Slashdot Mirror


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."

20 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. Actually a good idea by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Actually a good idea by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:Actually a good idea by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    3. Re:Actually a good idea by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    4. Re:Actually a good idea by MC+Negro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    5. Re:Actually a good idea by ivantheshifty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:Actually a good idea by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  2. I'll upgrade when... by medeii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --
    got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
    1. Re:I'll upgrade when... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:I'll upgrade when... by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Re:just like vista by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
  5. marketing speak infected. by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Option to turn it off.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  7. Not without RHEL 4 support I won't by greed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. No FF3 support on OS X 10.3.9 (Panther, that is) by rtoads · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:just like vista by EmperorKagato · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Then you don't trust NoScript.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  10. Re:I hate it! by torstenvl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. If One Really Believes This... by EXTomar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Why not earlier? by gparent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IE7 _is_ a security update.