unable to receive notifications about available Firefox updates after updating to Firefox 134 on Ubuntu

[jsvnsk]

Firefox displays the message "Firefox is being updated by another instance" in the "About Mozilla Firefox" dialog

this issue was first noticed on Ubuntu 22.04 after updating to Firefox 134.0.0 and is consistently reproducible

the issue is gating the ability for Firefox to receive notifications about available software updates

the message persists after all of the following events:
1. after closing / quitting Firefox
2. after manually updating to Firefox 134.0.1 and 134.0.2
3. after completely removing the entire ~/.mozilla/ directory structure and reinstalling Firefox 134.0.1
4. after rebooting

additionally, a broken symlink file appears in the profile directory:

for example:
ls -la ~/.mozilla/firefox/profoobar.default-release/lock
example results:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 foouser foouser 22 Jan 18 12:53 /home/foouser/.mozilla/firefox/profoobar.default-release/lock -> 123.45.67.89:+765432
* profoobar is the profile directory and 765432 is the PID of the process for /opt/firefox/firefox

although it is possible to delete the broken symlink, the file reappears each time Firefox is restarted:
rm ~/.mozilla/firefox/profoobar.default-release/lock

deleting the .parentlock file also has no effect:
rm ~/.mozilla/firefox/profoobar.default-release/.parentlock

[esksp]

Same here (Linux Mint 21.3 "Virginia" (base: Ubuntu 22.04 "jammy")).

Problem as described above, also started after (manually) updating to 134.0, and (manually) updating to 134.0.1 didn't fix it. I do have the same two, always returning, 0 byte files (lock/.parentlock).

[jsvnsk]

a bug has been filed; see this link for further details:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1940481 

[esksp]

😮☹️

   firefox134     ---     wontfix
   firefox135     ---     fix-optional

And to add insult to injury, somebody in the bug thread claimed affected users should simply "know the dates of [Mozilla's] planned releases"!... No biggie.

Sorry, but it's not the planned releases I care about, it's the urgent security patches coming out of the blue which are important!

So I guess unless they fix it by accident (they seem to know what's wrong), one can suppose Firefox on Linux has no unscheduled security patches anymore. Cool. 😠

(I'm slightly annoyed, can you tell?)

[jsvnsk]

I can see how this bug might be painful for automation scenarios, although with some additional scripting it ought to be possible to work around it

it looks like they triaged the bug as a severity 2 which means they view it as important but not urgent, which seems to be a fair assessment given that the bug only affects Linux users like us who install manually, which is probably a very low percentage of their overall installed user base

in the grand scheme of things, hotfixes for security vulnerabilities might happen out of cycle but functional edge-case bugs like this (even when they are regressions) are usually addressed according to priority and within a scheduled release cycle

in the meantime, the implied workaround here is to watch for interim releases (which seem to occur about once a week) and perhaps (but not likely) the bug may get fixed sooner, but more likely it won't be addressed until the scheduled release 135 (or maybe even later)

link to release calendar:
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/announce 

[esksp]

Yes, sorry about that ranting yesterday, but it's still very annoying to see a arbitrary "wontfix--go lay an egg" on a regression issue. Regression = sloppy testing.

Besides, what is this update mechanism I'm hearing about? Why doesn't it just check for updates (no writing rights needed), and if (and only if) the update process is indeed engaged (automatically or because the user pushed the "update" button), then only check if it can actually carry out the update process? Or is that too structured, not agile enough?... 🙄


> the bug only affects Linux users like us who install manually

Isn't that the majority of Linux users?...‌ 😉


> perhaps (but not likely) the bug may get fixed sooner

Yes, one day my prince will come... Sorry, at my age I don't believe in fairy tales anymore. They might fix it, by accident (if they decide to overhaul that convoluted update mechanism), but it doesn't really seem to be on their "To-Do" list. Sad. Firefox is progressively getting worse, and this is very sad. I still remember it in the very beginning, when it still was a sports car, not the carnival float it has now become. ‌☹️‌

I think Google will succeed where Microsoft failed back in Netscape times: One browser to rule them all and in profit bind them... 😢

[jsvnsk]

It's not that they aren't going to fix it; they're just not inclined to fix it in the current release given that it is an edge case that only affects a small number of users.

Most Firefox users are on Windows or Mac. Linux users are a small minority, most of whom use a package manager like flatpak or snap for installation and updates. Nowadays, installing Firefox manually in the /opt directory is not the norm for desktop Linux users.

Having said that, they probably do need to add one or more automation test cases to cover manual installations to avoid future regressions like this given that installing manually is still a supported (albeit uncommon) scenario.

Altogether Mozilla Firefox is FOSS which has a very different philosophical approach to software engineering than traditional for-profit commercial entities like Google and Microsoft, so it might be a matter of sorting out one's personal expectations in light of that. In the end, nobody is forced to drink free beer if they prefer the for-profit beer store experience.

[esksp]

> they're just not inclined to fix it in the current release

Nor in the next, or in the one after that. I wouldn't had said anything if they had planned to fix it in some near future, but right now it's just "Firefox134 - wontfix, Firefox135 - fix-optional, Firefox136 - still affected", meaning they don't plan to do it before after 136 (if ever). Of course it could happen, accidentally as I said above, but what's the chance of that.

> installing Firefox manually in the /opt directory is not the norm for desktop Linux users.

The issue is about making assumptions and taking shortcuts. What's wrong with a procedure like I described above (just checking, and then only attempting to update)? In this case update checks would work in any configuration, no matter how rare or outdated. *shrug*

The problem arises because people assume everyone is like them, and allow themselves unneeded shortcuts. I once had a (serious, professional, 6-digits price) appliance where the piloting software didn't work. Long story short, it turned out the dev had assumed the user would have MS Office installed, and simply referenced one of its libraries, which was missing on our company's brand new, dedicated computer... That was back in the '00s, most corporate Windows computers had some form of MS Office installed, how could he guess there are computers without it???

> it might be a matter of sorting out one's personal expectations in light of that

You see, it happens I've been a Firefox evangelist, since Mozilla Suite times. But in those last years they've progressively make it more and more difficult for me. Not only have I to fight more and more websites not working properly and telling people "this is a professional website, please use a serious browser (pronounce: "krōm")", on the other hand Firefox devs seem to live in their ivory tower and not really care about the lowly issues of mere mortals.

How can I in 2025 suggest to use Firefox despite the overwhelming evidence against it? I still do it, but it's progressively harder to keep a straight face. All will be lost when the only reason to use Firefox becomes to make a statement, and not because it's the best tool (or at least a good enough one) for the job.

In short, I'm so virulent because I'm afraid about Firefox's future. Today's Firefox devs don't really seem to care about the product, they just keep making cosmetic changes to keep with their breathless Chrome-like release schedule, instead of trying to keep Firefox a serious contender for Best Browser. Sorry people, but users won't leave Chrome and come to Firefox for rounded corners or refreshed New Tab layouts. That's just busywork.

I'll stop here. Thanks for your patience. 😖