Page 1 of 1

It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-09, 16:50
by vsrawat
Whenever I start basilisk, it runs updater, that takes times, gives prompts, and wastes bandwidth.

Even after putting "Never check for updates" in preferences, it is doing so.

There is no task scheduler entry to disable or to change or disable trigger.

I had to rename update.exe in basilisk's program files folder, to avoid this.

But that is bad ethics. When you have given an option in preferences, you should respect that.

Thanks.

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-09, 17:13
by Moonchild
Basilisk honors the setting in preferences.

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-09, 17:20
by Isengrim
I use Basilisk occasionally on both Windows and Linux, and have never seen this behavior. However, I have not used the "Never update" preference. It is certainly not the intended behavior of the browser to automatically update when the user does not request for it to do so.

Do you notice this behavior in safe mode or with a new, clean profile?

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-09, 17:39
by vsrawat
I had heard for basilisk for first time about a month ago, and had downloaded and installed that.

I had hardly used it till now, only occassionally, just today I started using it widely as there is problem with ff in palemoon (ff runs very very slow in pm, memory usage reaches 1.5 to 2 GB soon. anyway)

I am saying, it is just as fresh as a new profile. There was just one addon FOXREPLACE (and now there are all addons that ff had)

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-09, 17:40
by vsrawat
Anyway, I still have that renames updater.exe file.

I will rename that back to the original file, and see whether that behavior occurs again. and shall report it here either way.

Thanks.

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-10, 10:50
by therube
Do you have update checks enabled for extensions? Search engines?

Perhaps updater(.exe) is also used for those (& more?) & not just specifically for "program updates"?
(Might I even recall that updater.exe is used during the uninstall process?)

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-14, 07:46
by Smokey20
I'm unclear if checking for updates just to check is different from popping up a window suddenly saying there is a new version and can Basilisk update to it now and I can say "yes" or "no, not right now".

I've had Basilisk from when it was first offered and it is my default browser. I have it set to "never check for updates" but it has ALWAYS ignored the setting. However, I think I recall from when it was new that it was made clear that it is in perpetual beta and is a test platform thus if we want to use it we need to keep it up to date at all times. I also think I recall the ability to turn off checking for updates was inactive at least at the beginning of Basilisk. Maybe that changed and I missed it as I mentioned in another thread here that I am remiss sometimes regarding reading the release notes for new versions.

So, it has never forced an update but, if I ignore the first popup asking to update, the popups gradually become more frequent until (if I continue ignoring them) I go ahead and let it update so I don't get bugged so much about there being an update available. I have never complained about it here because I thought we couldn't avoid updates...postpone them for a bit yes...but ONLY for a short time. I have wondered why that setting is there as the browser DOES CHECK for updates and bugs you to install them.

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-18, 03:35
by Pale Moon Rising
Moonchild wrote:Basilisk honors the setting in preferences.
Has this changed?:
As some of you may have realized, Basilisk updates are automatic (by default) and the browser will automatically update itself. This doesn't necessarily get announced on the forum or elsewhere, because Basilisk will be a "rolling release" type as UXP gets developed. Internally we do keep some milestone goals to solve bugs against, for proper prioritization of issues, but that doesn't necessarily translate 1:1 to publications.
as described here: About Basilisk updates.

To followup; I just now found "Never check for updates..." selected for the "Updates" pref setting (however in the past I would always get updates automatically which I didn't mind while Basilisk was being "developed" as an UXP browser as referenced here as well in the comment above "... because Basilisk will be a "rolling release" type as UXP gets developed") but now that PMv28 release has been made available I have just now changed the "Update" preference to "Check for updates..." which I assume is viable in that Basilisk (minimally for security reasons) will still continue to get updates.... (or maybe not :eh:.... it's been a month since the last one) :think:

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-18, 09:30
by Moonchild
Soooo impatient "oh gasp it's been a whole month" -- you know, even rabid release Firefox has a cycle of 6 weeks.

Re: It is bad that basilisk forces updates

Posted: 2018-08-18, 14:41
by Pale Moon Rising
Moonchild wrote:Soooo impatient "oh gasp it's been a whole month" -- you know, even rabid release Firefox has a cycle of 6 weeks.
Just checking ;) (I'm just a bit vague on what the future will be for Basilisk now that the Pale Moon v28 :thumbup: XUL browser has been released :eh:.... "XUL" platform the operative word here.)

... Oh and that's interesting about FF -- but then I wouldn't know because I no longer use that browser. ;) (I've been using Basilisk as my primary backup browser since it's release)