 8, 2008 - 12:59pmthanks, do you know if john intends to update to firefox 3 when it is released?
He
will indeed, in fact there is already a copy of Firefox 3 Beta 5 available here.
'...and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...' JFK
Developer & Moderator
Please vote for this!
mprager - April 22, 2008 - 12:00pmThis is a nasty bug.
I hope others will take the time to register at Bugzilla (easy! click "login" from the bug page linked by John) and vote for this bug. It bit me at work before I read this. I figured it out and resolved it by editing the registry, but it took me about two hours of wasted effort.
Please vote for this and save others that pain!
Mike