Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Users Stay Ahead On the Update Curve
Reader Alex links to news of a study comparing the currency and patch level of various Web browsers, excerpting:
"Firefox users were far and away the most likely to use the latest version, with an overwhelming 83.3 percent running an updated browser on any given day. However, despite Firefox's single click integrate auto-update functionality, 16.7 percent of Firefox users still continue to access the Web with an outdated version of the browser, researchers said. The study also revealed that the majority of Safari users (65.3) percent were likely to use the latest version of the browser between December 2007 and June 2008, after Safari version 3 became available. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Internet Explorer users ranked last in terms of safe browsing. Between January 2007 and June 2008, less than half of IE users — 47.6 percent — were running the most secure browser version during the same time period."
47% are still using Mosaic????
I leave the auto-update feature on in Firefox because I trust that when Mozilla pushes updates they are valuable to me in terms of security or features and that they've been well tested. This has generally held to be true.
On the other hand, on any system I administer I immediately disable automatic updates because Microsoft sometimes pushes patches that only partially address a problem, creating a false sense of security, and then later re-issue them, push things like updates to Windows Media DRM as critical updates (it's not critical to me, Microsoft!), and release updates that go on to cause problems with other software or system stability in general.
When I can trust Microsoft to apply only security updates to IE (or other components of my choosing), maybe I'll consider turning automatic updates back on. Maybe.
This is understandable, considering the level of obnoxiousness. Firefox gives you a discrete notice that it has downloaded an update, and you can choose not to install it right away, but instead having it installed next time you start firefox. Windows Updates are so damn obnoxious that I always consider turning it off and doing my updates manually. I know how to update my computer manually, but I suspect the bulk of users out there, just get frustrated about the constant bells and whistles of Windows Update, that they turn it off and leave it like that.
When Microsoft has shit flashing on the screen automatically to remind you to do updates, it's evil intrusion in to one's privacy. But when Firefox does exactaly the same thing, they're God's gift to enlightenment.
The reason most Firefox users use the most up to date version is that it's the only way to get rid of the annoying pop-ups.
It's rational fear of the unknown.
I've never had a Firefox or Safari issue toast my machine. I've had IE updates do it twice before (on different machines).
I just don't see how a browser can cause such mayhem to the OS - considering it's the browser that supposedly runs inside the OS, and not the other way around.
Well ok, I can. To rephrase: I don't see how a browser should cause such mayhem to the OS.
The Mothership
The majority of IE users use IE "because it's there." These people see no reason to download a different browser because one is already provided for them. These are the same people that usually end up relying on Automatic Updates to secure their browser, in most cases not even aware that these updates were taking place to begin with. Chances are that these people don't know that their browser even has updates, much less that they are running an insecure, outdated browser.
Users of alternative browsers, by contrast, use their browser deliberately. They know that IE is there, but they blatantly decide to go against the tide and use something else. Whatever the reason for this depends on the user, but most of them share this common trait. Said browsers can't use Automatic Updates, so they must have their own update checking mechanisms in place. Every alternative browser I've used will check every so often for an update and display a pop-up for the user. The user then knows that their browser is out-of-date. Such users also tend to want the latest version, again for various reasons. Firefox is a bit more aggressive that most, downloading the update by default and installing it regardless of whether the user chooses to have it done now or later, which better explains its higher percentage.
Where I work we had IE 7 a couple years ago but the corporate intranet didn't work properly or IT didn't want to support it or something so I'm forced to use IE 6. I couldn't update IE if I wanted to on the computer where I work. I use firefox at home but I go to quite a few websites during my lunch break. Unless they're filtering out IP's from corporate domains I suspect the results of the study are skewed by users surfing while at work.
If I spend all my time keeping up with upgrades, I won't have any time left to actually use my damn computer. And sometimes an older version works better for me. All that automatic crap is turned off. My disks are backed up...I think... I'll upgrade if something breaks. I hope you're ok with that.
What?
No reason to fix what isn't broke.
What the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
That many people still run IE 2.0?
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
Development cycles are too extended to be used in any annual statistics. Perhaps you can petition to have them included in centennial statistics?
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
I'm not sure why they couldn't have the update option for version 2.xx at least offer the option to update to version 3. It just kept telling me there were no new updates available. I wouldn't call it 'single click' at all.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Well I still use version 1.5.0.12. Just minimize those annoying upgrade popups every time they pop up. 10 clicks & they just give an error & next day it's another popup for another upgrade. You mean those weren't advertizements? Well, probably just destroyed someone's TimeWarner stock.
Now that it's mentioned, there really is something about Firefox's update feature that gets you to install and use the latest version. Maybe it's that it's so easy and doesn't mess up anything, e.g., by making drastic changes to the appearance of the browser, etc. I would say that most of the nearly 20% who are running outdated versions are probably the paranoid type who think that updating their software will mean introducing problems, you know, the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But this study is totally correct: Of all the browsers, Firefox makes updating the easiest.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
AC makes no sense. Assuming it takes users some constant time C to update, and all users update theri browsers (big assumption...), then with two updates per week, users will run the latest version of the browser 1-C/7 of the time. With updates twice per month, users will run with the latest version 1-C/30 of the time. Obviously C/7 > C/30 therefore if you update less often users will be up-to-date more often.
That firefox users are up-to-date 83-ish% of the time is MORE, not less, impressive because Mozilla pushes out a fix for something about twice a week.
It seems that corporate/government users don't have as much of a choice in when to update their browsers and a good number don't have the choice to switch to firefox and are forced to use IE. I know that at my job (government) we can't update on our own and are forced to wait for the IT staff to push the updates through, sometimes days or weeks after they become available.
No reason to fix what isn't broke.
Oh it's broke. You just don't know.
Web developers heed my call. Stop making websites accept security corrupting browsers because half the time they are pry zombies. Look at your logs and see the rate at which these computers increase revenue. Drop them at whatever delta you think prudent.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Well, browsers are a little different, from a security perspective you could argue they *are* broke whenever new vulnerabilities are discovered. For a web browser, they need continuing updates to address new security vulnerabilities. Unfortunately there's only so much interest in continuing security-only fixes to older versions...
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Firefox users are already going to be people who care more about what software they're using and security. IE users are everyone who doesn't really care and never actually chose what browser to use, everyone who doesn't know too much about computers and on top those who do care and chose IE, but those are only a minority of the IE user group. So it's logical that in the firefox user group people are going to update faster, it's not directly related to the browser but to the user group.
I wonder how much of that 47.6% figure is due to corporate IT departments refusing or unable to roll out newer versions of IE. I work on a fairly popular european website, with close to half of its IE users (around 25% total) still using IE 6. Site usage spikes around noon with a sharp dropoff on the weekend, suggesting that people browse it from work. So I did a quick internal survey in my (tech) company and found that outside of IT and Software Development, almost everyone was still using Windows 2000, which of course doesnt't get IE 7+. It's a shame, really. As a web developer, I hate IE 6 with a burning passion but it's not going away until MS activates the secret killswitch in W2K in a desperate attempt to get people to switch to Vista...
I wonder how much of the old Firefox usage is old installs in Linux? You can't use the built-in updater if you installed the RPM/DEB because the permissions are (or should be) wrong for letting you write to the folder. AFAIK there's only a few distros who have moved to Firefox 3 so far, so the rest would be showing up as out-dated.
Similarly for Windows, if they're counting Firefox 3 as "up to date" then how many people are still on old v2s because they don't know about v3?
Newer is NOT always better.
.59 only to find that ctrl/shift + mouse clicks were bugged, therefore screwing me in WoW. Had to revert back.
Anyone who uses linux should know this.
For example, wine v0.9.58 works perfectly for me; I blindly updated to
Usually, updates are a good thing, but not always.
IE7 was rammed down most of the populations throat with an automatic security update a while back, though it has the graces to not try to install it again if you say no to the IE7 license agreement. I'm also not sure if this happened before the start of the study.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
When using Portable Firefox, the automatic updates installs the normal version when updating. This results in something you don't want. So I uncheck the automatic update, and do this manually.
I use Camino as my browser on my Mac and choose to leave the home page as the default "Camino Start" page. Its very minimalist, just shows a small Google search box, and a link to the latest version which changes colour to red if my version is outdated.
No in-your-face messages, no irritating popups, no external syncing software... though I guess it only works if you keep it as your home page. Makes sense to use a feature that's built into every web browser (sarcasm aside): the ability to load a web page!
Cheers, ~ Ruben
I can't tell you how annoying it was to have IE7 forced through the automatic updates system. I would normally say it is a good thing to update the browser... as it is the single most common entry point for spyware, adware, etc (with the email client being the single most common entry point for viruses).
HOWEVER:
a) The "Menu" bar is missing by default (yea the File, Edit, View, Etc... toolbar).
Try explaining to a client over the phone how to "Right-click in an area toward the top of the browser below the title bar, but above the content window, and not in the address bar, oh and not on another toolbar, somewhere kinda blank, maybe to the right of the green arrow, oh that area isn't blank on your screen, oh yea I don't mean blank, just without buttons, did you get the menu, well it should have check marks next to toolbar names, uh something like Standard / Address Bar / Links, yea you got it, wait no, I didn't say click on address bar, ok do it again and turn address bar back on, oh it wasn't on... yea turn it on and then turn on, yes I mean make a check mark by it, yes, ok try it again and turn on the one called, uh something like, just read me what your menu says, yes, that one, ok now do you have File / Edit / View at the top of the window, oh no it's below the address bar and buttons, yea, ok bring up the menu again and uncheck "lock toolbars", then click on the edge, it has little bumps, well more like lines, yea you can grab it there and move it, then you didn't click on the right area, yea try again, ok move it up, well then you have to move the address bar back down, try wiggling it at the top, move it around until the address bar goes onto its own line, yea keep trying, you aren't wiggling it properly, then just drop it there and move the address bar, no it can't go all the way at the top, I don't know why, ask Microsoft why, yea, ok well was there anything else..." and so on.
b) The "Address" bar is hidden by default
See "a"
c) FTP is broken (yep, just fails with "cannot be displayed" when you click an ftp:// link ... you have to go into "File > Open With Windows Explorer" to get it to open properly)
Here is a big problem, most software download sites have mirrors at ftp:// links, which fail without any reason. IE 6 and previous would re-task the current IE window to a Windows Explorer window and process the FTP request... no so with IE 7(they may have fixed this since). The net result is that users who may try to update their software, or download new software, are unable to. Sites that worked last night suddenly don't. (I first ran into this when a customer called me saying they couldn't download the new version of their anti-virus software, talk about security updates).
d) Common buttons are missing or drastically re-skinned to the extent that users are lost
e) Tabs confuse IE Users (yes I know they are off by default, but users click on things and enable things accidently, and then call me asking why it is broken).
. . .
Shortly after IE 7's relese we implemented a remote desktop application for all phone support requests.
Most people in big companies cannot update their IExplorer. Updates come through when IT have verified them. It's a trade off between the security risk of an old browser and the risk of breaking the entire company if the update is bad. Most BIG COMPANIES use IExplorer. Nothing to see here folks.
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
Out of curiosity, what percentage of the internet is still on Dialup?
I find that autoupdates are impossible over a dialup connection so I switch them off. I'm willing to bet that this is the most common reason for people using an old version of Firefox.
I think this just shows that firefox user are, just like my fellow opera users, just a bunch of browser fanbois. Hell, i even run weekly snapshot builds of opera for no reason. IE users dont care about the browser in the first place, Safari isn't something Mac users chose to use because it's so great either. So why would they bother updating all the time? ...
So in conclusion, this study shows: If you chose to use some special software, you will update it when you use it. Big suprise
(Warning: Self-promotion)
In my eWEEK column on this study I point out numerous problems with it. Many have been mentioned by others.
The main issue is that the study is based on user-agent string data from Google's logs, and Microsoft does not supply minor version information in that string, unlike Firefox, Safari and others. Microsoft considers this to be an "information disclosure vulnerability" because it would help an attacker to commit version-specific attacks.
Because of this, the authors only know about IE major versions (5, 6. 7, 8) and decided that all IE7 users were secure, while nobody else was. Microsoft is still providing security updates for IE5 and IE6; while they are not as secure as IE7 for a variety of reasons, it's not reasonable to lump them into a group with people who don't update their browser. Conversely, if you have IE7 and haven't applied any of the security updates to it, the study says you're up to date.
Be that as it may, as others have said, the issue here is that business users use IE and the other browsers have minimal footprint in it. Firefox, by default, has no support for managed updates, and IT in a big company would (make that should) never allow users to apply updates willy-nilly to their systems. Another point is that while Microsoft supports old version for years, at the demand of their customers, Mozilla withdraws all support for old versions within 6 months of a new one being released. In fact, support for Firefox 2 will end in December of this year. Businesses won't tolerate this. IE5 support on Windows 2000 will continue till 2010 and IE6 as late as 2015.
The problem with Internet Explorer is that the version of your OS determine if you can upgrade to the latest version or not. For example, Windows 2000 users can't use Windows Internet Explorer 7. It simply won't install. So they have to keep using Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. I even suspect IE 7 to require Windows XP Service Pack 2. Perhaps Internet Explorer 8 will require Windows Vista who knows... So many Internet Explorer users don't update because they don't want to but rather because they can't. On the other hand, browsers like Opera, Mozilla Firefox or SeaMonkey allow you to update whatever your OS version is. I even installed latest SeaMonkey painlessly on a Windows 98 box...