Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades

ruphus13 writes "Firefox has been pushing version 3.0 very aggressively, and firmly believes that it is a solid product. The Download Day was just one of their ways to drum up user support for the new release. Now, Firefox is going to 'gently nudge' users of Firefox 2.0 to upgrade. Some users may have been waiting for their add-ons to get upgraded, but now Mozilla is planning to apply a little nudge. Sometime within the next week, people using Firefox 2.0.0.16 will see a request to upgrade and though you'll have the option to decline, it's likely Firefox will ask again anyway. Users will most likely be offered a second chance to upgrade after several weeks. (Mozilla will stop supporting version 2 in December.) It will be interesting to see if this speeds up the rate of upgrade by users, as well as upgrades of the add-ons."

Comments

just like vista

[RemoWilliams84]

Great, now will have more little reminders and popups. Soon everything will be like Vista.

Re:just like vista

[RemoWilliams84]

All I'm saying, is I don't them to tell me but one time. I'm stubborn and I'll do it when I want.

Re:just like vista

[larry bagina]

if it is the most important thing to keep updated, why are they stopping the V2 security updates half a year after v3 was released?

Re:just like vista

[EmperorKagato]

Until you get WORM_STORM_X on your PC from a website that exploited the browser.

Re:just like vista

[EmperorKagato]

I trust NoScript, but I don't want to visit their website after after every update.

Then you don't trust NoScript.

Re:just like vista

[schwaang]

And I'm saying Firefox should have a guideline to handle this, since they distribute the code through addons.mozilla.org.

Re:just like vista

[Anonymous Coward]

The extension and updates come from moz's servers, not the extension's website.

Re:just like vista

[schwaang]

That's funny. When I went to addons.mozilla.org I got a download link that was not on noscript's website: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/downloads/file/35871/noscript-1.7.9-fx+mz+sm.xpi

Just because you don't think like a cracker doesn't mean you're not a honky.

Re:just like vista

[dvice_null]

You don't seem to remember what the world was before Firefox. There really was no room for other browsers. Even Opera had to act like IE (even claim to be one) to be even barely usable.

Firefox is still open source and it has improved the websites around the world. I would like this trend to continue, so I will keep supporting Firefox.

Actually a good idea

[Daimanta]

Using software that isn't supported is inherently dangerous. And the fact is, Firefox 3 is gratis so getting the new version is no upgrading treadmill. As long as they are not too annoying(5 minute Windows reboot nag screen) like a screen every 2 weeks, I don't see a problem with this.

Re:Actually a good idea

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

That's not the point. My computer, my software, my choice. Remember "choice"? Mozilla was all about it at one point in time. It seems with greater market share comes all the negatives we've come to expect from other software vendors.

By all means ask the question. But respect my answer.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Daimanta]

Yes, but tech-aware users are very rare and it is a wise idea to help remember ff2 users that their version is about to lose support and it is wise to upgrade. As long as people aren't forced, there is no real problem.

Re:Actually a good idea

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

OK I've changed my position on this a bit. There should be no more than two notices.

#1: Firefox 3 is now available. Would you like to upgrade? (Yes/Later/Go Away)
#2: Firefox 2.x will cease to receive security updates in 1 week. --Brief explanation of risks posed here--. Would you like to update to Firefox 3? (Yes/Later/Go Away)

I guess the change of circumstance in that second situation deserves a second notice. However that should be it. Those two, nothing more.

Re:Actually a good idea

[MC Negro]

That's not the point. My computer, my software, my choice. Remember "choice"? Mozilla was all about it at one point in time. It seems with greater market share comes all the negatives we've come to expect from other software vendors.

By all means ask the question. But respect my answer.

I think you would have a stronger case about "choice" if they were remotely disabling old versions of FireFox. You do have a right to subject yourself to security vulnerabilities, but by no means is the software vendor obligated to design their software in a manner that caters to this behavior.

As it stands, you have plenty of choices -

• You can upgrade to new version for free.
• You can continue to use your preferred version and be nagged every few weeks.
• You can fork your preferred version and remove the nagging bit
• You can stop using the browser.

Don't get me wrong - I understand the strain associated with clicking "No" every few weeks, but I think this is a good solution for keeping FireFox users secure and complying with web standards.

Re:Actually a good idea

[ivantheshifty]

People have what they need right now, and trying to shove a new version at them is disrespectful of their customers.

But consider the large majority of FF2 users who simply don't know FF3 exists; they don't follow tech news, they just need to check their email, check their bank statements, and occasionally look at pictures of kittens. Mozilla's cutting off support in December, making FF2 users vulnerable to new, unpatched exploits and attacks. Sure, the 3% of FF2 users who are power-users and dislike FF3 for technology concerns might feel disrespected, but for our beloved kitten-viewers, Mozilla would be negligent if it didn't make them aware. And the disrespected crowd are knowledgeable enough to turn off the reminder; the regular folks might not ever hear about the December support cutoff through other channels.

So what would you have them do: piss off a few arrogant technophiles, or leave all the kitten-lovers out in the rain to get hacked?

Re:Actually a good idea

[Mistshadow2k4]

I think you would have a stronger case about "choice" if they were remotely disabling old versions of FireFox.

Bullcrap. If they nag you intermittently until you either upgrade or uninstall FF altogether, they're trying hard to not give you a choice. Saying the user still has a choice in those circumstances is like saying you still have a choice of whether or not to surrender your money while a robber's knife is at your throat. Does that seem too melodramatic? The point still stands. They're going to nag you until you do what they want, which is decidedly not freedom of choice for the user.

You do have a right to subject yourself to security vulnerabilities, but by no means is the software vendor obligated to design their software in a manner that caters to this behavior.

Excuse me, but what? That doesn't make sense. How is it asking them to design their software in any way at all to not be nagged? The user in this equation is asking them to not to do something, not to do something.

Re:Actually a good idea

[svank]

I'm curious, would a fifth choice be to uncheck the "Automatically check for updates to Firefox" option in the Advanced part of options menu?

I'll upgrade when...

[medeii]

... someone finally makes an addon that wholly, completely, disables the StupidBar. Yes, I know about the about:config hacks and the existing addons. This is an issue I keep up with, after all.

And please, don't bother to reply if you're just going to parrot how much you LOVE the "Awesome Bar" and think I should give it an umpteenth chance. Been there, done that, still think it sucks.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[smooth wombat]

they pry Fx 2 from cold, dead hard drive.

Add me onto the list of so-not Awesome Bar haters. I know where I've been, I don't need to be told every time I type a url, and I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to turn this crappy "feature"[1] off.

Hell, you can turn off auto-complete (which is what it is) in IE by unchecking a box. Why can't the Fx team do the same?

[1]It appears the Fx team is adopting Microsoft's idea of what a good "feature" is.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[clone53421]

Some websites just shouldn't be kept in the history, if you ask me... unfortunately, they also can't have a "don't remember these sites" list for obvious reasons. So you're pretty much stuck with cleaning your history by hand, because your head is the only safe place to keep that "don't remember these sites" list.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course liking or disliking something is personal preference, so there is no right or wrong about it. But this being slashdot, you are sooooo wrong ;)

But seriously, the "awesome bar" [1] should be an optional feature, via the extension system. Maybe even bundle it by default, but for the love of all that is holy, I wish the feature could be totally removed.

The history system in FF 1.5 (probably earlier too) and 2 already allows the user to search the history by page title, so why people use that as a reason to advocate the awful^H^H^Hsomebar is beyond me.... they come across as not knowing how to use FF in the first place.

The AB seems to be a feature to pander to newer users (namely the IE-using crowd). I guess that FF probably got to the peak level of usage whilst being a slim technical browser, and the only way to gain more ground is to make the product "easier to use" for people that don't want to read some instructions or actually learn how to use the tool that is a gateway to many things in the modern world. I guess jumping on the spotlight/google desktop catalogue-it-all-in-one-place bandwagon was too much for the FF devs to resist.

[1] Is that the official name? If so, its a horrible piece of spin.... Like how credit cards are called credit cards, rather than what they are: a debt card.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Junior J. Junior III]

Not a bad initial concept, but how do you match hashes against partial matches? If I type "hot" and it matches "hotmail" and "hotgirlongirlaction", that's straightforward. I can match against that and Hide it if it's flagged DontShow.

But given that two nearly identical strings have completely different hashes, how can you tell that "hot" occurs in the seed that hashes to 1DE4A5D7BE9EF6F3E2ED1FA1C0E? Is that even possible mathematically?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IT Locks computers

[Sporkinum]

IT department locks all the computers from installing anything. So my work PC's software is running old, buggy, insecure code.

Re:I hate it!

[Tumbleweed]

I wish the summary would have said why they're so hell-bent on getting users to upgrade.

And people wonder why IE6 is still in such widespread use. *sigh*

marketing speak infected.

[Toonol]

it's likely Firefox will ask again anyway. Users will most likely be offered a second chance to upgrade after several weeks

This is how an great project starts swerving down the path to hell. I'm ambivalent about Firefox 3.0; it has nice improvements, along with horrible changes (the ridiculous awesomebar, and various little UI "improvements" that really just are annoying). I've upgraded from 2.0, but I'm no longer as evangelical about Firefox.

Really, "offered a second chance to upgrade..." is just terrible marketing speak, trying to make "we've added unstoppable advertising popups" sound like it's a good thing for the user.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Extreme much? Not sure it is fair to equate a update notification for free software with a multiple week interval to "unstoppable advertising popups".

Just because the windows world doesn't have the benefit of a system level framework for keeping the software on the system up to date, doesn't mean it's a bad thing when one of the applications rolls its own update mechanism.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[IamTheRealMike]

The problem is lots of people will just click "no" to get rid of the popup because they're busy or don't understand the question. This has been proven by many usability studies and is why Windows now ships with automatic online update enabled by default, and why it nags you to reboot so hard. If they weren't asked repeatedly, they'd end up running an unsupported and thus insecure browser. That's bad for everyone.

I don't like this

[WCMI92]

Of course I use Firefox 3, but ENOUGH with software pushing "upgrades". Seems like every other day some program or another is nagging me to upgrade or check for updates. Java, Quicktime, Acrobat, whatever.

Fact of the matter is that you don't always need to upgrade software, nor should you always. Take Acrobat for example. All I want it to do is display a PDF. That's IT. Acrobat 6 (which is way the hell smaller and uses less RAM) does the job perfectly fine. I don't NEED Acrobat 9 and it's bloat.

Increasingly software publishers/creators seem to think that because their program is installed that they are entitled to some say in how I use it, and that it can do whatever the hell it wants on my machine. Piss on that. It's disturbing that Mozilla is following this trend.

Also disturbing is that they are apparently adding this "function" to existing Firefox 2.x browsers. How are they doing this? Did they ask for consent? Are they installing something without permission? If Mozilla can do this sort of thing, doesn't that SCREAM spyware/trojan vulnerability?

Re:I don't like this

[Phroggy]

How are they doing this?

They're using the automatic update functionality that was built into Firefox 2.

Did they ask for consent?

I don't recall whether you're asked about this at installation or not. Perhaps not, but there is an option in Preferences.

Are they installing something without permission?

No, in fact they're not even asking permission to install something, they're just alerting the user that the user needs to take action, because if they don't, after December any newly-discovered security holes will not be patched.

If Mozilla can do this sort of thing, doesn't that SCREAM spyware/trojan vulnerability?

Not really, no.

Re:I hate it!

[jsebrech]

I wish the summary would have said why they're so hell-bent on getting users to upgrade.

Because the mozilla foundation is a non-profit whose stated goal is improving the way people experience the web. Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2, so it would violate their own charter if they didn't try to get people to upgrade.

Option to turn it off..

[plasmacutter]

There's an option to turn it off.

The rest is just fear mongering.

"you can turn it off now, but they may code in another one in a couple months, which you can once again turn off!, OH THE HORROR!"

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x

[cephah]

Let's halt progress for the sake of the few, then? If people are either 1. too poor to upgrade their system 2. too stubborn to switch, then neither of them should be much of a concern to Mozilla. If they're too poor, they could run a minimal Linux flavor but really, halting progress for the sake of a few rarely yields good results.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x

[jsebrech]

Users that run windows 98 or ME connected to the internet are not to be coddled, they are to be pitied.

Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[greed]

Oh goody.

Will the Mozilla people come by and upgrade all our Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines from 4 to 5 for us, too? Oh, and my Fedora Core 4 machine?

Here's a hint: don't require the latest operating system for something as universally useful as a WEB BROWSER.

Or at least do an "old and busted GUI" sort of build that doesn't use the bazillion things that come in when you use that blasted pango or cairo library.

And while we're at it, don't destroy my ~/.mozilla/firefox directory. Make a new one if you've got a new format, and import the old stuff. Don't wipe it out.

It's not like I can switch to Opera. Their latest stuff won't run on my Linux machines.

Re:Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[Blain]

And, (k)ubuntu people, please stop renaming the applications in each new version. Going from "firefox" to "mozilla-firefox" to "mozilla/firefox/" and then repeating is annoying, and breaks my application links for no purpose. If you're going to change the application name, how about building in a symlink from the old name, so I don't have to worry about it.

Re:I hate it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because something isn't shiny and new doesn't mean it's useless.

Sometimes it's better to use something you know really well - warts and all - rather than something with as yet undiscovered failure modes.

Granted America is a culture of novelty, but there are other cultures out there that value the tried and true. Don't assume that just because you value novelty that everyone does.

It's not so bad...

[RudeIota]

I believe it is the *right* thing to do, since this will benefit both the majority of its user base and Mozilla itself (they've been able to argue that Firefox users keep their browser updated far more frequently than IE users).

BUT, I don't want to be forced to install anything (even though I would). So the deal is, if it prompts me with an option to disable it and/or there is an option in the preferences to turn disable nag screen, then that's a fair trade to me.

Re:It's not so bad...

[sricetx]

I assume if you have "Automatically check for updates to: Firefox" unchecked under options you won't see these nag screens. Is that not true?

If they are going to bug me with nag screens even though I have taken the trouble to go in and explicitly turn off update checking, then Mozilla Foundation is being arrogant by not respecting the user's choice. That's wrong, in my opinion. I upgraded to FF3 initially after it was released, but uninstalled it and went back to FF2 due to the serious problems I was having with it (which i wrote about in a previous slashdot post: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=617327&cid=24229933. Maybe when it gets to 3.0.10 or so I'll try it again, but I don't want them to push it on me.

This may be a good thing.

[Buelldozer]

I understand, and sympathize, with a lot of the downsides of doing this but that doesn't necessarily make it bad.

I see a lot of 'abandoned' FF installs out there. Someone called in a tech for something, that tech installed FF and got the user to USE it. However it's not being updated since the user doesn't know how or what to do.

This plan makes it a lot more likely that FF is going to get updated to the latest release and taken alone that is a good thing.

Will it?

[Van Cutter Romney]

It will be interesting to see if this speeds up the rate of upgrade by users, as well as upgrades of the add-ons.

Or will it make people go away from Firefox? C'mon seriously, I believe the people using Firefox (unlike patrons of IE) are intelligent enough to upgrade to a new version if they want. They'll stick to FF2 by their own personal choice.

I don't need some nagging software to keep telling me to upgrade. That will put FF along with the lines of RealPlayer, Adobe and Java as one of the more annoying softwares out there. It's already getting enough flak as it is for the SSL certificates.

not until they support mac 10.3.9, I won't.

[swschrad]

so, let's see here now. at this point, it looks like my system is sunset, no more upgrades on anything. been nice knowing you, 'zilla, don't write.

Re:Why not earlier?

[andy9701]

I believe that it's Mozilla's policy to only perform automatic updates for security or bug fix type releases. Since FF3 is a major release, there is a chance that some web page won't work, a critical extension hasn't been updated yet, etc. Basically, I see it as playing it safe, and allowing the user to upgrade when it makes the most sense for them.

I think that the proposed feature in the article is to help remind people that FF3 exists, for those users who aren't as technically savvy as the typical Slashdot reader.

No FF3 support on OS X 10.3.9 (Panther, that is)

[rtoads]

How nice that all the 10.3.9 boxes on my office LAN will now be getting nags for an upgrade they can't install. How Windows-like.

Linux users

[Enderandrew]

There are several distros that had Firefox 2 and don't push Firefox 3 as an update. So unless you're browser is set to pull the updates automatically, you're left with Firefox 2 until you manually install it, or upgrade your distro. There are some people that don't update distros right away. They feel that older means more stable. (I contend that newer may mean new bugs, but it also means old bugs are closed. An old package isn't necessarily more stable if there are known, unpatched exploits in it.)

I bet that the Linux community will continue to back port some fixes to Firefox 2, but 2 and 3 are so different, that it won't be easy.

What's the big deal

[sgilti]

Maybe the open source community is getting a little too upset about all of this. Why aren't the Firefox 1 users chiming in? Products get updated, and the people who are focused on maintaining those products don't want to develop and support for multiple products. Technologies on the internet change, and building support for those new technologies into all of your older products is inefficient.

If getting a reminder that they are no longer using an up-to-date product is the end of the world.. grow up. I had figured the open source community would be chock full of computer security freaks, but arguing that you should be left alone to use your old, outdated product that no longer gets updated, without any notice that this might be a bad idea.. that's just stupid.

Nags are virus vectors

[iplayfast]

The latest viruses look a lot like Symatic's Antivirus, or Vista's stuff. If you don't watch carefully you can think you are updating your browser but instead are installing a virus.

As a rule I avoid Nag screens, and if I think the nag might be real, (and important) I'll google it, or type in the address myself if I know it. (Never click on the email link).

Who sez Win98 isn't secure?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Users running Windows 9x who are connected to the internet already have so much spyware and viruses...

You know, it's funny. I've heard that the kernel has changed enough that most modern viruses in circulation aren't *compatible* with the 95/98/Me family anymore.

Sort of a version of "security by obscurity", this is "security by obsolescence".

Re:Who sez Win98 isn't secure?

[FreezerJam]

I think running Win98 has become the equivalent of owning a car so old it's now an antique.

There are certainly some ancient rustbuckets out there, shedding parts and stalling at every opportunity. But there are some that are kept clean and well maintained - which is, at this point, actually *more* work than running a newer system.

These aren't blindingly fast, they don't have modern styling, and certain newer addons will never work with them. But they'll still keep up in day-to-day use, and with a little extra smart maintenance, they're pretty reliable.

And - if well kept up, they will be hard to break into while parked.

Re:Why not earlier?

[absent_speaker]

Seems strange to me. They don't need to go as far as a nag screen. My parents have been using FF2 not because they don't want to upgrade, but they've never even received a notice that FF3 exists. When I click to check for updates, I'm told none are available. Maybe before they nag they could notify the least tech savvy that there is even an upgrade.

Re:I hate it!

[torstenvl]

Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2

If by "better" you mean "buggier," then yes, you are correct.

The number of UI bugs in FFX3 is astounding, at least on OS X.

Go ahead and cmd+click a bookmark. Does it open in a new tab? Nope.

Go ahead and cmd+w on Slashdot. Does it close the tab? Not until after waiting for five seconds while Slashdot tries to figure out if the keypress was for it.

Go ahead and install the Brief extension, and then try cmd+m to minimize. Does it minimize? Nope. Why? Because like websites, extensions can steal core UI keystrokes with impunity.

Firefox 3 has been buggered from the start. It's the worst web browsing software I've used since IE for Mac. Maybe since before. It's an inexcusable mess.

If One Really Believes This...

[EXTomar]

If one really believes "...the browser is arguably the most important thing to keep updated on your system..." then it should update automatically, quietly and unobtrusively. The user should never be asked if they want to go out of date.

By the way, I'm not sure why some software never takes this route. When I see scanners and other tools ask me if it is okay to update I wonder what power are they really trying to give me.

Re:If One Really Believes This...

[ericvids]

By the way, I'm not sure why some software never takes this route. When I see scanners and other tools ask me if it is okay to update I wonder what power are they really trying to give me.

The power to do the update without disturbing your work.

Any kind of software installation presents a risk of breaking stuff. You don't want stuff to break when you're in the middle of an important task and you're on a deadline.

For that matter, that's also why I don't want updates to run "quietly and unobtrusively". I hate it when I'm in the middle of making slides 5 minutes before the presentation and my computer suddenly slows down because of a browser auto-update (simply because I just had my browser on to look up stuff while doing the slides).

Re:Why not earlier?

[gparent]

IE7 _is_ a security update.

Re:I hate it!

[Tumbleweed]

Just because something isn't shiny and new doesn't mean it's useless.

IE6 is worse than useless - it's *dangerous* to users, and financially damaging to the Web industry as a whole. Taking pride in using buggy software is kinda crazy.

Re:RTFF

[schwaang]

Ha! So the problem is in NoScript's FAQ but I can't solve it from the options GUI? I have to muck about in about:config after reading the scary warning about breaking my warranty? Hmmm, laugh or cry... I can't decide.

More broadly though, this needs to be default-off for NoScript *and* all other add-ons. The only way to achieve that is for Mozilla to give that guideline to anyone who wants code distributed through Firefox's add-ons site.

Re:I hate it!

[Anonymous Coward]

get off your lazy ass and read the release notes

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[elh_inny]

The fact that your Intranet is not standards compliant should not be a reason for Mozilla not to push updates.
FF3 vs FF2 is faster (especially in js), has no memory leaks and renders more accurately.
How much your 'developers' intend to work on this 'fix', if half a year is not enough then there is something wrong with your development process, not Firefox.
Sorry if this sounds inflammatory, but I'd really rather have Moz devs focus on new features and improvements to the 3.x line.