How to stop Firefox 52 ESR from auto-updating?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I am trying to download the Firefox 52.9.0 ESR (32-bit) as it can run Java as a plugin in the browser. I've been doing this by taking the zip file from the archive, extracting it to my desired folder, then running firefox.exe
. This works fine for the first session, but in order to complete installing the latest Java, I have to close Firefox and start a new session, upon which it automatically updates to Firefox Quantum 60.2.0 ESR, which I don't want. It does this even when I have set the update setting to 'ask for updates but let me choose to install' within the first session. How can I prevent this from happening, and instead keep Firefox 52.9.0 ESR?
EDIT: I fixed it by changing the update settings to 'never check for updates'. However, upon starting my 2nd session, it still tried to update, but gave an error something along the lines of 'update failed (failed to apply update patch)'. Luckily this error message doesn't seem to appear at the start of new sessions. Weird that it tries to automatically update, even though I've set it not to.
firefox java software-update auto-updates
add a comment |
I am trying to download the Firefox 52.9.0 ESR (32-bit) as it can run Java as a plugin in the browser. I've been doing this by taking the zip file from the archive, extracting it to my desired folder, then running firefox.exe
. This works fine for the first session, but in order to complete installing the latest Java, I have to close Firefox and start a new session, upon which it automatically updates to Firefox Quantum 60.2.0 ESR, which I don't want. It does this even when I have set the update setting to 'ask for updates but let me choose to install' within the first session. How can I prevent this from happening, and instead keep Firefox 52.9.0 ESR?
EDIT: I fixed it by changing the update settings to 'never check for updates'. However, upon starting my 2nd session, it still tried to update, but gave an error something along the lines of 'update failed (failed to apply update patch)'. Luckily this error message doesn't seem to appear at the start of new sessions. Weird that it tries to automatically update, even though I've set it not to.
firefox java software-update auto-updates
2
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the necessary NPAPI support and run FF plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions.
– AFH
Sep 8 '18 at 22:02
@AFH, consider posting that as an answer (with product links). I was just going to suggest that as a solution since they are supported while pre-Quantum Firefox is not, which addresses the risks. I haven't actually tried them, though, so you are in a better position to describe your experience.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 5:08
add a comment |
I am trying to download the Firefox 52.9.0 ESR (32-bit) as it can run Java as a plugin in the browser. I've been doing this by taking the zip file from the archive, extracting it to my desired folder, then running firefox.exe
. This works fine for the first session, but in order to complete installing the latest Java, I have to close Firefox and start a new session, upon which it automatically updates to Firefox Quantum 60.2.0 ESR, which I don't want. It does this even when I have set the update setting to 'ask for updates but let me choose to install' within the first session. How can I prevent this from happening, and instead keep Firefox 52.9.0 ESR?
EDIT: I fixed it by changing the update settings to 'never check for updates'. However, upon starting my 2nd session, it still tried to update, but gave an error something along the lines of 'update failed (failed to apply update patch)'. Luckily this error message doesn't seem to appear at the start of new sessions. Weird that it tries to automatically update, even though I've set it not to.
firefox java software-update auto-updates
I am trying to download the Firefox 52.9.0 ESR (32-bit) as it can run Java as a plugin in the browser. I've been doing this by taking the zip file from the archive, extracting it to my desired folder, then running firefox.exe
. This works fine for the first session, but in order to complete installing the latest Java, I have to close Firefox and start a new session, upon which it automatically updates to Firefox Quantum 60.2.0 ESR, which I don't want. It does this even when I have set the update setting to 'ask for updates but let me choose to install' within the first session. How can I prevent this from happening, and instead keep Firefox 52.9.0 ESR?
EDIT: I fixed it by changing the update settings to 'never check for updates'. However, upon starting my 2nd session, it still tried to update, but gave an error something along the lines of 'update failed (failed to apply update patch)'. Luckily this error message doesn't seem to appear at the start of new sessions. Weird that it tries to automatically update, even though I've set it not to.
firefox java software-update auto-updates
firefox java software-update auto-updates
edited 4 hours ago
G-Man
5,713112360
5,713112360
asked Sep 8 '18 at 21:51
Moine BouddhisteMoine Bouddhiste
113
113
2
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the necessary NPAPI support and run FF plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions.
– AFH
Sep 8 '18 at 22:02
@AFH, consider posting that as an answer (with product links). I was just going to suggest that as a solution since they are supported while pre-Quantum Firefox is not, which addresses the risks. I haven't actually tried them, though, so you are in a better position to describe your experience.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 5:08
add a comment |
2
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the necessary NPAPI support and run FF plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions.
– AFH
Sep 8 '18 at 22:02
@AFH, consider posting that as an answer (with product links). I was just going to suggest that as a solution since they are supported while pre-Quantum Firefox is not, which addresses the risks. I haven't actually tried them, though, so you are in a better position to describe your experience.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 5:08
2
2
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the necessary NPAPI support and run FF plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions.
– AFH
Sep 8 '18 at 22:02
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the necessary NPAPI support and run FF plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions.
– AFH
Sep 8 '18 at 22:02
@AFH, consider posting that as an answer (with product links). I was just going to suggest that as a solution since they are supported while pre-Quantum Firefox is not, which addresses the risks. I haven't actually tried them, though, so you are in a better position to describe your experience.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 5:08
@AFH, consider posting that as an answer (with product links). I was just going to suggest that as a solution since they are supported while pre-Quantum Firefox is not, which addresses the risks. I haven't actually tried them, though, so you are in a better position to describe your experience.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 5:08
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
So you're connected to the internet when you first run the browser, it's initial settings are to update, so it updates while/before you can change the update settings.
How about just disconnect from the internet entirely (software disconnect, disable all networking, pull plug/adapter) for the first run, change the update settings & exit, then reconnect to the internet?
add a comment |
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the NPAPI support which Java needs.
Both run Firefox plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions, and it is these that have kept me in the Firefox family, rather than switching to Chrome - having got used to them, I find it difficult to manage without TabMixPlus, All-in-One Sidebar and FireFTP, in particular.
PaleMoon was forked earlier than Waterfox, but it has its own Add-ons site, and while I also use extensions from the main Mozilla extensions site, I need to search for compatible versions.
Waterfox is more recent and uses the standard Mozilla extensions site, and in many cases the latest versions will install, but being less established it has a few more quirks than PaleMoon.
As far as add-ons are concerned, most of the updates have been to handle Firefox updates, rather than security fixes, so I am not concerned at using earlier versions.
PaleMoon is 32/64-bit, while Waterfox is 64-bit only. On Windows there are install and portable versions - Waterfox portable is PortableApps-compatible, although for some reason is not included on the the PortableApps site, which means that it is adopted into the menu system, but doesn't update automatically. There are Linux versions of both and there are repositories available for Debian-derived systems.
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
1
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
add a comment |
Needless to say, using an outdated browser is a security risk, much like running Windows XP past April 2014. If you do not know how to mitigate known unpatched security bugs then you should not be using an unsupported web browser.
If you don't want a legacy browser updating by itself, then you need to turn off automatic updates before the browser ever gets online in the first place.
In your case, you should have entered the legacy FF's profile manager with the -P
switch, created a new profile, and ticked [Work offline]
before starting the browser, which would have given you time to disable automatic updates before the browser started downloading them in the background on first run.
Manual edits to the configuration files within the browser profile are unnecessary.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
add a comment |
If you remove the Mozilla Maintenance service from the system, it won't update automatically.
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1356491%2fhow-to-stop-firefox-52-esr-from-auto-updating%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
So you're connected to the internet when you first run the browser, it's initial settings are to update, so it updates while/before you can change the update settings.
How about just disconnect from the internet entirely (software disconnect, disable all networking, pull plug/adapter) for the first run, change the update settings & exit, then reconnect to the internet?
add a comment |
So you're connected to the internet when you first run the browser, it's initial settings are to update, so it updates while/before you can change the update settings.
How about just disconnect from the internet entirely (software disconnect, disable all networking, pull plug/adapter) for the first run, change the update settings & exit, then reconnect to the internet?
add a comment |
So you're connected to the internet when you first run the browser, it's initial settings are to update, so it updates while/before you can change the update settings.
How about just disconnect from the internet entirely (software disconnect, disable all networking, pull plug/adapter) for the first run, change the update settings & exit, then reconnect to the internet?
So you're connected to the internet when you first run the browser, it's initial settings are to update, so it updates while/before you can change the update settings.
How about just disconnect from the internet entirely (software disconnect, disable all networking, pull plug/adapter) for the first run, change the update settings & exit, then reconnect to the internet?
answered Sep 8 '18 at 23:06
Xen2050Xen2050
11.3k31637
11.3k31637
add a comment |
add a comment |
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the NPAPI support which Java needs.
Both run Firefox plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions, and it is these that have kept me in the Firefox family, rather than switching to Chrome - having got used to them, I find it difficult to manage without TabMixPlus, All-in-One Sidebar and FireFTP, in particular.
PaleMoon was forked earlier than Waterfox, but it has its own Add-ons site, and while I also use extensions from the main Mozilla extensions site, I need to search for compatible versions.
Waterfox is more recent and uses the standard Mozilla extensions site, and in many cases the latest versions will install, but being less established it has a few more quirks than PaleMoon.
As far as add-ons are concerned, most of the updates have been to handle Firefox updates, rather than security fixes, so I am not concerned at using earlier versions.
PaleMoon is 32/64-bit, while Waterfox is 64-bit only. On Windows there are install and portable versions - Waterfox portable is PortableApps-compatible, although for some reason is not included on the the PortableApps site, which means that it is adopted into the menu system, but doesn't update automatically. There are Linux versions of both and there are repositories available for Debian-derived systems.
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
1
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
add a comment |
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the NPAPI support which Java needs.
Both run Firefox plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions, and it is these that have kept me in the Firefox family, rather than switching to Chrome - having got used to them, I find it difficult to manage without TabMixPlus, All-in-One Sidebar and FireFTP, in particular.
PaleMoon was forked earlier than Waterfox, but it has its own Add-ons site, and while I also use extensions from the main Mozilla extensions site, I need to search for compatible versions.
Waterfox is more recent and uses the standard Mozilla extensions site, and in many cases the latest versions will install, but being less established it has a few more quirks than PaleMoon.
As far as add-ons are concerned, most of the updates have been to handle Firefox updates, rather than security fixes, so I am not concerned at using earlier versions.
PaleMoon is 32/64-bit, while Waterfox is 64-bit only. On Windows there are install and portable versions - Waterfox portable is PortableApps-compatible, although for some reason is not included on the the PortableApps site, which means that it is adopted into the menu system, but doesn't update automatically. There are Linux versions of both and there are repositories available for Debian-derived systems.
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
1
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
add a comment |
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the NPAPI support which Java needs.
Both run Firefox plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions, and it is these that have kept me in the Firefox family, rather than switching to Chrome - having got used to them, I find it difficult to manage without TabMixPlus, All-in-One Sidebar and FireFTP, in particular.
PaleMoon was forked earlier than Waterfox, but it has its own Add-ons site, and while I also use extensions from the main Mozilla extensions site, I need to search for compatible versions.
Waterfox is more recent and uses the standard Mozilla extensions site, and in many cases the latest versions will install, but being less established it has a few more quirks than PaleMoon.
As far as add-ons are concerned, most of the updates have been to handle Firefox updates, rather than security fixes, so I am not concerned at using earlier versions.
PaleMoon is 32/64-bit, while Waterfox is 64-bit only. On Windows there are install and portable versions - Waterfox portable is PortableApps-compatible, although for some reason is not included on the the PortableApps site, which means that it is adopted into the menu system, but doesn't update automatically. There are Linux versions of both and there are repositories available for Debian-derived systems.
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the NPAPI support which Java needs.
Both run Firefox plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions, and it is these that have kept me in the Firefox family, rather than switching to Chrome - having got used to them, I find it difficult to manage without TabMixPlus, All-in-One Sidebar and FireFTP, in particular.
PaleMoon was forked earlier than Waterfox, but it has its own Add-ons site, and while I also use extensions from the main Mozilla extensions site, I need to search for compatible versions.
Waterfox is more recent and uses the standard Mozilla extensions site, and in many cases the latest versions will install, but being less established it has a few more quirks than PaleMoon.
As far as add-ons are concerned, most of the updates have been to handle Firefox updates, rather than security fixes, so I am not concerned at using earlier versions.
PaleMoon is 32/64-bit, while Waterfox is 64-bit only. On Windows there are install and portable versions - Waterfox portable is PortableApps-compatible, although for some reason is not included on the the PortableApps site, which means that it is adopted into the menu system, but doesn't update automatically. There are Linux versions of both and there are repositories available for Debian-derived systems.
answered Sep 10 '18 at 13:19
AFHAFH
14.7k31939
14.7k31939
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
1
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
add a comment |
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
1
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
Ah, yes; I hadn't thought about the "legacy" add-ons becoming unavailable. One option would be to go directly to the developers' site if the old add-on is no longer available through the browser's add-on list. The developer may no longer be actively supporting it, but you can often find the last available version still downloadable.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 13:53
1
1
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@fixer1234 "legacy/XUL" addons are not anymore available at Mozilla servers. However, the repository was forked and there is an addon (Classic Addons Archive) which allow you to install and see addons information in a similar way than Mozilla´s Addons page. github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases
– Daniel Perez
Jan 4 at 9:13
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
@DanielPerez - I have not loaded any new add-ons for some time, so thanks for pointing out that legacy extensions have now been removed from the main Mozilla site and for the alternative, which I shall investigate shortly.
– AFH
Jan 4 at 15:17
add a comment |
Needless to say, using an outdated browser is a security risk, much like running Windows XP past April 2014. If you do not know how to mitigate known unpatched security bugs then you should not be using an unsupported web browser.
If you don't want a legacy browser updating by itself, then you need to turn off automatic updates before the browser ever gets online in the first place.
In your case, you should have entered the legacy FF's profile manager with the -P
switch, created a new profile, and ticked [Work offline]
before starting the browser, which would have given you time to disable automatic updates before the browser started downloading them in the background on first run.
Manual edits to the configuration files within the browser profile are unnecessary.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
add a comment |
Needless to say, using an outdated browser is a security risk, much like running Windows XP past April 2014. If you do not know how to mitigate known unpatched security bugs then you should not be using an unsupported web browser.
If you don't want a legacy browser updating by itself, then you need to turn off automatic updates before the browser ever gets online in the first place.
In your case, you should have entered the legacy FF's profile manager with the -P
switch, created a new profile, and ticked [Work offline]
before starting the browser, which would have given you time to disable automatic updates before the browser started downloading them in the background on first run.
Manual edits to the configuration files within the browser profile are unnecessary.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
add a comment |
Needless to say, using an outdated browser is a security risk, much like running Windows XP past April 2014. If you do not know how to mitigate known unpatched security bugs then you should not be using an unsupported web browser.
If you don't want a legacy browser updating by itself, then you need to turn off automatic updates before the browser ever gets online in the first place.
In your case, you should have entered the legacy FF's profile manager with the -P
switch, created a new profile, and ticked [Work offline]
before starting the browser, which would have given you time to disable automatic updates before the browser started downloading them in the background on first run.
Manual edits to the configuration files within the browser profile are unnecessary.
Needless to say, using an outdated browser is a security risk, much like running Windows XP past April 2014. If you do not know how to mitigate known unpatched security bugs then you should not be using an unsupported web browser.
If you don't want a legacy browser updating by itself, then you need to turn off automatic updates before the browser ever gets online in the first place.
In your case, you should have entered the legacy FF's profile manager with the -P
switch, created a new profile, and ticked [Work offline]
before starting the browser, which would have given you time to disable automatic updates before the browser started downloading them in the background on first run.
Manual edits to the configuration files within the browser profile are unnecessary.
answered Sep 8 '18 at 22:48
dsstorefile1dsstorefile1
1,24628
1,24628
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
add a comment |
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Thanks for the advice, but I'm willing to take the risk.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:02
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
Sorry, also meant to add: The browser only started trying to download updates on the second run, therefore I didn't need to use the profile manager to work offline upon the first run to disable updates - I could disable them on the first run directly.
– Moine Bouddhiste
Sep 8 '18 at 23:08
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
FF automatically checks for updates within seconds of first run.
– dsstorefile1
Sep 8 '18 at 23:20
add a comment |
If you remove the Mozilla Maintenance service from the system, it won't update automatically.
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
add a comment |
If you remove the Mozilla Maintenance service from the system, it won't update automatically.
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
add a comment |
If you remove the Mozilla Maintenance service from the system, it won't update automatically.
If you remove the Mozilla Maintenance service from the system, it won't update automatically.
edited Feb 8 at 13:53
studiohack♦
11.3k1880114
11.3k1880114
answered Feb 8 at 11:09
FrazFraz
7
7
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
add a comment |
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
Welcome to Super User. Can you elaborate on how one goes about removing the Mozilla Maintenance service? I tried turning it counterclockwise to unscrew it and nothing happened.
– fixer1234
Feb 8 at 14:28
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1356491%2fhow-to-stop-firefox-52-esr-from-auto-updating%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
I need Java in my browser, and I have reluctantly abandoned Firefox in favour of the forks Waterfox and PaleMoon, both of which which retain the necessary NPAPI support and run FF plug-ins, albeit not the latest versions.
– AFH
Sep 8 '18 at 22:02
@AFH, consider posting that as an answer (with product links). I was just going to suggest that as a solution since they are supported while pre-Quantum Firefox is not, which addresses the risks. I haven't actually tried them, though, so you are in a better position to describe your experience.
– fixer1234
Sep 10 '18 at 5:08