Firefox download files sequentially

With Format Factory you can convert any media file into most popular formats such as: wmv, avi, mkv, flv, mp3, wma, jpg, gif, etc. Format Factory not only is a complete media converter, but it also shows its features in a reasonable interface form, that can easily compete with similar paid products.

All the major functions are arranged on top of the main window in a toolbar followed underneath by the main zone which shows any processes started. You will have all four categories video ,audio, image, ROM device settled on the left side into expandable columns that can show or hide their correspondent formats.

Each accessed format activates a new window that shows the proper options for that specific conversion. Unfortunately you cannot open the desired file to be converted until you will access the target format window.

This is definitely a drawback in terms of functionality, but once you get used to it, all the other features are intuitive to use. Besides individual files, you can also select complete folders to be converted because Format Factory can process multiple operation sequentially. Format Factory is far from being an original application but it features the best mix in terms of media conversion for free.

You can handle video, audio and images simultaneously in a single application on a regular basis, without the need of using additional utilities.

You can also tweak some video and audio settings to suite your need for better quality or resolution, including the option to choose from different containers and customize any given profile. Format Factory is a multifunctional media converter. Format Factory's Feature: All OSes. All licences. And potentially new security vulnerabilities.

Linus calls this trading old bugs for new bugs, and is vehemently against introducing commits that may introduce new bugs, no matter the severity of the bug that the commit squashes. Linus is known to have strong opinions and he can be often very wrong. Foregoing security updates to avoid breaking changes and severe functionality regressions is a completely valid choice that should be wholly left up to the user.

RussianCow 22 days ago root parent next [—]. It is left up to the user—you can disable auto-updates if you so wish. But it seems completely reasonable to have them be enabled by default. Do you want to install this backdoor? No, installing the so called updates in background will not be alowed.

How do you validate Firefox updates? Did you validate Firefox updates before? Most people don't. For the rare people that do probably on the entire planet , they can disable the automatic updates and do it manually. I have no problem with automatic updates I can disable. I'm sympathetic to this, and usually find these sorts of things annoying, but in this case I'm not so sure. If there is any application I want to autoupdate, it's my web-browser.

It's a giant bundle of security vulnerabilities whose main purpose in life is to hit untrusted servers that might be sending me malware, and when an update is available to me, the list of security fixes is also available to attackers. If you already read HN, why would you need an update reminder? Using HN I was able to find out about a new Firefox release sometimes even before "Check updates" feature was able to find one ;.

Not every patch-level security update makes it to the front page of HN, for one thing. Because not everyone read HN. It's only a vulnerability when you have the browser open though. If that were the case, then people would complain about how stupid it was that the browser updated and needed to be restarted every time you opened it. Applications that feel entitled to resources after you tell them to go away lead me to move them into a VM just to contain all the crap and sprawl and bullshit.

The number of apps in this category just keeps on growing. I'm starting to feel like I should just run Qubes. This is just for Windows. On Linux, Firefox doesn't self-update because distros already handle updates. LogonType10 22 days ago root parent prev next [—]. I'm also planning to make the switch.

Do you know anyone who's tried Qubes? The finicky hardware requirements are intimidating. I've used Qubes at home and at work for about a year now. I like it. It definitely requires thinking differently and sometimes simple things are less simple, but overall I feel it's worth it. It's rewarding to feel that you're in control. I use qubes for work. I don't like it. LogonType10 22 days ago root parent next [—]. What don't you like about it? I'd like to experience the drawbacks firsthand, but I don't have the hardware yet and Qubes can't be demoed in a VM.

I ran qubes for a while. I found it to be slow and inconvenient. The idea is nice, but practically it's like running fedora except everything takes twice as long to start up. It's inconvenient as fuck with a very specific security model that makes sense for my use case, but doesn't for most.

But generally it's just annoying. I am glad Windows is moving to a package manager esque system. It would be nice if rather than reinventing the wheel for the billionth time, apps could just use the OS based update mechanisms where possible. App calls apt, or snap, or winget, or windows store, which updates Firefox.

Whether that be store based or packaged based. For a probably over a year now I've been using Edge because I was making a half-hearted attempt to de-Google myself where possible yes I know it's Chromium, but it's a start Finally yesterday I got so sick of Microsoft's incessant prompts to try Bing, and shoving news and ads in the new tab page, and integrating Bing rewards, etc.

First thing I did when I opened Chrome was to go into the settings and update it since I hadn't opened it in I-don't-know-how-long and I was surprised to see it was already on the latest version. Great to know it was wasting system resources to update itself without me knowing even though I wasn't using it, and don't even have a process indicator for Chrome in my system tray. Firefox has had a Mozilla Maintenance Service[1] essentially a daemon on Windows since or so.

I'm guessing they are improving it so the UX for updates involves even less effort for users. They've had the MozillaMaintenance service for several years on Windows already, what has changed now?

The MozillaMaintenance service isn't what is responsible for checking for updates. It's not clear to me if MozillaMaintenance is the service that will be checking for updates, or if there is a new service. I don't know about this version but at least one could uninstall the maintenance service. It was the first thing I'd nuke before allowing my PC to reconnect to the internet, the second was to nuke every talk-home-Mozilla link that about:config would allow to either be changed or deleted.

This worked, as updates wouldn't even work when clicking 'updates' in the menu. Mozilla has a damned hide to automate updates, not to mention gathering data about users' habits without telling them what's been gathered, and also not allowing users to turn off that collection if they wished. BTW, we know the depth of this surveillance just by looking at Mozilla's comments on v94's webpage. There's no way Mozilla would know that data unless Firefox's surveillance of its users had been all-pervasive.

By going the way of the rest of the industry, Mozilla is shooting itself in the foot. People who've used Firefox in the past have done so because they want an alterative - not more of the same. I expect Mozilla will go defunct soon, it's now been on its self-destruct path for too long for it to be rescued.

Mozilla "inside agent" here. Not really, but I work for Mozilla. Don't speak for them etc. I didn't consider downvoting, but since you mentioned it below it would kind of make sense, since much of what you say here is objectively false. But you're raising legitimate concerns, so I have no reason to prevent your post from being seen. Mozilla is very open about what is collected, and all of it can be turned off.

We'd really rather you not lock in insecure versions; until you've worked on a browser, you won't believe how active and pervasive the attacks are. As a developer, I'll also say that the internal process for adding any additional collection is pretty heavyweight. Even if you're just collecting the distribution of garbage collection time slices, you need to go through a privacy data review.

If something there is unclear, or you have reason to believe we're a bunch of scheming liars and you have the receipts to prove it, please let me know.

Firefox Suggest is a calculated tradeoff to provide more functionality in exchange for sending more data, but again it's totally configurable if you disagree with the tradeoff. I honestly don't know what you're going on about with "Mozilla's comments on v94's webpage", so I can't respond to that.

I will assert that Mozilla is very much not going the way of the rest of the industry, and we are in fact being very conscious to carve out a different path. Which isn't easy. But if you have the degree of distrust conveyed by your message, then please don't use Firefox. It's not doing you or us any favors. It's fine to call out specific problems and gaps though.

Feedback is good, and anyone interested enough to seriously look at this is welcome to get involved with the Mozilla project and contribute to improving this stuff. First, I actually do respect your views and I'm pleased you've had the fortitude to responded as such. To respond adequately to your post would require me to start detailing what I and many others reckon what's wrong with Firefox and similarly so with Thunderbird.

Clearly that's not very practical here, as to do so we'd be bogged down in detail and the key points of the argument would be lost. That said and not wanting to let anyone assume I'm avoiding your points, I've divided an overview of the key objections into the following groups.

Features that by their intrinsic nature should be in both Firefox and Thunderbird but which are missing. These are left to be picked by add-on developers who eventually give up after Mozilla breaks the compatibility model once too often. Thus a useful feature we'd gotten used to via an add-on literally disappears with an upgrade more about this in point 2.

The single biggest fiasco with Firefox from a user's perspective is Mozilla's perennial breaking of its add-ons. Not only is this disrespectful to third-party developers who develop them, and it often turns them off from doing further development work, but also it infuriates users whenever their add-ons no longer work. In essence, when an add-on no longer works after an upgrade, users consider such an upgrade as actually a downgrade in terms of performance and user ergonomics.

Whilst Mozilla may have done this for noble reasons such as improved security it's of very little concern or comfort to the average user myself included whose facility no longer works. Just go to Mozilla's add-ons site and check the huge number of incompatibility issues one finds even with the items that are still listed many are not.

For the record, I'll mention just one add-on that should have been in the core program that was fixed by an add-on which was later busted by a 'retrograde' Mozilla 'upgrade' and that was Lazarus, it very usefully allowed undos in dialogue boxes etc. If just about every text editor and wordprocessor has multiple levels of undo then why doesn't Firefox? Had undo worked then there'd had been no problem. Thus it's a problem with many browsers. No, I'm not using Firefox or Chrome here. Many of us remember those failures and it's why so many of us go to inordinate lengths to nuke automatic updates, as they're likely to backfire just when we least expect it inconviently in the middle of an important job etc.

The picture that such actions and there's been many of them engender in many of us users is that Mozilla programers primarily program out of self-interest rather than that of users' actual needs. Naturally, you programmers prefer simpler, cleaner code that doesn't support legacy features - similarly, it seems none of you are prepared to do the extra yard work - the extra coding - need to keep old-API add-ons safe.

Morever, many of us aren't interested in DRM or pandering to the tech giants. Include new features if you must but at least provide us users with the option to let us turn them off. As you've seen with Firefox, sticking to some moral highgound, or overdoing security above all else - not to mention overly pandering to new web standards forced on us by the new owners of the Internet, Google Facebook et all, has its heavy penalties.

Provide these features by all means but stop taking full responsibility for a user's security. Moreover, if you want to pander to the security mob, then I'd again point to the fact that such righteousness has cost Mozilla dearly in market share.

For instance, the first of these forced annoyances was the removal of the switch to turn JavaScript off. Right, default it to 'on' for the majority who wish to use it but it's down outright authoritarian programming to insist that you programers know best - especially when you seemingly haven't a clue about user ergonomics or what actually annoys users and I've a damned good idea having run an IT department for years only to find myself continually falling foul of users who blame me and or my staff as they hold us directly responsible for your 'irresponsible' programming changes.

Why you programers want to be on such a power kick is something that only psychologists can figure out if that's at all possible. Of course, it's not only Mozilla programmers here, Microsoft's are possibly the worst. It's the sheer arrogance that you programners display when you think you know what's best for users when you often don't have a clue which is so annoying I'm not aiming specifically at Mozilla programmers here, rather that inflated ego is characteristic of breed.

BTW, I've done a considerable amount of programming in my time but I don't consider myself a professional programer. Similarly, instead of fixing boring bugs such as those longstanding ones in the printer routine and the overall outdatedness of the printer routine per se, not to mention that other first-class annoyance - the failure of text selected by the mouse to be copied from the context menu thus it requires a full highlight followed by CTRL-C then CTRL-V to actually work - you Mozilla programers simply ignore them year after year.

Right, fixing bugs is boring, but adding new features obviosly isn't - even if many users deem them unnecessary or of secondary importance to rectifying problems with the more utilitarian features of the program. I mention Australis here. As it's clear it annoyed the hell out of many users, thus it's fitting to ask why Mozilla didn't include an optional fallback to the older UI.

Right, I've already answered that point. If Mozilla's programmers genuinely claim they're trying to do the right thing by users then it's almost impossible to conclude that they actually understand users - or what features users actually want from a browser. Who do you ask and why doesn't Mozilla respond to the many thousands of complaints just like mine?

Yes, it's a restatement of what I've already said, but it has to be true or otherwise Firefox's usage ratings wouldn't be nosediving off the graph. An adjunct to that is that Mozilla never fully levels with its users concerning the real reasons for why its takes certain actions - that is other than to dress up changes with PR-speak and spin.

If Mozilla's leveled with users more honesty then users would likely reciprocate. Moreover, you would have fewer users like me upping hyperbole to critical levels out of sheer frustration. Finally, likewise, I don't understand why you can't see my reasoning for why the Firefox 94 webpage contains said info you mentioned. I'll get the quote and post it here when I've a moment. Again, what I've said hurts and I know it. Please understand it's no vendetta and it hurts me to be so negative especially when there's so much negativity about these days ; and it also hurts to see the only essentially independent browser going down the gurgler when it ought not to be.

You should spare a thought for people like me who insist that the corporate browser should be Firefox only to find us between a rock and a hard place when it all goes belly-up for the many reasons mentioned. Defending Firefox against Chrome is no easy task these days. This may be too short a response to be satisfying. I agree with some of your points, disagree with others, and end up coming from a somewhat different place.

And my salary comes from Mozilla, so I will freely admit to being biased. Ironically, constant add-on breakage is exactly why we broke all the addons. The situation really was as bad as you describe; every release broke large numbers of addons because the addon architectural was far too invasive. It was unsustainable. Bug fixes, security fixes, and new features all required changes that broke addons. That doesn't happen anymore. Or at least, it is now rare instead of ridiculously common.

Addons are much more limited, they break very rarely, and we have been able to make some changes necessary for some survival-threatening shortcomings eg Spectre vulnerabilities that the competitors do not have. I miss Lazarus too. We have not done as good a job as we liked at implementing the new extension model. The massive layoffs made that much harder. Arguing over what users want is a losing proposition. I know I've often been surprised and disappointed by the data.

And I freely admit that there are some major deficiencies still present. Often, though, I find that results are different in different environments. The context menu thing works here, for example. Please file a bug if there isn't already one.

The printer stuff was completely ignored and abandoned for a very, very long time. It has dramatically improved in the last few versions.

Supporting older UX is always a hard one. I feel it too, I generally don't see the point in most changes, but I'm not going to second-guess the people who say that UX refreshes make more people happy than sad.

And maintenance of past stuff has a surprisingly high cost that can't be waved away as devs being lazy. Especially in the face of mass layoffs. Mozilla never fully levels with its users concerning the real reasons for why it takes certain actions - that is other than to dress up changes with PR-speak and spin.

I tend to agree. I don't think it's as bad as you say, but I do think it's an area of weakness. I don't think you're completely wrong about all this, but it does look a lot different from the inside. That said and not wanting to let anyone assume I'm avoiding your points, I've divided the key objections into the following groups. These are left to be picked by add-on developers who eventually give up after Mozilla broke the compatibility model once too often.

Thus a useful feature we'd gotten used to via an add-on literally disappeared with an upgrade more about this in point 2. Not only is this disrespectful to third-party developers who develop them, and it often it turns them off from doing further development work, but also it infuriates users whenever their add-ons no longer work. In essence, to them an upgrade is actually a downgrade in terms of user ergonomics.

Whilst Mozilla may have done this for noble reasons such as improved security it's of very little concern to the the average user myself included whose facility no longer works. For the record, I'll mention one add-on that should have been in the core program that was fixed by an add-on which was later busted by a 'retrograde' Mozilla 'upgrade' and that was Lazarus, it very usefully allowed undos in dialogue boxes etc. Right, include new features if you have to but at least provide us users with the option to let us turn them off.

For instance, the first of these annoyances was the removal of the switch to turn JavaScript off. Right, default it to 'on' for the majority who wish to use it but it's down outright authoritarian programming to insist that you programers know best - especially when you haven't a clue about user ergonomics or what actually annoys users and I've a damned good idea having run an IT department for years only to find myself continually falling foul and being blamed and held responsible by users for your programming changes.

It's the sheer arrogance that you programners diaplay when you think you know what's best for users when you often don't have a clue which is so annoying I'm not aiming specifically at Mozilla programmers here, rather that inflated ego is characteristic of breed.

Similarly, instead of fixing boring bugs such as those longstanding ones in the printer routine and the overall outdatedness of the printer routine per se, not to mention that other first-class annoyance - the failure of text selected by the mouse to be copied from the context menu thus requiring a full highlight followed by CTRL-C then CTRL-V to actually work - you Mozilla programers simply ignore them year after year.

Right, fixing bugs is boring, but adding new features obviosly isn't - even if many users deem them unnecessary or of secondary importance to rectifying the more utilitarian features of the program. As it's clear it annoyed the hell out of many users, thus it's fitting to ask why Mozilla didn't include an optional fallback to the older UI?

If Mozilla's programmers genuinely claim they're trying to do the right thing by users then it's almost impossible to conclude that they actually understand users - or what features they actually want from a browser. Yes, it's a restatement of what I've already said, but it has to be true otherwise Firefox's usage ratings wouldn't be nosediving off the graph.

Moreover, you would have fewer users like me upping critical hyperbole out of sheer frustration. Please ignore this post and read the corrected one.

I hadn't realized it was there until it was too late to delete it. Not being able to delete a post when there are no replies isn't the most cleaver of ideas in my opinion. Incidentally, the problem occurred when I was editing the text and I responded too quickly to a page that wasn't appearing to update.

The server responded with a one-line message to the effect that it hadn't uppated the text and whatever I did next somehow created a duplicate. Despite of all the telemetry Mozilla still has absolutely zero clue who their core audience actually is, because they sure as hell are set on decimating what's left of it.

But why? It's bizarre. It's almost as if moles from other browser manufacturers have been smuggled surreptitiously onto Mozilla's staff to sabotage the Firefox project. Or maybe, just maybe, people have a different opinion to yourself about how Mozilla can succeed. Taywee 22 days ago root parent prev next [—]. You'd obviously be able to uninstall this, too. If your OS allows third-party programs to install services that can not be disabled or uninstalled, the problem is deeper than just the programs you are installing; you need a different OS.

Telemetry is optional. You can disable it. I can understand disliking Mozilla or Firefox's direction, but I absolutely don't understand this paranoid, cynical doomposting and straight-up misinformation about one of the only browsers where you can actually outright disable telemetry, and where you can still separate the address bar from the search bar to avoid leaking information.

What do you expect to happen when you check the "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" other than them sending data about how people use the browser to Mozilla? It even has a link right next to it in the settings where you can see what data is used. You can know the "depth of this surveillance" by just clicking "learn more" and reading the very first section you are linked to, titled "Interaction data". More importantly, what do you actually propose?

What browser are you using that is much more private and secure than Firefox, and allows you the same flexibility in controlling the level of privacy you actually want? The first thing Firefox does when launched is to contact home irrespective of how normal user settings are set.

And as we well know, most users will use the defaults and Mozilla is counting on this quirk of human nature. If Mozilla's bona fides were actually genuine and not sleight of hand then it would default all and every bit of telemetry to off and allow the user to switch it on if he or she so desired. BTW, I don't buy the argument that only some of the phone-home data counts as telemetry; by definition, any data sent to Mozilla is telemetry. Read my 'Edit' in another of your related posts. Please note: that edit was posted before I'd read this post of yours.

This is only one of several thousand tweaks to Win 7 needed to make it user-friendly to yours truly. But then, perhaps that's a bit too close for comfort if you work for Mozilla.

Assuming everybody who disagrees with you is some sort of Mozilla inside agent is really getting off on a bad foot, and sabotages any hope of productive discussion before it even starts.

Don't assume bad faith in everybody who doesn't think the same way that you do. What I think is irrelevant, I can echo my disgust here out of frustration, but I know that in the grand scheme of things it will amount to nought.

Bad faith or just plain stupidity, you cannot escape the fact that Firefox is on a fast slippery slope to obivlion and that Mozilla personnel have done nothing to arrest the process in recent years.

Why not? What's driving them to continually implement features and policies that clearly turn users off using Firefox? If you've a better rational reason or perhaps inside knowledge for why Mozilla continually shoots itself in the foot then many of us would like to hear it.

Edit: I usually use the Firefox fork Palemoon to get around many of Firefox's most egregious features but I'd prefer not to do that as it increases my vulnerability to browser fingerprinting,etc. You ought to be able to at least understand why many of us are so annoyed when essentially the last independent browser manufacturer is seemingly willingly attempting suicide. I used to work on the team that owned this The maintenance service is used to prevent the need for UAC prompts during upgrades.

That's it. No background update functionality. Turning background updates off is the first thing I do after installing FF. I think we can thank Microsoft for this, leaving us without a decent package manager for decades. Here's to hoping that Winget is the panacea. I think the sweet spot would be for minor updates that fix security issues, but for MAJOR version updates, no tell me what you're doing.

How sure are you that I didn't intentionally install an older version to figure out a bug on an older variant of the browser. BitwiseFool 22 days ago parent prev next [—]. I had to resort to using policies. I'm on Firefox It is a risk, but one I have chosen to take in the short-term.

I really dislike the direction Mozilla is going and I will probably have to switch browsers in Which browser vendor goes to a direction you'd like? I'm just curious because as much as I disagree with many of Mozilla decisions, I still can't honestly compare it to other browser vendors like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

Truthfully, I'm starting to feel browser-homeless, for lack of a better term. I'm using FF because I don't want to be on Chrome. I don't have a problem with Chromium based browsers, though, so I gave Edge a try. So that's a no-go. I'll probably just find some fork of Firefox or a Chromium based browser and just make-do. Actually way the background updater is done is much better than most. People often confuse this feature with the Mozilla Maintenance Service, the latter has shipped with Firefox for more than a decade and is used to avoid UAC prompts during updates.

The problem here is windows not providing an open way to update things from an external repo easily like Linux does. The end game, I assume, is that updates eventually come through the store. But that effectively prevent updates unless they agree to it. To remove this task, open Task Scheduler, you will find a new Mozilla folder under "Task scheduled library" where you can disable or delete it.

Will probably come back next update. This is a Windows problem, not a Firefox problem. Raphael 22 days ago parent prev next [—]. It's especially strange to be constantly avoiding auto-updates when I'm trying to update everything with winget.

I assume there is an option. If this fails to happen, remember to rename the file with actual file name and extension once its completed. Kelvin Muriuki is a web content developer that's passionate about keeping the internet a useful place. He is the founder and editor of Journey Bytes , a tech blog and web design agency. Feel free to connect with him regarding the content appearing on this page or on web and content development.

For multiple files does this method download each file individually or does it download them all at once? On the other hand if you mean bulk downloading multiple files from MEGA e.

If you put a link with multiple files, the downloader will only generate a download link for the first file. I just tried this with a download link for a folder with files and this is what I got:.

Feel free to share your comments or questions with me. I may not be able to respond immediately so please check later once I've approved your comment. Your email address will not be published.