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

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

[Hyppy]

Perhaps, it is because upgrading a computer to Vista is expensive?

Re:Actually a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, don't upgrade your browsers....stick with IE4. Get all the script error message pop ups. It'll be fun.

Mozilla has a good reason to get people to upgrade. All the yahoos who continue to use the old version that get smoozed with security attacks that won't be patched on the old browser will start to tarnish the name of Firefox.

When I worked at a small ISP I had people calling in that were using IE 4 when 6 SP2 came out. That is ridiculous. At least for IE that is a huge security issue and one that helps the bot army grow more than that poor schmuck clicks on a link to a malicious site.

The same will eventually go for older versions of firefox if the team lets it get that way.

I'm by no means stating that 3 is sound in the security area as I've read along with everyone else the security issues it has and will have in the future. But that happens with most software these days. The benefits of the software outweigh the cons. It comes down to people hating change and hate being told to change. No one likes being told to do something against their will, but you know what...Mozilla created Firefox and can determine when support will end. You the user choose to put the software on your machine.

I would say don't whine when the devs make a decision you don't agree with, but that would be an ignorant statement because its completely fine to have differing opinion on the matter, just don't think that its going to matter in the grand scheme of things ;)

Re:Actually a good idea

[bigstrat2003]

Irrelevant. What's odious about both of these examples is that the vendor is trying to push a new version, that you (presumably) don't want or need, on you. Who cares if it's free? People have what they need right now, and trying to shove a new version at them is disrespectful of their customers.

Re:Actually a good idea

[bigstrat2003]

I'm not saying that Mozilla should support FF2 indefinitely, or that FF2 users shouldn't upgrade. I am saying that Mozilla shouldn't nag them. That's just rude.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Enderandrew]

A lot of people are conditioned to just close out pop-up windows of any kind right away. I think asking one, and then one reminder a few weeks later is reasonable.

Re:Actually a good idea

[orasio]

A nag screen is not only bad because it is a nag screen. It's bad, because it steals precious user time for unimportant issues.
The thing is that running unsupported software is an important decision for the user, even if they don't know that.

When they downloaded Firefox 2 it was supported. Now that this is going to change, it makes sense that they are informed, in time to do something about it.

Ah, and the Mozilla foundation is not a software vendor, it's a foundation. When they start vending software, you get to call them software vendors.

Just because they are going to put a nag screen advising users, it doesn't mean what the "software vendors" you talk about are any less worse. Your reasoning is flawed.

Re:Actually a good idea

[bendodge]

I heartily agree. I've updated quite a few people's computers to FF3 from FF2, and most of them didn't even know FF3 existed or why they should bother upgrading.

Personally, I think major version upgrades should be an option in the updater - when you press Update manually, it should give you an option to upgrade automatically. It should also notify you of major updates during minor updates until you check a "don't tell me again" box.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Reapman]

- patches (apparently after December anyways) for one.
- I'd love to see you submit a bug request for 1.5 vs 3...

There's support, it's not some guy visiting your house, but they do in fact support their products. However you mentioning that you only stop firefox every few months tells me your probably not in the majority of their market anyways.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

*Mozilla* is still about choice. They renamed the base "mozilla" browser seamonkey (and, fervently swear that seamonkey is not mozilla, even though it totally is.) Basically, seamokey is like firefox without all the attempts to clone and then outdo IE -- you'll have the modern mozilla/firefox rendering engine, Javascript (with of course option to turn off), etc., but not the "bad site" warnings, plugin auto-upgrade checks, the little warning bar that drops down from the top to tell you things, auto-completion URL doohickey, etc. Since seamonkey has probably >90% the same code as firefox, every plugin I've used works in both. I just use firefox now, but if this stuff bothers you I would use seamonkey.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Fix for the Automatic Updates reboot nag:

From the command line (or Start > Run)

net stop "automatic updates"

This stops the AU service, which will kill the nag, allowing you to continue doing whatever you are doing and reboot at your leisure. Note, that automatic updates won't be automatically downloaded/installed without the service running. But a reboot (or manually restarting the service

net start "automatic updates"

) will return you to normal. And of course, if you are in a corporate environment, you may not have the appropriate permissions to stop/start services.

I agree...this nag is highly annoying... especially whenever you are typing, and it pops up without you realizing it, and you hit the key that triggers the reboot (!!)

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

[gparent]

Except for the fact that there are various reports of people upgrading to FireFox 3 and losing all of their bookmarks, and not being able to import all of their passwords. I had to manually export my bookmarks and passwords, the former using the browser tool, and the latter using an addon, in order to properly import them into my Firefox 3 installation.

Re:Actually a good idea

[bigstrat2003]

Kittens are evil. Fuck 'em. ;)

Re:Actually a good idea

[Life Liberty Freedom]

I don't really think its irrelevant, cost can make a huge difference

In one case, you have girl scouts going door to door wanting to sell you cookies that slightly better that the ones you have last year

And in the other case, the girl scouts are going door to door giving you the new, updated cookies in return for you giving up your old cookies

Homer Simpson: Mmmmmmm....cookies......

Re:Actually a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"...it is a wise idea to help remember ff2 users that their version is about to lose support and it is wise to upgrade."

Once. And if they decline, it should stop.

"As long as people aren't forced, there is no real problem."

No. If the computer continues to nag the user, regardless of their explicit decision not to download an upgrade, then that's bad software design. It's a bug not to comply with what the user chooses. It's like clicking on "Cancel", and the computer does "Allow" anyway. Or, in this case, it forever nags you on a regular basis about whether "Cancel" was really what you wanted, and reminds you that "Allow" would be a so much better choice.

At that point all you would need is Clippy to deliver the message, and you would find people tossing the computer out the window in frustration.

I ... don't ... want ... to ... upgrade! How hard is that for software to understand and comply with? Why does it have to keep on asking as if the software knows better?

Re:Actually a good idea

[MeMeMeMe]

Good idea if it applied to your spouse... example Nag Screen: Upgrade available to Wife 1.0. Features of new version: Less Bloat (weighs 30 lbs less) with more attractive interface.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Junior J. Junior III]

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 agree with this. However, as time goes on, things do change, and so my answer "NO" today might not be the same as my answer N months from now when they finally get around to updating all my plug-ins.

At the moment, they don't really appear to have the capability to do something like:

While response.Equals(No)
{
    FindOut(Why);
    While (Why.StillRelevant())
    {
        STFU();
    }
    Alert("Reason no longer relevant. Upgrade now?");
}

...But they SHOULD.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Mike McTernan]

Yeah - your choice to run old and possibly insecure software, catch some crapware and fill the Interweb with spam and other junk.

While it is your computer, it isn't your Internet. Since Firefox is primarily designed to be connected to the web, it makes sense for Mozilla to promote good behaviour among netizens.

You should upgrade or unplug.

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

[Workaphobia]

I never understood why it was ok to abuse technically inclined users for the sake of helping everyone else. Would it really take so much more effort to have the option of gearing the user experience towards multiple levels of experience?

Re:Actually a good idea

[jp10558]

Where is my choice as an administrator to set upgrade policy? If mozilla provided a centralized management system, then this would be OK for home users, but at work, we need the browser to work with our web apps, and FF3 doesn't.

Re:Actually a good idea

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, maybe, but is what they are proposing really nagging, and just how many people are avoid Ffx 3 for a reason, other than just not knowing it's out or being lazy?

I'd answer, "Not really", and "Can't be too many, after all this isn't Microsoft we're talking about."

Re:Actually a good idea

[Randle_Revar]

SeaMonkey 1.x is less than 90% the same code as FF. A lot of extensions work, but there are plenty that don't.

SeaMonkey 2.0 will share much more code with FF and will have "the "bad site" warnings, plugin auto-upgrade checks, the little warning bar that drops down from the top to tell you things" and it will have more extension compatibility and probably the awesomebar as well.

Re:Actually a good idea

[jythie]

The big question will be if they will nag people on OSes that they dropped support for in FF3.

THAT would be terribly annoying.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Yvanhoe]

Bah, you can easily do a fork without the nag-screen. After all firefox began as a project to remove all the undesired features of mozilla...

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?

Re:Actually a good idea

[dvice_null]

IMHO you should be able to disable the nagging from the about:config. But not from the GUI. Just to make sure that those you disable it, know what they are doing and not doing it by accident.

You are forgetting that the spam and viruses spread by the people who don't upgrade when they should. So if you don't upgrade, you might cause harm to me also once your computer is owned by someone else. (But about:config option should be there for those who can control this risk by other ways.)

Re:Actually a good idea

[txtracer]

My situation exactly.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Fjandr]

Without nagging, you then have a repeat of tons of people continuing to use grossly insecure software long after they should be as a result of their ignorance. Mozilla may be about choice, but it's not about every single choice possible unless you plan to recode and recompile. They give you choice based on their decision about how their fork is going to be developed. If you don't like it, change it. That's your choice.

The only people who really complain about this are a very small percentage of users whose opinions, frankly, don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of users benefit, as well as the rest of the users on the internet who don't use Firefox. The small minority of complainers can go sit in a corner and complain to themselves for all anyone else should care about them.

Re:Actually a good idea

[ricotest]

Yes, because people love to read long pages of text and never just click the first button at the bottom of the dialog. More importantly, plenty of Firefox users don't know they're using Firefox, or don't care, and won't know how to react to such security notices.

The first notice is much simpler: users will recognise that they are 'upgrading' to a new version, almost all will allow it, and people who don't like the awesomebar or something have the option to deny. The second notice is just confusing to novice and casual users.

Re:Actually a good idea

[markdavis]

If you (or the Admin) has unchecked "Automatically check for updates", then FIREFOX SHOULD *NEVER* check or "inform" the user about updates. PERIOD. We (the users and the Admins) do not need some arrogant software designer to second guess our intentional directives.

So I certainly hope that they have not somehow coded Firefox to ignore the "Preference settings". If they did, then What, exactly, is the purpose of having options to turn off "check for updates" if it is going to do so anyway and annoy users. And on some systems, like ours, users CAN'T upgrade software, because they are on thin clients and don't have permissions that would allow it. It just creates a nightmare for support. Perhaps the Admins really do know what they are doing and can't upgrade the browser until it has been tested in-house for compatibility and configuration?

Re:Actually a good idea

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Yes, because people love to read long pages of text and never just click the first button at the bottom of the dialog.

Who said anything about long pages of text? I gave two sentences and another space for a brief (ie. 1-2 sentence) elaboration on what a lack of security updates will mean for the user. If people literally click the first button at the bottom of every dialog they see then no amount of security updates will save them, those people are walking liabilities and shouldn't be allowed within 50ft of a computer. Even so, Firefox already implements a method to deal with such people in their download-action dialogs - a couple of seconds between the dialog appearing and the buttons becoming enabled prevents this zombie clickthrough phenomenon.

More importantly, plenty of Firefox users don't know they're using Firefox, or don't care, and won't know how to react to such security notices.

The first notice is much simpler: users will recognise that they are 'upgrading' to a new version, almost all will allow it, and people who don't like the awesomebar or something have the option to deny. The second notice is just confusing to novice and casual users.

I find that hard to believe. Unless these people manually installed Firefox on Windows without knowing it? Or are we talking about those vast swathes of Linux users who don't know what Firefox is? AFAIK Ubuntu disables Firefox's update checker in lieu of using the distro update package manager anyway so this is a moot point for 99% of those hypothetical clueless Linux users.

You've kind of contradicted everything else with your final point anyway. The first notice is much simpler and almost all will allow it, so they will never even see the second notice.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Snaller]

As if there ever was any "support"

Re:Actually a good idea

[PingXao]

It's the new religion: less choice is good. I've noticed it creeping up in the Linux world. All are geared toward reducing your ability to choose:

1st Commandment: Thou shalt never log in as root. For over a decade I have logged in as root on my own systems and the few times I did something really dumb I had good backups. I've never really been burned. You are not supposed to have any choice here and you are an infidel if you choose to go against the church heierarchy. Perhaps it's a good rule of thumb for less-experienced admins, but I'm getting sick and tired of hearing everywhere a dozen times a day.

2nd Commandment: Thou shalt install SELinux. OK, more for the Redhat-based distros than anything else, but just try to install RHEL, Fedora, or CentOS and try to opt-out completely from SELinux. The best you can do is disable it, but you MUST install it. Merits aside, there is to be no argument on this point. It's religion, which means less choice for you.

3rd Commandment: Thou shalt not build thine own kernel. What ever happened to the traditional hacker's ideal of tinkering? Nothing defines "choice" like running through "make config" or its variants and picking and *gasp* CHOOSING what I want in my kernels. You can barely find information about this activity anymore. Wherever you see it being discussed, you will ALWAYS see the question posed, "Why do you want to do that?"

It's starting to trend toward the Mac mindset. If something doesn't meet your needs then there's a problem with those needs. Choosing a different way is unacceptable and will bring you nothing but trouble. So don't do it.

Re:Actually a good idea

[fabs64]

Being persistent about trying to convince someone to make the intelligent choice is not the same as taking choice away, anyone can see that.

It's an informed thing, anyone who knows enough to have a good reason not to upgrade is likely to know how to go to the advanced menu and turn it off.

Yes, you were being ridiculously melodramatic, in one scenario failure to comply with compulsion potentially results in the person trying to compel you killing you. In the ff scenario failure to heed their warnings means they'll warn you again in two weeks (and you might get a virus).

Re:Actually a good idea

[eggnoglatte]

Yes, because people love to read long pages of text and never just click the first button at the bottom of the dialog. More importantly, plenty of Firefox users don't know they're using Firefox, or don't care, and won't know how to react to such security notices.

Well, those people will generally not have the permissions to do an upgrade anyway.

This constant upgrade policy may work for hobbyists, but as others have pointed out, as soon as you have an IT department that maintains your boxes, they will want to have control over the state of the machines they support. You also really don't want to change the systems you are working on before major deadlines, since dependencies can cascade.

Personally, the first thing I do when I install e new system even on my private computers, is to disable all the auto-upgrade crap. On my computer, I want to have control over what is on the system and when it gets there.

Re:Actually a good idea

[mpe]

Well, maybe, but is what they are proposing really nagging, and just how many people are avoid Ffx 3 for a reason, other than just not knowing it's out or being lazy?

You mean like FF3's SSL certificates issues. As well as not all addons working as they did with FF2.
There's also still the issue that global extensions need to be installed via the command line and that the built in extensions updater won't update update global extensions.

Re:Actually a good idea

[hasdikarlsam]

Never mind that self-signed certs are in no way less safe than un-encrypted http. How come we don't get a giant flashing warning sign for that?

Re:Actually a good idea

[jsoderba]

You will notice that Firefox 1.5 has not been updated since May 2007. This doesn't mean no new vulnerabilities have been discovered, in fact I except many of the ones fixed in Firefox 2 patches also exist in 1.5.

Re:Actually a good idea

[MC Negro]

Bullcrap. If they nag you intermittently until you either upgrade or uninstall FF altogether, they're trying hard to not give you a choice.

Uhm, what? No, they're following their design path. Because it doesn't line up with your software design is entirely irrelevant as far as "freedom" goes. If you don't want the nagging, fork the fucking software and build your version. Mother of Christ, I don't get why this is so hard to understand for some people.

As a secondary point, when your "choice" has the potential to impact other people, you may find the vendors are hesitant to cater to it.

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.

So in your mind, if a vendor doesn't follow your design specifications, you don't have "choice". Interesting. What if I don't want to be asked if I want to save my tab session when I exit (by default)? LO, MY FREEDOM IS BEING INFRINGED UPON - TRULY THE EVILS OF CORPORATE AMERICA HAVE INFECTED THE FORMER BASTION OF WEB BROWSING FREEDOM!

Mozilla wants their users to run secure software. They feel obligated to protect the rest of the Internet (and their own brand name) from people exploiting retired browser code against them. I personally admire Mozilla for reminding their users they're making a bad choice - I wish Microsoft would do the same. But even if you don't like it, tons of other posters have pointed out that you can disable auto-updates.

Re:Actually a good idea

[jesser]

If you get owned due to browsing the Web using an ancient version of Firefox, you won't have the "choice" of not having your credit card stolen. The "loss of choice" associated with having a nag screen is nothing compared to that.

Re:Actually a good idea

[Zxern]

On a more rational board I would expect people to say the same thing about Vista.

Re:Actually a good idea

[theimplord]

This is absolutely correct. If I want to continue running an old version of software (whatever it may be), then I should not have to go out of my way to make it so. I'm fine with Firefox deciding to be naggy -- by default. But I should be able to turn it off. If by default it wants to harass me, that's fine. Just as long as there's a documented option in about:config. That should make all the people who want to auto-update everyone be happy, and those who don't want to updated against their will to remain (virtually) unaffected. Firefox has been good about listing configuration options instead of just deciding on policies I don't like, I hope they continue to be.

Anyway, auto-updating is risky to begin with - there may be worse bugs later (and downgrading is usually harder than upgrading), and users can lose features. Users should always have the option of opting out of losing features. Not to mention that the auto-updater may have a security bug in it.

That's OK...

[ColdWetDog]

I use Adblock Plus. I'm sure I won't see it. No problemo.

Why not earlier?

[Andy Dodd]

Since the release of Firefox 3, my previous 2.x installations have at least twice pulled subsequent 2.x upgrades - Why can't I automatically upgrade to Firefox 3? It's not that much harder to manually upgrade, but the automatic 2.x series upgrades process was so simple.

Re:Why not earlier?

[jsebrech]

Because Firefox 3's rendering engine is not identical to firefox 2's, and there could be some intranet software that still needs to be adapted to be functional. This is also the same reason why MS can't simply push IE7 to everyone.

Re:Why not earlier?

[lukas84]

I don't buy this argument, neither from Mozilla nor Microsoft.

Corporations will use some sort of managed upgrade procedure anyway, as users do not have permissions to install updates.

On the IE7 side, this can be managed using WSUS, SCE, SCCM. On the Firefox side, i guess it would have to done by using a software deployment solution like SCE or SCCM.

I have no idea - never looked into Firefox deployment options.

Re:Why not earlier?

[Ilgaz]

So Firefox will prove one more time that it is not suitable for enterprise unless they post some tips for admins how to disable that nag. As they are the ones insisting on not packaging an official .MSI or .PKG installer, I don't see it happening.

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.

Re:Why not earlier?

[nabsltd]

This is also the same reason why MS can't simply push IE7 to everyone.

Huh? Microsoft did push IE7 to everyone.

Except for the very few people who know that there is a way to permanently decline updates (which requires you to examine the updates and pick which ones you want, which most people don't—and shouldn't—do), it was installed automatically by Windows Update. For most people, it's better to tell them "let Windows Update keep your machine up to date" instead of explaining to them how to decide what is and isn't important.

Also, although it is now considered an "Update Rollup", when first released into Windows Update, it was listed as either a "Critical" or "Security" update, which made it appear more important to install than it really was.

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:Why not earlier?

[nabsltd]

Corporations will use some sort of managed upgrade procedure anyway, as users do not have permissions to install updates.

This is absolutely not true as far as Firefox is concerned.

You can install it into "My Documents" (or any directory in your profile) and it will work just fine (at least on Windows XP).

Re:Why not earlier?

[jawtheshark]

The nag is most certainly not going to appear if the user is a Limited User under XP. So, any competent admin will not have to disable a nag screen. Automatic Update for Firefox doesn't work as a Limited User, and rightfully so.

Re:Why not earlier?

[gparent]

IE7 _is_ a security update.

Re:Why not earlier?

[onecheapgeek]

The notifications work, it's the installs that fail.

Re:Why not earlier?

[jawtheshark]

They do? I've got FF2 at home and I'm running Limited User. It has never ever asked me to update to anything. Perhaps I just disabled the thing, because I want to be in control? I disable all automatic updates, it's my computer, I decide.

For kick 'n giggles I'll activate it on my wifes computer. As for now, I'm typing this on an Asus EEE PC 701 with the basic operating system. That one is still FF2.... version 2.0.0.11, which is oddly enough the firefox version also runing on my wifes XP machine.

Re:Why not earlier?

[lukas84]

You can install it into "My Documents" (or any directory in your profile) and it will work just fine (at least on Windows XP).

The users still don't have permission to do that.

Some may enforce it technically (Software Restriction Policies), almost all enforce it legally.

Re:Why not earlier?

[markdavis]

Wrong. On our thin-client system, the users absolutely have no ability to upgrade ANY software, including Firefox.

If you (or the Admin) has unchecked "Automatically check for updates", then FIREFOX SHOULD *NEVER* "inform" the user about updates. PERIOD. We (the users and the Admins) do not need some arrogant software designer to second guess our intentional directives.

Re:Why not earlier?

[Snaller]

"Huh? Microsoft did push IE7 to everyone."

No they didn't.

"Except for the very few people who know that there is a way to permanently decline updates"

Ah, well good thing i have disabled any auto updates then.

"which most people don't--and shouldn't--do"

You don't get to decide what should or shouldn't do. Each microsoft update makes the system slower and more unwieldy.

Re:Why not earlier?

[nabsltd]

Each microsoft update makes the system slower and more unwieldy.

Although it's possible that when Something.DLL is replaced with a new version that fixes a bug, it also always slows down the system, that's pretty unlikely. The default settings do take up more disk space, though, but you can fix that by backing up all the uninstall directories to removable media and then deleting them. If you decide you need to do an uninstall of a particular update, you just restore the backup for that update.

Ah, well good thing i have disabled any auto updates then.

I suppose you also run without anti-virus because you "don't use IE, don't visit any questionable websites, etc."

Remember, there are only two kinds of unpatched Windows installs: pwned and about to be pwned...which do you have, and how do you know?

Re:Why not earlier?

[Snaller]

"I suppose you also run without anti-virus because you "don't use IE, don't visit any questionable websites, etc.""

No, I run without antivirus because it slows down the system.

"Remember, there are only two kinds of unpatched Windows installs: pwned and about to be pwned..."

All generalizations are wrong.

"which do you have, and how do you know?"

I'm paranoid.

Re:Why not earlier?

[nabsltd]

So, the answer is, if you have ever used this Windows machine to connect to the public Internet, you have no idea if there is malware running on your Windows install.

People like you who think "hey, I'm smart enough not to catch anything" have many of the machines that relentlessly connect to my mail server to let me know that I should be helping someone with their "US$10,000,000 millions dollars".

Re:Why not earlier?

[Snaller]

I think the answer is you have forgotten to take your pills again.

I hate it!

[sm62704]

I hate it when commercial software nags you to upgrade, but having firefox nag you is even worse. Not even trying to RTFA because it's surely slashdotted, I wish the summary would have said why they're so hell-bent on getting users to upgrade.

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*

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.

Re:I hate it!

[Per Wigren]

Because new versions often have security fixes and they don't want to keep supporting legacy code.

Besides, upgrading is free and dead simple, almost automatic. How the hell can it be worse than when commercial software nags you? Also, they already said it will be several weeks between the "nags", which is pretty reasonable IMHO.

Re:I hate it!

[larry bagina]

in that case, releasing firefox 2 was a violation of their own charter.

Re:I hate it!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well if would greatly improve my browsing experience if my fucking browser didn't hector me to upgrade.

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.

Re:I hate it!

[andy9701]

Then turn off checking for automatic updates? While automatic updates may not make sense for you, which is fine, they do make sense for the majority of their users, so that's why this feature is on my default.

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.

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:I hate it!

[sm62704]

All these responses to my original post which stands modded at -1 troll, look guys it's NOT a fucking troll; I use and love Firefox. I want to know what's better about the new one! Not ONE of all these responses did a single damned person say why it will help ME to upgrade!

Yours came the closest. "Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2"

What's better about it? What improvements does it bring? One guy said it was crap, unless it's better I don't want to upgrade.

Re:I hate it!

[Anonymous Coward]

get off your lazy ass and read the release notes

Re:I hate it!

[digitalaudiorock]

My only experience with Firefox 3 is on the new XP machine I just built for doing development. I installed Firefox 3 only because that was the default for Windows on the download site. I'm still running 2.0.0.16 on all my Linux machines.

After two failed attempts to send a zip file to a fellow developer using the Horde webmail on my website, I discovered that Firefox 3 was apparently dropping about 30 bytes from the zip file every time when I uploaded the file. Downgrading to Firefox 2.0.0.16 corrected this.

My gut tells me that it's very unlikely that this is a bug in Horde. I mean the multi-part mime spec used for file uploads just hasn't changed in forever. Anyone else run into that?

Re:I hate it!

[Anders]

I want to know what's better about the new one!

It was in the summary: Mozilla will stop supporting version 2 in December.

(Oh, and the awesomebar, no kidding)

Re:I hate it!

[Vozmozno]

hmm, I guess it's only in OSX then... got no problems with that on XP or linux... I'd never used those shortcuts before either... good to know, I guess.

Re:I hate it!

[totally bogus dude]

Not having a go at you, but why is OSX sending an application "cmd+w" and not "close window" or somesuch, and "cmd+m" instead of "minimize window"? Have Mozilla gone out of their way to break the UI on MacOS, or does the MacOS window manager really expect every application to know what keystrokes are magical?

Both explanations seem pretty bizarre. Maybe there's a third?

Re:I hate it!

[someone300]

Most windowing systems work this way at the core level when it comes to keyboard shortcuts. To interpret them, typically the default OS abstractions (APIs and such) can translate them into the default behaviors. UI elements work the same way. Technically they're drawn by the program but they use OS libraries (GTK, Cocoa, etc.) and that makes it fit in with the rest of the system.

Re:I hate it!

[RedHat Rocky]

F3 hasn't shown me any better things yet, but several things that caused me to revert:

1. Asking for cookies changes focus to tabs that are loading in the background. Total annoyance. A bug is filed for this, so far devs are waffling on it while users are saying "Fix the Fucking Thing!".

2. SSL issues, self signed or expired certs are handled in an IE way (this page cannot be displayed) destroying user confidence. See lwn.net for details.

Re:I hate it!

[totally bogus dude]

Okay, so that's the third, completely un-bizarre explanation. Thanks.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your loss. People said the same thing about tabbed browsing when it was introduced.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[sm62704]

Been there, done that, still think it sucks.

IE doesn't put out at all!

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[SydShamino]

Amen

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...

[MagdJTK]

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" off.

Translation: My mother borrowed my PC to check her email, typed the first three letters of "hotmail" and the Awesome Bar nearly gave her a heart attack.

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...

[strabes]

You could just disable having FF store your browser history, couldn't you?

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Joe the Lesser]

Unlikely...Everyone past puberty knows to clear your browser history when Mom's nearby.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[d3jake]

... 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.

Yeap, I agree, when someone can finally get the "Not-So-Brilliant" bar to act like the address bar in FF2, then I'll gladly change over, untill then...

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[CaptSaltyJack]

My dad doesn't know any better. He leaves his pr0n in his "Downloads" folder on his Mac, so every time people come over and see him using his computer, once in a while we get a little glimpse of flesh-toned thumbnails. Disturbing. One of these days I'm gonna have to ask him to file that shit away.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some websites just shouldn't be kept in the history, if you ask me...

use the Distrust addon. One click, visit sites, click again, history for just those sites erased.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Speare]

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.

I agree with the first part, but don't see the problem in the second part. A list of HASH DIGESTS of "don't remember these sites" should be perfectly fine. You command it to not remember "www.hotgrits.com" and the system hashes that into 1DE4A5D7BE9EF6F3E2ED1FA1C0E, and throws it into a garbage heap of other touchy hash digests. If the hash is already in there, then don't remember the URL for typeahead. For plausible deniability, the browser should have a random handful of hashes in there to begin with. Letting your mom or daughter see a bunch of hashes should not give them any concern.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Fumus]

Ummm... There are addons which enable this functionality.
They were mentioned a few articles back, but I can't remember their names.
Can some kind soul name them?

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[A beautiful mind]

That still gives me trouble when I want to visit postgresql.org and my gf is sitting next to me...

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[smooth wombat]

Which is what I currently have done. I've modified my chrome file to not display web sites when I type though interestingly enough, it works on my home PC, but not here at work. Even copying the chrome file to this PC hasn't changed anything.

However, from what I've seen, it's not so simple in Fx3 but if I'm mistaken, please correct me.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[strabes]

Sorry, I really don't know. Personally, I love the AwesomeBar. =\

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[JakeD409]

So wait, let me make sure I understand:

Your beef with Firefox 3 is that the single feature you don't like takes too much effort to turn off?
I suppose that could possibly be considered valid, if either of these two cases were true:

1. If the change didn't save, and you had to do it again every time you used Firefox.
2. If it was REALLY, REALLY hard to turn off; as in, you need a Master's Degree in Computer Science to be able to do it.

However, neither of these are the case.

1. The preference most certainly does save itself.
2. The first search on Google for "firefox turn off awesome bar" (no quotes) returned this site. Essentially, you type "about:config" in the address bar, find the "Browser.urlbar.maxRichResults" setting (they are in alphabetical order, and if that's still too many hoops, you can use the config search bar at the top), and change its value from 12 to 0. If that's too difficult for you to do (once), then I'm impressed you knew how to install Firefox in the first place.

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...

[Mr. Bad Example]

> Translation: My mother borrowed my PC to check her email, typed the
> first three letters of "hotmail" and the Awesome Bar nearly gave her a heart attack.

"Oh, son! I was thinking about painting the garage, and was wondering if latex paint would bond well enough, so I was going to go online and look up, oh, 'latex bondage'!"

"GAH!"

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Blain]

StupidBar (great name) is an example of something I've seen cropping up in FF and other software as it comes around -- default enabling new features in "upgrades" that breaks desired behavior. How about adding a step to the upgrade process where the new features are introduced, with links to more detailed descriptions for those who want more information, and check-box options to enable them or not?

That would make the system more user-oriented. I don't want anybody making guesses (educated or not) about what I want -- just give me the option to enable it and useful information and I'll make my own decision.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[nabsltd]

I never used Firefox before version 3, and the out-of-the-box "Awesome Bar" was almost bad enough to make me junk version 3 for similar reasons to previous versions (e.g., if I don't like using it, I really don't care if it is more secure).

But, now that I've tamed the "Awesome Bar", I really want to know: what is it that people are having trouble doing to make it the way they want it to be?

For me, the AB:

• only typeahead/matches on the URL
• only typeahead/matches at the beginning (i.e., I type "www." and one of my top matches is "www.newegg.com", but if I type "newegg", I get no matches)
• for matches, displays only the favicon and URL
• for the URL itself diplays the favicon, the optional security information, and the URL

Again, I've never used Firefox 1.x or 2.x, but I think this behavior is close to what those did...and even if there are minor differences, those should be fixable, too.

I do agree that it wasn't as easy as it should be to do this, as I had to add an extenstion (Hide Unvisited), change userChrome.css, and change some about:config settings.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Blakey Rat]

... Or you could just use your OS's built-in user accounts feature to give each person their own user account and/or create a guest account. God-forbid you use handy OS-provided features in the way they're intended instead of adding messy unnecessary hacks to software.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[FornaxChemica]

Personally it's not the Awesome Bar that bothers me, it's the antialising on resized gif images; it's ugly and it screws up some of my site's design ideas. It was annoying enough that I decided to revert back to Firefox 2.

However I didn't need to upgrade or downgrade, I have the two versions installed. I can't run the two at the same time, one version overrides the other and that makes the whole thing a bit shaky but it works nonetheless. I'm wondering if they're still going to pester me with the upgrade.

(and this seems another reason for not using Firefox 3; incidentally it happened to me today)

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?

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Matt Perry]

Translation: My mother borrowed my PC to check her email, typed the first three letters of "hotmail" and the Awesome Bar nearly gave her a heart attack.

Now she knows he went to hotels.com. Oh, the humanity!

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Speare]

"Don't Remember" means not to remember it. At all. It won't, it can't, it shouldn't try to complete the text when you type "hotgirlo...". That's the point, right? All that will show up is "hotmail" when you type "hot..." If you want to go there, you know the whole URL, you can get the whole URL, you follow a normal link, or you have it bookmarked. But don't remember it for the purposes of type-ahead.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Gates82]

While some may or may not like tabbed browsing atleast one may avoid using tabs. With the crappybar once you start typing the damn thing waste system resources (I know where I want to go) and there is no option to disable. I guess I'm old fashion, I still type the fully qualified 'http://www.domain.tld'. I would be happy to have my 1999 internet back.

Thank You!

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[witekr]

I use the "oldbar" Add-on that restores the look of the firefox 2 address bar. I actually prefer having the new text searching in the address bar.. for example to open this article again all I had to do was type "fire nag" and this article was the first result. Otherwise with the old address bar I'd have to type at least "tech.slash" and then scroll through pages of old slashdot results to find it.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[felipekk]

Yeah... Just thrown in B00B135B00B135B00B135B00B135 as the initial hash and all will be fine.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[smooth wombat]

If that is all there is to it, then I am more than willing to give Fx3 another shot. As I have said a bit further up, I have modified my userchrome file to not display past results so I am quite capable, and willing, to muck about in about:config.

However, I have always been under the impression that to completely turn off the "feature" one had to add an add-on, which is something I don't even do with my current version. I like to keep things simple. Less room for problems to happen.

I will take your information under advisement and go from there.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[bluppfisk]

Well, when I'm randomly surfing porn I'm not gonna keep track of every site I clicked on and add it to a list as I'm going. Simply because I don't have both hands available for taking notes.

And here's my Open Idea (someone handy implement it): Why not nick Google's "go off the record" idea for GoogleTalk? When you are in off the record mode, none of the sites you surf to will be kept in history (and as soon as you go on the record again, Fx should remove Cache, cookies and other data stored during the off the record episode).

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[blind biker]

I woleheartedly agree - screw StupidBar. And the other FF3 UI "improvements".

At this point Imight just go for Opera. I hate the Opera UI compared to FF2, but I hate it less than FF3.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[v.dog]

Which version were you using, exactly (beta, 3.0, 3.0.1)? For me, the awesomebar searches titles and URLS, returns both, and searches the full length of each. You might also want to check whether one of the extensions/themes you were using was monkeying with it.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[nabsltd]

I use 3.0.1 now, and the 3.0 release (no betas).

"Hide Unvisited" does mess with the results, but only by doing what it says. ;->

I think part of it is just use, which lets the algorithms work their magic. I have another install that is newer, and I get some matches for page titles there, but only about 1 in 5 of the results is that way, with matches tending to be from URLs.

Unless there is some other behavior/appearance of the AB that I'm just not seeing as objectionable (that other people are), I really think it's possible to tame it. Some of the features it offers are good, but not in what should be a URL edit/display control. A modification to the default search box so that it can optionally only search the history, bookmarks (and maybe even the text of locally cached pages) would provide what the AB does without overloading the URL entry box as much.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[woot account]

No, that wrong.

This is part of the problem. People keep saying that's how you can disable the AwesomeBar, but it's not true.

Let me spell it out for you...

THE AWESOME BAR CAN NOT BE DISABLED

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[woot account]

I agree with this 100%. I have Opera installed on this machine, but I prefer Fx2. As soon as I see the first nag screen about this, I'm switching over to Opera.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[AySz88]

A list of HASH DIGESTS of "don't remember these sites" should be perfectly fine.

...until someone builds a lookup table of common naughty sites and their hashes.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[andersa]

So far I don't like the new address bar, mainly because of the new drop down thing which contain both title and url of the pages it displayes.

1. It takes up too much space.
2. It is very cluttered, I have trouble distinguishing the lines.
3. Because distinguishing lines is difficult, I do not get good feedback on whether what I am typing is wrong or right, so it is hard to know when to stop and go back and type it again.
4. It uses a different logic for matching what you type with the pages it remembers. Maybe I can get used to it, but so far, meh...
5. In extension of 4, it seems keen on selecting long urls instead of shorter ones for some reason, so if you are looking for the root page of a site it takes longer to search for it, because you get a bunch of deep links instead of the main page.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Odiumjunkie]

> unfortunately, they also can't have a "don't remember these sites" list for obvious reasons Why not have a "don't ever remember this site" button that keeps a list of the $FavouriteAlgorithm hashes of the base second level domains (foo.org) of the sites you click you the button while surfing. Every time you visit a site, it hashes domain; if the hash matches the "do not remember" list, it doesn't keep any records.

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[Arancaytar]

What bar are you referring to, though? Status, Menu, Address and Bookmarks are all more or less essential, and those are all the browser comes with.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If only it would work

[Bryansix]

I upgraded at home but at work I rolled back because the upgrade didn't work. They need to fix the upgrade so that 100% of the machines that worked on 2.x work on 3.x and then I'll upgrade.

Re:If only it would work

[jsebrech]

Did you go through their troubleshooting documentation? Probably your profile is corrupted and it only accidentally works on firefox 2.

Re:If only it would work

[Bryansix]

My point is the installer should check for this and fix it. I shouldn't have to jump through a million hoops to get it to work.

Re:If only it would work

[Bryansix]

No no no. It works if I uninstall firefox and delete all the files and then install 3.0 but why should I have to do that. It's not that it is incompatible that is the problem; it is that it doesn't upgrade correctly.

Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x

[tepples]

It will be interesting to see if [advertising Firefox 3 to users of Firefox 2] speeds up the rate of upgrade by users, as well as upgrades of the add-ons.

Mozilla Firefox 3 for Windows requires Windows NT 5.0 or later. This currently includes Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Vista. What will Firefox 2 say to users of nearly decade-old PCs that still run Windows 98 or Windows Millennium Edition, which cannot run Firefox 3? (Yes, they still exist; one posts regularly to the forum at tetrisconcept.com.) Will it nag them about upgrading to Puppy Linux?

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

[Per Wigren]

Users running Windows 9x who are connected to the internet already have so much spyware and viruses that running an unsupported version of Firefox won't be much of a problem in comparision.

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.

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

[EmperorKagato]

Microsoft cut those users off in 2006

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

[eln]

If you're on Win98 or WinME, your entire operating system is already no longer supported by its vendor, so why do you care if your browser is supported by anyone? You're probably already a zombie in several spam networks, so any security vulnerabilities that show up in your browser are not going to affect you in any practical way.

I think once an OS vendor ends support for that OS, you really shouldn't expect third party software vendors to continue supporting it.

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

[iritant]

Users running Windows 9x who are connected to the internet already have so much spyware and viruses that running an unsupported version of Firefox won't be much of a problem in comparision.

Precisely so. And what is the likelihood of such people upgrading anything?

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

[iamdrscience]

What will Firefox 2 say to users of nearly decade-old PCs that still run Windows 98 or Windows Millennium Edition, which cannot run Firefox 3?

Probably "get a new computer".

I mean seriously, I've got sympathy for people who have to run old versions of Windows, but I don't think Firefox is doing anything unreasonable in this case by dropping support for an operating system which Microsoft itself stopped supporting over two years ago. It may be annoying for Firefox users on 98/98SE/ME to be bothered to upgrade to a version which won't run on their computer, but that's probably the least of the problems they'll come across while running an OS that old.

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

[JeanCroix]

Speak for yourself. My "ancient" notebook, from which I'm posting right now, still runs 98SE because anything past that is too much of a hog for the limited resources. No spyware, no viruses - never had 'em, never will. Maybe I'll switch it over to Debian eventually, like my desktop, but not until I'm finally and forever done with all my favorite old games.

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

[bigstrat2003]

An upgrade nag is not progress, it's an annoyance to the user.

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

[zzxc]

Users running on unsupported operating systems will not get the major update notice. This is checked server side, see bug 418129. The updater even checks that the updated version will be compatible for Linux users. For information on the release and the testing that is being done, read the 2.0.0.16->3.0.1 Major Update page on the Mozilla wiki.

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

[clone53421]

What are the specs? Depending on what you mean by "ancient" it might actually run a stripped-down version of XP pretty well.

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

[eebra82]

Users running Windows 9x who are connected to the internet already have so much spyware and viruses that running an unsupported version of Firefox won't be much of a problem in comparision.

I am running Windows 98 and I have no problems with spyware. What the hell are you talking about?

BUY VIAGRA!!!
LOSE 30 POUNDS IN 1 WEEK!!!
NEED A LOAN???
CINDY WANTS TO POSE NAKED!!!
GOT A SMALL PENIS???

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

[BUL2294]

Or better yet, run Windows 2000--which is still supported by M$, works with Firefox 3, and works reasonably well with 64MB RAM. My Toshiba Libretto 110CT runs W2K & FF3 reasonably even without nLite. I could kill a few more useless services for a little more speed...

Also, since I'm maxed-out on RAM and I can only overclock from 233MHz to 266MHz, I got a HUGE speed improvement when I upgraded from Toshiba's tiny, slow 4200rpm 4.3GB IDE/PATA drive to a brand new Hitachi 5400rpm 160GB drive. Even though the Libretto only supports PIO mode over an ISA (!) bus, the faster HD has given the little machine new life! (Wonder how much faster it would be with an SSD!)

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

[Ilgaz]

Your attitude still lives on at Firefox scene eh?

Stuff like: "It uses too much RAM" "buy RAM you cheap bastard", "it doesn't run on my OS", "upgrade it and your hardware".

Why don't they install Opera 9.5 which perfectly works on their OS instead?
http://www.opera.com/support/search/view/386/

It even supports Windows 95. In contrast to Firefox for OS X, it also supports OS X 10.2.

In fact, even that unfixable pile of crap, IE 6 works on Win 98. By telling users to get a new hardware, you are driving them to IE too.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Users running Windows 9x who are connected to the internet already have so much spyware and viruses that running an unsupported version of Firefox won't be much of a problem in comparision.

Spyware is a PEBCAK thing. Most viruses are easy to avoid. People that have the conditions you state ('spyware and viruses') tend to throw away new computers not stick with a decade old machine. If they have lasted this long avoiding the problems you so obviously could not (why else would you need FF3 to "help" you?), then a few more years won't likely hurt them. The attack vectors won't change but the frequency of attackers targeting them will decrease.

Once FF2 uses repeated and/or unstoppable nags, it is no better than spyware. Actually it is worse.

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

[Tim C]

Mozilla Firefox 3 for Windows requires Windows NT 5.0 or later. This currently includes Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Vista.

Or Server 2008, of course.

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

[Toonol]

Dropping support for them isn't a problem; it's sensible. Microsoft has dropped support already. What isn't sensible is to pester them with recurring popups trying to upgrade them to a newer version that is impossible for them to run without purchasing a new computer or new operating system.

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

[JeanCroix]

It's a Dell Latitude C600. PIII 850MHz, 128M RAM, 20G HD. It may run the stripped-down XP, but it's all comfy with the 98 now, and since it's not my main machine, I'm fine with "If it ain't broke..."

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

[Ilgaz]

If you are happy with Windows way of things, there is a special edition of XP, "XP Fundamentals for Legacy PCs" which would be my choice on current hardware too. It is XP minus legacy "dial up networking" type of junk or needless services.

It must be the choice for "virtual windows" people too.

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

[Bryansix]

I actually did run Windows 98SE up until about two years ago and I actually didn't have any spyware or viruses. A patched 98SE machine was pretty stable in fact. The only problem is the lack of support for certain devices because M$ stopped updating it.

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

[apparently]

Shit, McCain's advertising on /. now?

.

I am running Windows 98 and I have no problems with spyware. What the hell are you talking about?
BUY VIAGRA!!!
LOSE 30 POUNDS IN 1 WEEK!!!
NEED A LOAN???
CINDY WANTS TO POSE NAKED!!!
GOT A SMALL PENIS???

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

[b0bby]

That's not necessarily true - 9x had far fewer services that were remotely exploitable, so a sensible user could crank along just fine, especially behind a firewall.

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

[bcrowell]

Ditto for old versions of MacOS X. My wife was an early adopter of MacOS X, but we got tired of paying $130 to Apple for every point upgrade. There's more and more software that won't run on her machines now. I tried installing ff3, and it didn't run.

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

[King_TJ]

Glad someone made this point, because I was just about to say the same thing!

One of our employees at my work uses an older Sony Vaio laptop with Windows '98SE on it. Sure, it's old and outdated, but all she needs it for is connecting to our corporate VPN to get remote access to her PC from home, and to check her email, surf a few web sites she frequents, and possibly to type the occasional document up in Word or Excel.

I recently put FireFox on it for her, and sure enough, version 3 wouldn't work. (IE 7, by contrast, DOES still support Windows '9x.)

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

[spire3661]

I ran a 300 mhz pentium I 128 MB of ram as a living room webtop running XP up until about 3 months ago. Ran like a champ for its intended purpose. This wasnt stripped down XP either, once it was up and running with FF loaded it ran great. I messed around with nLite after it was already working, but i didnt see the need for a heavy strip down when the thing just worked.

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

[clone53421]

Hmm, with that much RAM you'd be using virtual memory pretty hard. Even so, my machine is 600mhz, 256mb, 20gb and it runs XP fairly well. I still haven't got around to disabling some of the unnecessary services... I need to do that... but then, as you said -- if it ain't broke...

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

[labyrinth]

Same goes for older versions of OSX

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

[jythie]

Forget decades old.

They also dropped support for OSX 10.3, which is not all that old.

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

[BUL2294]

IE 7, by contrast, DOES still support Windows '9x.

What are you smoking? IE7 doesn't even support Windows 2000, and Microsoft has gotta be kicking themselves over that decision. (They still need to patch W2K-IE6 for security holes, support it for Windows Update, support it for Silverlight, etc.--for 2 more years!)

IE6 was the last version released for Win98/98SE/ME and Win2K. All security patches for IE6 on Win98/98SE/ME ended on July 11, 2006. Security patches for IE6 on Win2K continue through July 13, 2010.

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

[advocate_one]

Mozilla Firefox 3 for Windows requires Windows NT 5.0 or later. This currently includes Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Vista. What will Firefox 2 say to users of nearly decade-old PCs that still run Windows 98 or Windows Millennium Edition, which cannot run Firefox 3? (Yes, they still exist; one posts regularly to the forum at tetrisconcept.com.) Will it nag them about upgrading to Puppy Linux?

It's the exact same problem for a lot of Linux users on stable platforms who are not upgrading. Firefox 3 won't install on my Ubuntu Dapper box. Gets upset about the version of gtk

why on earth they couldn't provide a build of ff3 that had everything it needed statically linked in I don't know.

plus I'm perfectly happy running Dapper on this box... I'm not in the mood for fighting through an upgrade yet... I've had a few too many problems upgrading my laptop... that was effectively bricked for a while when upgrading to the current Ubuntu until a newer kernel got released.

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

[BZ]

No. The update won't be offered on OSes where it can't run. That includes Mac OS X 10.3 and earlier, and Windows 98/ME.

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:IT Locks computers

[clone53421]

Firefox portable.

Re:IT Locks computers

[EXTER]

Try Firefox Portable, it can be installed on a USB portable drive and run any Windows PC.

Re:IT Locks computers

[Blain]

Tried it. Five minute application loads followed by five minute page loads wasn't attractive. Flash memory is too slow for this to be practical.

Re:IT Locks computers

[clone53421]

There's always a way around it... unless, of course, the whole hard drive is locked. And I'm betting that your user profile, at least, isn't.

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.

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.

[RealGrouchy]

I was ambivalent too, until I used the history.

I'm running OSX with XP on parallels for some mandatory windows apps. Since my web browsing is primarily done on OSX, I figured I'd try FF3 on XP to try it out.

Within a couple of days, I had wanted to find a couple sites I had visited a few days earlier in each browser. In FF3, the interface is excellent, allowing you to search in many ways and organizing the presentation in a very user-friendly manner. In FF2, the history is literally just a list and a search box.

I'm not sure if the OS has anything to do with the difference, but I find that history feature to be a killer function. (Still to lazy to upgrade on OSX, though)

- RG>

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.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[clone53421]

I'm pretty sure the history didn't change. There are a few different views, so maybe the default view changed. "By Date and Site" is the one I find most useful... maybe your FF2 has "By Site" selected? Anyway I'm about 90% sure that FF2 had "By Date and Site". Try it and let me know if it worked.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

My technical solution is to kill the autoupdate service. I'll reboot when I feel like it. It's my hardware, I'll admin it as I see fit.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[ucblockhead]

Yes...copying Windows usability is really smart.

That fucking Windows reboot nag is one reason I bought a Mac.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[maxume]

The easy solution is to set it to automatically download updates, but to not install them until told to. The nag box does not start coming up until the updates are installed, which happens whenever the user chooses.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[AceofSpades19]

I don't understand why people hate the awesome bar so much, its not really that much different from what the address bar was like before.

Re:marketing speak infected.

[ucblockhead]

Yeah...you can turn off the idiotic Windows nag screens too.

I don't want to have to turn off the damn nag screens. I like the way Ubuntu does it. It puts a little "reboot" icon up there and lets me decide.

Addons are a reason not to upgrade

[praedictus]

Version 3 breaks UnPlug and FireWhat, among others, I can see lots of people not wanting to give up their favorite addons to upgrade. I for one upgraded but miss Unplug, its annoying to have to reload video on a slow connection when I want to show something funny to the kids that I found while they were napping.

Re:Addons are a reason not to upgrade

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Version 3 breaks UnPlug and FireWhat, among others, I can see lots of people not wanting to give up their favorite addons to upgrade. I for one upgraded but miss Unplug, its annoying to have to reload video on a slow connection when I want to show something funny to the kids that I found while they were napping.

A five minute search on Mozilla Add-ons led to me this, a version of UnPlug that supposedly works with Firefox 3. Not tested it myself, but maybe it's just what you're looking for.

Re:Addons are a reason not to upgrade

[SuperCharlie]

This is the reason, along with tabs in IE7, that I moved back to IE. After about 3-4 upgrades that basically neutered firefox and made me re-setup all my addons, find new ones that worked with the version of the day, etc.. I just said fuggit. Since I do web development too, it just made more sense to stay in the majority of the users environment and go on. FF was nice when it was like **OLD** ICQ.. now that theyve hit mainstream they start to feel a lot more like AOL ICQ..sorry for the blasphemey, but I'll pass on the whole thing.

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

[swillden]

Fact of the matter is that you don't always need to upgrade software, nor should you always.

When it comes to software that is as crucial to the security of your computer as the browser, yes, you should always upgrade if not upgrading means that you're no longer getting security updates.

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?

Nope, it doesn't scream vulnerability. There are lots of ways for them to do it securely. Most likely, the new "feature" will be pushed as part of a normal security update. And since FF2 security updates are stopping in a few months, it arguably IS a security feature.

Re:I don't like this

[EmperorKagato]

"All I want it to do is display a PDF."

It's not what you needed. It is what their paying customers, the ones who buy Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Acrobat Pro, wanted to do.

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 don't like this

[Firehed]

You know that sometimes, just sometimes, it's actually a good idea to upgrade? I'm as aware as anyone else of how terrible Adobe's software updater is, but Firefox's approach is almost as good as Sparkle-powered apps ("A new version is available! [release notes] Update?" Yes/No/Later, automatic download-patch-restart, done). They are NOT trying to force you to use the software in any specific way, but merely are making you aware that a newer version is available and that you should consider updating. When the program runs, it checks an RSS feed that contains version history and info (an Appcast, if you will) and if there's something newer available, you get prompted. The title is trolling; it's no different than any other updater.

I agree with Acrobat - Adobe seriously needs to work on their free reading software (use FoxIt Reader, by the way), since the only thing they can really change from version to version is speed and it seems to get progressively worse. Most apps add actual functionality and bug fixes, and so long as the update is free there's usually no reason to skip upgrading.

If it bothers you that much, you can disable the automatic update checking. The rest of us will continue to enjoy up-to-date apps.

Re:I don't like this

[eric-x]

You don't need Acrobat at all. Use Foxit Reader 2.3. It's instantaneous and has other benefits as well.

Re:I don't like this

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

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.

Funny, I don't get any of that. Every few days or so, Adept tells me there are updates available, I type in my password, download the updates, and we're done. I can't for the life of me figure out... oh, wait, you're using Windows aren't you? Really, after experiencing the convenience of having a single package manager for all of my applications, I really wonder how having every application take care of its own updates ever worked.

Re:I don't like this

[nine-times]

I agree with you, but in my opinion the real problem is that these nags are centralized. Adobe has their own, JRE has its own, and often each application has its own. It seems to me like it's a waste of development for each vendor to be creating their own, a waste of system resources to have a bunch of different update applications running in the background, and a general annoyance to the user to have 50 different things popping up saying "update me now".

OS vendors should really be developing their own update mechanisms that can be extended to 3rd parties, and then encouraging 3rd parties to use them. This is actually one place where Linux package managers really shine. As a Debian user, I really like it when installing new 3rd-party software is as easy as adding a new repository. Once everything is in place (and it's added to my sources), I can update all of my software using apt.

And notice that in this setup, it doesn't require the OS vendor (Debian in this case) to host or endorse the 3rd party applications. All it requires is that the user approves searching an additional source for updates. I think Apple should consider doing this in their Software Update, and Microsoft in their Windows Update. They've already extended them to update their own applications, so it'd just be opening that system to additional 3rd-party sources. For security's sake, they should make sure there are good protections against unauthorized additions to the list of sources, and they should provide a good method to remove them once added.

Then you could schedule it all yourself, and have one single thing pop up saying, "These are the updates available for your system right now. Which would you like to install?"

Re:I don't like this

[Thaelon]

So get Sumatra. It's to Foxit what Foxit is to Adobe Acrobat.

Adobe Acrobat Reader (I think you mean Reader) has been nothing but bloat since version 4, not 6.

Re:I don't like this

[jrumney]

Until recently I only had FoxIt installed for reading PDFs. But then I tried to use Royal Mail's online postage printing to print some urgently needed stamps (no time to queue at the post office). FoxIt does not support the full PDF spec, and my envelopes came out with SAMPLE watermarks across them. So in the end I had to reluctantly go back to twiddling my thumbs while Acrobat locks up my whole browser for 2 minutes every time I want to look at a PDF.

Re:I don't like this

[Blakey Rat]

Someone boldface this and email it to the guys in charge of WordPress.

WordPress: You're SERVER SOFTWARE! You need to be able to run longer than a week without the constant upgrades, because upgrading server software is a royal pain in the ass! Seriously, my WP is constantly out-of-date, because every time I finish all the backups and get time to upgrade, there's a new version out the next day.

If you're having trouble with security, spend more time on it BEFORE release. If you're just buggy, hire more QA people or something, I dunno. But just solve the problem, please.

Re:I don't like this

[Blakey Rat]

The Firefox approach leads to an annoying, "I know you wanted to browse the web right now, indicated by your clicking the FF icon, but I'm going to spend 3 minutes doing things unrelated to your browsing the web. Thank you." effect. It's like it normally has a 10-second start-up time, then every week or so it has a 3-minute start-up time. Extremely annoying.

It should either silently install upgrades after you close the browser, or wait until I manually do it. But when I click the FF icon, I want to *browse the web*, not stare at progress bars.

Re:I don't like this

[nine-times]

I agree with you, but in my opinion the real problem is that these nags are centralized.

Sorry, the real problem is that these nags are *not* centralized. If they were centralized into one update application, the situation would be better.

Re:I don't like this

[assassinator42]

It depends on how they implement it. They could make it an optional: When an app is installed, it can register with a central update service which periodically checks the websites of the individual software distributes for an XML file and updates accordingly. The downloads would be signed with the distributor's key. Not quite the most efficient way of checking for updates, but a lot better than each programming checking for updates itself, many using their own processes that are continuously running.

Re:I don't like this

[King_TJ]

Yeah, but unfortunately, the upgrades DO become useful in ways you never suspect.

EG. Adobe Acrobat Reader. I was in the same camp as you, saying "Why upgrade the thing, if it works, as-is?" But then I tried to print out a large engineering drawing that was made into a PDF, and discovered the "fit to page" options in Acrobat Reader didn't work properly with it, until I upgraded to at least version 8! Very aggravating and wasted a lot of paper before I realized that was the solution.

Software authors typically have some sort of "vested interest" in trying to get as many people as possible using their code to run their latest versions. Often, it's as simple as being a "pride" thing. (You don't relish the idea that tens of thousands of people out there are having problems with software that bears YOUR name as author, when you already put in lots of effort to find/fix those bugs.)

Re:I don't like this

[sheepweevil]

Seems like every other day some program or another is nagging me to upgrade or check for updates. Java, Quicktime, Acrobat, whatever.

This is one of the things that impresses me the most about the package repository structure - it gets rid of this update nightmare. Updates for basically all software on the system are handled with the same process. For example, in Ubuntu (and probably many other flavors of Linux) all software updates are handled by the update manager. This gets rid of all the annoying update processes running constantly.

Re:I don't like this

[spire3661]

Thank you for saying this. SO very annoying when im running out the door and i need to check last minute directions and upon clicking the FF icon i get presented with a "please wait while i waste your time" dialog.

Re:I don't like this

[slashtivus]

I agree with you about Acrobat getting slower/bloated, however Acrobat has been adding serious functionality. This is mostly in the form of fillable & routable Forms. Most people do not need that so one of the many free readers will be fine. I have been working on a PDF project and NONE of the many (including non-free) other products that I tried out could pull off what Acrobat libraries can. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to get hold of Adobe (even though they offer an SDK channel) and work out an ISV license. They OFFER it, but just won't answer their phones. Big companies can be wierd like that.

Re:I don't like this

[Blakey Rat]

Well, I got modded down, so I guess somebody doesn't agree. Too many Firefox fans on this board to get an honest discussion of any of Firefox's flaws, probably. Oh well.

Re:I don't like this

[jesser]

I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to make users wait during updates. The Google Toolbar for IE manages it somehow ;) See bugzilla.mozilla.org bug 307181.

agreed

[Joe the Lesser]

A horrible decision by FF.

In a way pushing it on people reminds me of Microsoft and Vista.

Software Exists To Solve Problems!

[curmudgeon99]

While I applaud the folks at Mozilla for their hard work--they are forgetting the Golden Principle of Software development: Software exists to solve problems. So, following that idea, if the current version of the browser I'm using (the earlier Firefox) solves my problems, then why do I need to upgrade? As long as their is an opt out from further nagging, I'm fine.

Re:Software Exists To Solve Problems!

[MLCT]

if the current version of the browser I'm using (the earlier Firefox) solves my problems, then why do I need to upgrade?

Because the version you are using will no longer be supported (and hence not very secure) in 4 months or so. Given that one of the main aims of internet interface software is security then I can't see how it will solve your problems for much longer.

There would be rightful criticism if this was an enforced upgrade, but it is not. Calling it a "nag" screen is also misleading, once or twice in the next few months is hardly every 10 minutes - information box would be more appropriate. It is not at all unimaginable that FF2 installed on family/friend machines who "just want to use the interweb" wouldn't know anything about FF3 - telling them about an upgrade that will (shortly) be required to maintain good security seems like a proper thing to do - indeed I am sure there would be criticism here if Mozilla didn't do this.

Re:Software Exists To Solve Problems!

[curmudgeon99]

Then it should not be called an upgrade but what it really is: a bug fix. The current browser should have been secure. Every change we now see is a bug fix. That's different. I should not be forced to upgrade to a new version.

Re:Software Exists To Solve Problems!

[BZ]

The current browser should be secure, yes. But people keep finding new attack vectors, and it turns out that building a large secure system is kinda hard. Which means slow, expensive, or both, and probably still not successful.

So in practice modern software tends to have continuous fixes made to it to improve security. But Firefox 3 and Firefox 2 are different enough under the hood, that it's getting to the point that it's a matter of making fixes for one or the other but not both. Given that choice, how would you choose?

nag screen

[C_Kode]

Can I create a nag screen to tell the developers to STFU? :)

Re:nag screen

[smoker2]

Yep, indirectly.
Change your user agent.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080702 Hey Mozilla - fuck off !/2.0.0.16 (Firefox 2.0.0.16)

Re:nag screen

[Ant P.]

If that's what you think of the people who worked for several years to give you all this for free, you're the one that needs to fuck off.

Re:nag screen

[bh_doc]

You could always submit a patch...

Can't.

[SCHecklerX]

Firefox 3 requires too many libraries that I don't have on my Mandrake 10.2 box.

Screw FF3...

[Gertlex]

I've got FF2 tricked out fairly extremely. At least ten of my addons in use didn't work with FF3 (when it was released at least), and some of those never will without someone else rewriting them (i.e. abandoned). There are also various GUI/display modifications that didn't covert to FF3 well/at all either.

Maybe someday I'll find the time to look real hard into how various css hacks were done and try redoing them for FF3...

My biggest bitching point currently is the lack of column bookmarks (My first columns-worth is all folders...). Even Netscape or some other old browser had these.

"Power-user"-friendly upgrades plz.

Re:Screw FF3...

[clone53421]

"Column bookmarks"? What exactly do you mean by that? Ctrl-B opens the bookmark sidebar, and the bookmarks menu works like it always has.

Re:Screw FF3...

[Gertlex]

"Column bookmarks"? What exactly do you mean by that? Ctrl-B opens the bookmark sidebar, and the bookmarks menu works like it always has.

Multiple columns... pretty much just like Windows Start Menu.

Re:Screw FF3...

[clone53421]

Oh... frankly I don't really care for that anyway. Once there are that many items they're kind of hard to navigate... folders are much easier to work with.

Although I'm curious... what happens when you have too many bookmarks? I'd expect the sidebar to scroll, which seems like it'd solve your problem fairly well.

Re:Screw FF3...

[Hyppy]

"Power-user"-friendly upgrades plz.

Methinks that our definitions of "power user" differ slightly.

Re:Screw FF3...

[Gertlex]

Unsurprisingly. Hence the quotes. What's yours?

Re:Screw FF3...

[omnipresentbob]

Didn't have a clue wtf column bookmarks were. Googled it. First result: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3462

Add-ons, baby. The beauty of Firefox ;)

Re:Screw FF3...

[Gertlex]

I failed to mention that I use this. If you read the comments, you'll see that this is not FF3 compatible. Thus my complaint.

Re:just like vista

[sm62704]

If I wanted to be nagged I wouldn't have divorced Evil-X!

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:Option to turn it off..

[houghi]

So basicaly you agree with 'opt out' even after you already selected 'opt out'?

Re:Option to turn it off..

[klossner]

I turned updates completely off in Firefox 2. It wasn't even supposed to check whether an update exists.

It still forced a security update down my throat. I started Firefox to take a quick look at a web site, and it hijacked my computer and downloaded the update.

I'm back to Seamonkey, which doesn't treat me like an irresponsible child.

Re:Option to turn it off..

[Snaller]

Yeah that's like when creeps send you spam and tell you that you can unsubscribe. Yeah, but you still annoyed us.

(And funny you didn't tell us how to turn it off)

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?

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

[Nathanbp]

According to this post, and as can be seen at this closed bug, you won't get the nag screen on Linux if your version of GTK is too low to support FF3 (or on Windows if you're using a version before 2000).

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:Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[umrain]

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

Have you actually tried? They at least claim to support a lot of versions of Linux. (unless you have Sparc machines, then nevermind.)

Re:Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[Spit]

Static link.

Re:Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[Blakey Rat]

I tried to explain this to a friend of mine who's a developer on the open source Adium IM program. They're going to drop OS X 10.4 support for the next release, ridiculously quickly.

The worst part is, reading through their rationale for doing this, every single reason sums up to "well, it makes development easier." Great; cater to the less-than-two-dozen developers while screwing over the tens of thousands of people running 10.4 (many on hardware that can't be upgraded). Brilliant logic there.

Re:Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[BZ]

Red Hat is porting Firefox 3 to RHEL 4, last I checked.

With Fedora Core 4, you're sort of on your own. You can stick with Fx2 and security bugs... just like you're sticking with other not-getting-updates packages and security bugs.

In general, the Linux mess with Firefox 3 is largely to do with the fact that people wanted all sorts of stuff system-integration wise that the GTK version shipped with Fedora Core 4, say, just couldn't do. In other words, it's hard to integrate with a half-baked desktop (which is sort of where Linux still is): it doesn't provide the hooks you need.

Simple little things like "use the same fonts as the user's other apps" work fundamentally differently between FC4 and FC9, for example. Now you could claim that Mozilla should maintain two completely different sets of code to handle this, but it was decided that this wasn't worth it. Especially because 95%+ of all Linux Firefox users just get it from their distribution, not from Mozilla.org.

Re:Not without RHEL 4 support I won't

[sowth]

There are alternate builds. pigfoot - Swiftfox - one for the Mac. I am sure there has to be one somewhere which fits your requirements. Problem is finding it.

I 3 FF3, except...

[TheDarkener]

For the fact that they've completely dropped the 'bookmarks.html' way of doing things, in place of places.sqlite - I mean, at least have some backward compatibility. I was using a central bookmarks.html file at a bunch of client sites for global bookmarks on Ubuntu LTSP networks, and now that we've upgraded, it's..just...broken. For such a long-lived feature, I'm surprised that they just completely ripped it out without any kind of (except export/import, which half works, half doesn't) way for legacy implementations to keep going with it. There's no real way to symlink to places.sqlite, I hear, because the file is locked per-instance of FF. Blah. :(

Re:I 3 FF3, except...

[clone53421]

Uh oh... I'm suddenly wondering if I'll be able to get my bookmarks back. I had to reinstall my OS, leaving files intact, but I reinstalled all my software and it created a clean Firefox profile... I haven't tried to import the bookmarks from my old profile because I figured it'd be easy once I got around to it. Should I be worried?

Re:I 3 FF3, except...

[Daimanta]

I don't get this. I have ff3 and I can still export my bookmarks to bookmarks.html. Parent is simply incorrect.

Re:I 3 FF3, except...

[Hyppy]

How about a local copy, synced on login and/or at midnight?

Re:I 3 FF3, except...

[TheDarkener]

Export/Import works fine. Read my post. I'm talking about a "live" bookmarks.html that's symlinked for many users to share. You can't do that because bookmarks, history and other things are now stored in places.sqlite (which, like I said, is locked per-instance of FF3).

Re:I 3 FF3, except...

[maxume]

Not really. The awful case scenario is that you need to use some other sqlite utility to dump your bookmarks out of the db file. The likely scenario is that you can just drop the db file into a new profile.

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.

Re:It's not so bad...

[chis101]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is an about in about:config to disable the nag screens... so, while still annoying, I bet there is an option that tech-savvy users who know what they are doing running FF2 can disable it. (Although I don't have FF2 to actually check if there is an option there)

Re:It's not so bad...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I believe it is the *right* thing to do, since this will benefit both the majority of its user base and Mozilla itself

Screw you. You don't get to do things to me for my own good.

Re:It's not so bad...

[ConceptJunkie]

But this isn't about you, as much as you want it to be. It's about the 99% of users who don't realize what's going on and why it's important to know that you should upgrade.

Getting that bent out of shape over an occasional reminder is taking things waaaaaay too far.

Of course, you're free to be that way... it's Free software after all. :-)

Re:It's not so bad...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Getting that bent out of shape over an occasional reminder is taking things waaaaaay too far.

Not at all. It betrays the attitude that people are just sheep to be pushed around - that's a fundamental lack of respect. It's also the sort of attitude that leads to overly intrusive government set up 'for my own good'.

Re:It's not so bad...

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, if that weren't true we wouldn't have millions of zombie Windows computers being used for botnets, now would we?

Besides, informing people isn't "pushing around sheep". We're not talking about something like the government here. This is hardly intrusive, definitely not coercive, and it's very likely to help.

Or do you get offended when a light comes on in your car when something is wrong? What about the smoke alarm in your house? It's violating your freedom to die from smoke inhalation! I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but you are totally picking the wrong battle.

Re:It's not so bad...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

This isn't a gentle nudge, it's an automated nag message that shows up every day until you give in or neuter it. It's also set by default to autoupdate and install without any sort of confirmation, which is just dirty pool.

Re:It's not so bad...

[jesser]

Firefox 2 is going to stop getting security updates soon. It's already way behind on security fixes. You should file bug reports or do whatever is necessary to ensure that you will be able to use Firefox 3 (or Firefox 3.1) by December.

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]

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

Wrong. Vista is based on everything else. The constant nagging for upgrading and reminders can been seen in Java 1.3 and higher, every MMO before WoW, QuickTime before it became infused with iTunes, Real Player, any software from the 90s that "reminded" you to register, Winamp (once bought by AOL), Mplayer, BonziBuddy, and DirectX when you attempted to play a game at a later version.

Where have you been?

FF3 is missing FF2 features

[barrkel]

Unfortunately, FF3 is missing FF2 features. In particular, FF3 doesn't use a cookies.txt file. This means that it integrates poorly with wget. And this, in turn, is the reason I have not upgraded to FF3 on one of my machines, and may have to turn to IE7 for secure browsing.

Re:FF3 is missing FF2 features

[belg4mit]

There's already an extension to dump cookies,
and you can even set it to dump session cookies;
I forget the name, it's installed at home.

Re:FF3 is missing FF2 features

[Giorgio Maone]

You can use FlashGot to integrate Firefox with wget (and many other download managers), including transparent cookie support.

Re:FF3 is missing FF2 features

[barrkel]

Yes, it's called allcookies. It's not compatible with FF3.

If you are aware of another extension that works with FF3 and has a simple 'dump all cookies' menu item that dumps everything including session cookies, please do tell.

Re:FF3 is missing FF2 features

[barrkel]

Unfortunately, I do not want to directly invoke wget, since I am running wget from a script.

Basically, I want to refresh an offline mirror of a section of a website that needs a cookie or two for access. I have the scripts all written already. All I need is a text file in historical Mozilla cookie format that contains all the cookies, including session cookies, just like allcookies would do.

Re:FF3 is missing FF2 features

[Giorgio Maone]

You can easily create a custom download manager definition which handles an "emulated" cookies.txt file to your script. Notice that the legacy cookie.txt did not contain session cookies, while the FlashGot-produced one does.

Not all linux distros are ready....

[pizzach]

I mean...Foxfire 3 is still in experimental in a lot of distributions. What a way to annoy users into switching to Epiphany or Konqueuer/Dolphin.

no thanks!

[FudRucker]

when I can no longer use Firefox-2.0.0.16 safely to browse the internet I will just use Seamonkey...

unless Firefox-3.x adds the ability to turn off the awesome bar and other kludgy features for dummies in the preferences then maybe I will try it...

so far my impression of Firefox-3.x is about like KDE-4.x (released too early & not ready for prime time)...

Re:no thanks!

[belg4mit]

The oldbar add-on fixes the awful bar.

The FF2 Theme, or small icons fixes the fucking keyhole. Alas, I've not been able to
figure out how to move the infernal history arrow to between the prev/next buttons.
I found a blog entry with instructions on launch day, and successfully applied it on
a machine I no longer have access too, but have been unable to find it since.

You can even alleviate some of the SSL suckitude with
        browser.xul.error_pages.expert_bad_cert=true

Alas the Library still sucks... but it gives half-decent history management without
Enhanced History Manager.

Cheers!

Re:no thanks!

[psm321]

No it doesn't. All it does is change it to look like the old address bar. It doesn't disable the "search in title" 'feature'.

Re:no thanks!

[belg4mit]

Oh, well if you want to bitch about something as trivial as that,
see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

PLEASES FIX IT FIRST

[Perl-Pusher]

My browser crashes anytime I try and print a page on fedora 8. It is an extremely annoying 'feature' that came with the firefox 3.0 upgrade. Until now I decided it was my fault for installing it as soon as it went 'final'. Printing works fine in firefox 2.x, opera and even konqueror. Firefox 3 works fine on OSX, which also uses cups. If they want to start nagging us to upgrade, then I assume its alright to nag them to fix it.

Re:just like vista

[ByOhTek]

I'm glad they didn't do this with Firefox1.5 when 2 came out. It was bad enough (worse?) they had it default to autoupdate, and on several system installs, I had to reinstall Firefox and turn that off before I accidentally let it update itself.

That's it, then...

[macraig]

... I'm turning off the auto-update feature for the time being. Let's see them nag me then. I'm well enough aware of the new version and I don't need to be nagged; when all my critical extensions have been updated (even if I have to tweak them myself), then and only then will I consider the upgrade.

How Annoying

[aaaaaaargh!]

Now even the open source guys start nagging users with stupid dialogs.

Re:just like vista

[Hurricane78]

BonziBuddy?? Really??
Why would you mention the most famous spyware on the planet in on sentence with mplayer?
I have to ask you to turn in your geek card right now, or you will be shot on sight. ;)

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.

Re:This may be a good thing.

[belg4mit]

The mechanism by which this is supposed to happen is the existing "a new version is available" test,
so how does this help your hypothetical luser who's either a) already gotten similar messages or b)
has the check disabled?

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.

Microsoft Firefox?

[ilovesymbian]

Mozilla Firefox finally going the Microsoft way.

Nag, nag, throw out popups forcing you to use the "latest and greatest" browser. And then finally, the WGA screen telling you what a bad browser you have (Firefox 2) and that you HAVE to get Firefox 3, or else... I better not say it!

Re:Microsoft Firefox?

[dave420]

Mod me down if anyone wants, but I get less nagging in IE than in FireFox. For one, updates to IE are performed in the background, and installed when the computer is turned off (or when the user elects to install them). In FireFox, sometimes it gets the new updates, and when I try to start it, it says "installing updates" and keeps me waiting for a minute or so before letting me use the web. Clearly I wanted to use the web from before I clicked the icon, so why does it think installing updates instead is a good idea? One of those usability things that just doesn't gel with me, I guess.

orwellian?

[nimbius]

its nice to see our overlord developers doing "whats best" for us, but let me pose this scenario

im a software vendor required by corporate policy to maintain my code for 10 years for development purposes. i develop a series of plugins for firefox 2, so my customer walgetco can use it to browse their SAP database alongside their website.

i dont have the option to upgrade to FF 3 because walgetco says it must be developed for their already deployed base of 300,000 walgetco terminals running FF2. besides, ff3 wont work with app X which is also included.

do walgetco employees put up with the nagscreen?

Re:just like vista

[Random BedHead Ed]

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

As long as you can make the warnings go away, I can live with it. But it had better not get too intrusive because I'm not on Firefox 2 out of personal choice or laziness.

While I use Firefox 3 on my personal Linux laptop, I've been stuck on 2 with my Windows laptop because the 3 betas kept crashing like mad, and when the final release came out there was no improvement. I gave it a good hearty try - new profiles, no extensions, and so on - but I eventually had to roll back.

On the other hand, even the Linux Firefox 3 is not without its issues. I find it sluggish when populating the awesome bar (which I otherwise like), and also when working with multiple tabs or downloading multiple files. (At the risk of going off on a tangent, I HATE the "Waiting until the first file you requested downloads completely before bothering to prompt you for the second file" routine that is new with 3.)

I'd love a 3.1 that doesn't crash on Windows and streamlines some of the background operations on Linux. Until then they'd better let me ignore the upgrade reminders. I don't need reminding.

Upgrade not possible

[caffiend666]

Nagware is fine and dandy when upgrade is possible. Despite my best attempts, Firefox 3 doesn't run on my Fedora Core 4 system. Runs OK on every Window's system I can put it on, but good luck running it on a Linux distribution older than two years. Anyone find a solution to this or instructions online? And by the way, I'm happy with Core 4 and would rather stick with Firefox 1.5 than chase the distribution flavor of the month. I get uptimes better than the lifespan of some of these distributions. /end rant mode

Re:Upgrade not possible

[BZ]

The upgrade shouldn't be offered to users of FC4, for what it's worth.

As for instructions... you would need to compile statically against GTK, basically. And current pango, probably.

And nag your distribution vendors and the GTK folks to stop changing stuff so much all the time that it's impossible to integrate well with a current GTK-based desktop while keeping support for something with the a vintage as recent as FC4.

Options for unsupported OSX?

[DigitalCrackPipe]

What about unsupported OSs like OSX 10.3.9? I'm supporting a box running this, so I need to decide between leaving the browser at Safari 1.3.2 (not updated in quite a while), Firefox 2.0.16 (won't be updated after 2008), or purchasing the new OSX for a old machine that can't really take advantage of most of the new features anyway.

Any free advice? :) I'm not a mac guy so I didn't notice this situation until recently.

Re:Options for unsupported OSX?

[maztuhblastah]

Opera 9 works just fine on 10.3.

Re:Options for unsupported OSX?

[King_TJ]

Don't get me wrong... I say this as a regular Mac user and fan.

But IMHO, a big part of why OS X seems "cheaper" than Windows to people is because they don't take into account Apple's more aggressive upgrade schedules on their products.

I think basically with Apple and OS X, you really don't want to get more than 1 OS version behind the "current shipping" one. That means you're going to be buying the new one every 2 years or so. (That still probably compares well with what the typical user spent to get XP Pro on a PC, and now to move to Vista.)

I was helping some of my friend get older "vintage" Macs going (a G4 Cube, for example), and even on those machines, getting 10.4 Tiger on them was and all-around "smart choice". We tried 10.3 for a while, but even a lot of shareware and freeware out there needed libraries not included until 10.4. Each OS X revision has added a lot of "under the surface" enhancement in the way of "core" architecture (Core Audio, Core Video, Core Animation, etc.) - so it can make an upgrade worthwhile, even if you don't think you need any of the new GUI features they touted to try to "make the sale" to the general public.

Re:Options for unsupported OSX?

[DigitalCrackPipe]

Thanks for the info. Looks like I'll consider Tiger or Leopard sooner rather than later; I hadn't considered the upgrades as necessary before.

Re:FF3 is a great product?

[clone53421]

Have you updated to the newest version of 3.0? They've released a version that was significantly more stable than the initial 3.0 release, as I recall. I bet that will take care of virtually all of your crash problems.

The way to drum up support

[QuietLagoon]

The Download Day was just one of their ways to drum up user support for the new release
.

Just one of the ways to tamp down support for the new release is to incorporate a brain-dead notification screen for self-signed certificates.

Maybe things will balance out. ;)

Re:just like vista

[sjhs]

why are they stopping the V2 security updates half a year after v3 was released?

Because they have finite resources and want to concentrate on keeping v3 fully secured.

The beauty is, since FF is open source, this potentially opens up a market for some third party to continue patching FF2 where Mozilla left off (if in fact there is any sizeable contingent of users who just cannot bear to upgrade). That's much less likely to happen with a closed-source browser simply because of the code being proprietary.

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

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

you should cc: Apple.

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

[BZ]

Note that 10.3.x has also been dropped by Apple. They no longer issue patches for security issues for it... This was the key factor in deciding it was OK to drop support for it (there were strong arguments for dropping support, but this was the thing that decided people that it was actually OK).

Re:just like vista

[clone53421]

The 3.0.1 release was a significant improvement over the 3.0 release as far as crashes go. You should give it a try.

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.

Re:Still not ready in the first place

[Hyppy]

Firefox 3 isn't ready for release in the first place. We tried it here at work and it is so buggy that we weren't even able to go to sites typed in the address bar.

Either that, or your IT department is full of incompetent and/or lazy amateurs.

I've installed FF3 on about 20 different computers, and never had that problem. My guess is the latter of the two possibilities, then.

This causes problems for some

[RemoWilliams84]

I for one work for a governement contractor and we use IE. We are not allowed to do any updates or download anything until it is approved(usually months after it is released). Something like this could get very annoying for people who are restricted.

It's fine as soon it's usual upgrade checking...

[sw155kn1f3]

ie when it allows just hit cancel. I don't think it will become a nagware.
I'll wait till december when all my addons upgraded.

Re:just like vista

[Typoboy]

Great, now we'll get spams telling us to dowload the latest sekure firefox2 from wwww.mozillla.com.cn

Re:just like vista

[schwaang]

To make that risk worse, when any Firefox add-on gets updated, the browser opens that add-on's project page. For example, after updating NoScript, FF will show you a page like this so you can see the "release notes" for the latest version of the add-on. What a *perfect* place to insert a browser exploit, where everyone is forced to go.

So now you depend not only on the security of FF code, the add-on code, but the add-on's external *website* as well.

Anyone know what they were thinking, and how to turn off this feature? I trust NoScript, but I don't want to visit their website after after every update.

At a minimum, viewing the add-on's website after an update should be a *default-off* option for every Firefox add-on.

Don't "Get Annoying" Firefox!

[decipher_saint]

Seriously, if you start bugging me to do something I don't want to do, well, I hear there are other browsers that are pretty good too.

The "smart" location bar enabled by default was a huge turn off, as was the reversal of the text zooming with the mouse scroll wheel. Of course, there is no easy place to change these settings within the GUI, so it was easier to go back to FF2 than it was to dick around with FF3 and get it the way I like.

Not even mentioning the Add-ons that hadn't quite made the transition to FF3 yet...

Re:just like vista

[Enderandrew]

Only certain add-ons do that, and it is the code of the add-on to load that page, not in Firefox.

Re:just like vista

[EmperorKagato]

BonziBuddy?? Really?? Why would you mention the most famous spyware on the planet in on sentence with mplayer? I have to ask you to turn in your geek card right now, or you will be shot on sight. ;)

To show that not only regular software used popups.

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.

Re:Linux users

[Anonymous Coward]

So unless you're browser

I'm a browser you insensitive clod!

Re:Linux users

[txtracer]

I have FC4 at work; FF3 will not run on FC4 (at least I haven't seen an RPM for it) and I'm not going to be upgrading a workstation that is working just fine, risking all the instability that upgrades bring, just so I can use shiny new improved FF3 (now with more useless junk!).

Being nagged to upgrade to something I cannot upgrade to is going to be damned annoying.

Re:Linux users

[DarthJohn]

FC4? They're on Fedora 9 (changed the name slightly even).

Do they still support FC4 with Security patches and such?

Re:Linux users

[cicatrix1]

Nope. Fedora only "supports" (i.e. keeping repositories active) version n - 1. They support n-2 for something like 30 days after a new release.

It is a balancing act..

[msimm]

Some people don't upgrade because they don't have the time and then forget about it. Some people don't understand the importance (or know the benefits). And then a select few don't upgrade because they choose not to.

I'm sure for the small number of people who simply don't want to upgrade (or be reminded about it) will we able to disable this warning (via addon, greasemonkey, about:config, etc).

My wife was a great example of someone who knew about the upgrade but didn't bother. When I finally pushed in and did it myself the first thing she noticed was how much better it ran and then the awesome bar.

Re:My browser doesn't need to be awesome

[Toonol]

Why can't I just have a barBar? What kind of shoddy coding can't manage to make this option...optional?

Earlier versions did have an about:config option to switch. They removed it. I can't think of a legitimate reason for them to do that; feature removal is generally the province of marketing and politics.

Re:just like vista

[Enderandrew]

I've never seen a nag screen with mplayer. Maybe it is because I update my packages all the time, but does mplayer really have a nag screen? I've never seen it in years.

Re:Still not ready in the first place

[neithernet]

Hmmm...I'm using a Mac and FF3. I don't see anything close to what you're complaining about. Have you tried the actual release version or are you basing your assessment on some old beta? Can you cite a specific, repeatable issue? Or possibly a bug report?

Well...

[Nathrael]

Firefox is open source, so it should be easily possible to deactivate this nagscreen (or at least, download the addon someone else created to disable it).

Re:just like vista

[Enderandrew]

I have been running 3 since alpha on all kinds of different boxes with no real problems. I'm not saying you didn't have problems, but I am a bit surprised because they tested the heck out of 3 before releasing it. And there have been some bug-fix releases since then.

I'd give it another shot, and I'd also submit a bug report if you continue to have problems.

As long as you can decline...

[DigitalContradiction]

I agree ; the problem about the Windows Update-like systems is not that they automatically propose some updates, it is that your only choice is between "update now" or "update later". If you refuse to install an update, it will keep popping up again and again. As long as you have a third option "No, I really don't want that update, thank you.", I think it's fine.

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.

Firefox product activation.

[suck_burners_rice]

They should add a nag screen claiming that Firefox requires product activation now. And since this is Internet software, you will have the option of activating Firefox by mail, by fax, or by calling a 1-900 number and waiting on hold for a few hours for the next available customer service associate, who is looking forward to helping you because your call is important to them. For your convenience, there won't be an option to activate through the Internet. Once you activate, you'll receive your software license, HP style, packed in foam, then bubble wrap, then cardboard, then more foam, then packing peanuts, then a larger enclosing box. The software is free. Software activation, however, requires a nominal service charge of $100 plus shipping and handling. Nah, just kidding. People need to upgrade to the newest version, or else they'll start getting viruses when version 2 support ends, and then everyone will be talking about how much Firefox stinks and how you need to use a different browser, like Netscape Navigator 3.0. We don't want that to happen, do we?! Nope.

Not everybody likes the "Awesome Bar"

[NJRoadfan]

There are workarounds to return FF3 to the classic address bar but no way (thus far) to set the type ahead matching to just match URLs and not webpage titles. Its annoying and for some it causes privacy issues (unrelated sites can pop up if one letter in the URL matches the title of any other page you have visited).

Also there are STILL people out there running older versions of Windows that FF2 supports but not FF3 (Windows 9x).

Several other reasons besides addons.

[jensend]

I'm sure there are many people out there who are saying "I'll upgrade when the AwesomeBar can be made to behave like the old location bar in 3.1 and no sooner," not to mention the late-adopters who are more than happy to let the rest of the world do their beta testing for them.

BTW, does anybody know the reason behind the large jump in download size from 2.x to 3.x? Not that I really mind, but I remember the download size being one of the main reasons cited for pulling the Mozilla Suite (which I had been happily using since M7) and going with Firefox instead.

Re:Several other reasons besides addons.

[SEE]

Having browser.tabs.loadFolderAndReplace support restored would be nice, too. At least there's now an (experimental) add-on to fix it ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8511 )

Re:Several other reasons besides addons.

[pal3f]

Having browser.tabs.loadFolderAndReplace support restored would be nice, too.

This was the deal breaker for me, and the reason I reverted back to 2.x. On the surface it may seem a minor thing, but it broke the very way a lot (judging by the bug reports) of people browse.

But what really pissed me off was the way the devs so blithely failed (deliberately or not) to even try to understand all the vehement objections to their having removed an extant config option. Did they not read the heated forum threads and bug reports that prompted its creation in the first place?!

Glad to know there's now an add-on to fix it, but what they really need to do is *put it back*! Yeah I know they have to rewrite it, but if they hadn't just blown off all the concerns that led to it being added in the first place this wouldn't be the problem that is.

Re:Several other reasons besides addons.

[dylan_-]

BTW, does anybody know the reason behind the large jump in download size from 2.x to 3.x?

In Windows*? From 5.6 MB to 7.0 MB? I don't think that's really a large jump.

*(the Linux download is actually smaller; probably because it's bz2 rather than the program itself)

Re:Several other reasons besides addons.

[Ant P.]

The windows download needs to contain all the Cairo libraries. The linux one doesn't, since GTK already has it built in.

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).

Re:just like vista

[Dan667]

Firefox remembers the state it was in when it has a problem and is restarted (or the computer is rebooted). Firefox has a bunch of useful plugins that I actually use and depend on. Firefox is fast. Ummmm, when exactly did the Vista comment start to make any sense to you?

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?

[JeanCroix]

Yep. Between that and my firewall, I have a lot less virus-type complaints running 98 (read: zero) than my XP/Vista friends, who seem to get pwned about once or twice a year.

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.

del.icio.us Add-Ons aren't compatible

[stankulp]

Wish I'd known that before I upgraded.

Well, it's open source...

[tehBoris]

You could somehow hack Firefox to eliminate the nag screen if it is critical to have Firefox 2 and there is no option to disable it permanently.

After December Mozilla will drop support for Firefox 2, and thus offer no patches from thereon, so you will be able to keep your hacked binaries (and your bugs, ha!) forever.

Re:just like vista

[Life Liberty Freedom]

Upgrade? I'm still using Mosaic

Where's the web developer add-on?

[bigsexyjoe]

I'm aware this isn't Mozilla's fault, but I need version 2 until they have the web developer add-on for version 3.

Re:Where's the web developer add-on?

[radio4fan]

Erm.

Web Developer extension bacame FF3 compatible on May 19, 2008.

See here.

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:If One Really Believes This...

[AySz88]

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.

Firefox already does nearly-silent auto-updates whenever the choice seems obvious (no major problems such as known incompatibility problems). The drawback of the Fx2 to Fx3 update is that some add-ons can/will break, so it's probably reasonable to offload that risk-reward balance to the user.

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.

I think this is similar; they are offloading some of the responsibility of the risk-reward balance to you (i.e. for a virus scanner, a false positive). It might not be malicious or lazy; they can't really see ahead of time what the risk is other than it's under a certain threshold according to their testing, and they know that their testing is not infinite.

Time to let Firefox go...

[rpp3po]

Firefox 3's hunger for data really gets on my nerve. I don't want every bit of my browsing history appear for every letter I type in. Firefox 3 can be quite a privacy nightmare, if a guest just wants to check something on the net for 2 seconds.
I don't want a browser forcing me to tell everybody to please use the guest account for 20 seconds of browsing just to have adequate privacy.
I have really learned to like Safari. It's just bare bones: tabs, a search field, a private browsing mode, and ultra fast rendering. Nothing else. Perfect! If Firefox 2 is going to start nagging soon, it's time to let Firefox go completly.

Re:Still not ready in the first place

[LBArrettAnderson]

I just cited a specific, repeatable issue. We researched it and found that we are not the only ones. It is an issue of a configuration file that version 3 does not convert correctly. It is the official release, not an old beta. The difference is likely that our user files are not stored locally on the machines. I find it funny that my original post was modded overrated twice. Just because you haven't had issues doesn't mean that they don't exist. I thought it was common knowledge that version 3 was rushed, but apparently there are still fanboys who don't read.

Question:

[bistromath007]

Why isn't this post tagged "oldbar?"

Not downgrading to FF3

[Lord Kestrel]

There are still too many annoying UI changes in FF3 that make it so I won't downgrade to it from FF2. I sacrificed one machine to FF3, and after finding out that I really didn't like it, I'm not removing FF2 until I read a Changelog that reverts the most annoying.

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

[schwaang]

I trust Firefox (and Linux, etc.) yet I _know_ they will have security bugs from time to time.
Security is as good as the weakest link in the chain. Why add an unnecessary third-party website to that chain?

X is bloatware:

[smittyoneeach]

lynx

Re:X is bloatware:

[the_denman]

yes but ASCII porn just isn't as realistic

Re:X is bloatware:

[FreezerJam]

Telnet.

I'm upgrading to wget.

Re:X is bloatware:

[Kent Recal]

TCP over Snailmail!

Re:X is bloatware:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

In the mountains, smoke signals.

Re:just like vista

[penguin_dance]

Firefox remembers the state it was in when it has a problem and is restarted

Emm....yes and no. One of the big problems I had with v3 was it would not save the open tabs even with that selected in the options. And this was with a normal shut down. (CNet fortunately had a version of Tab Mix Plus that worked with v3 and solved the problem.) But I left my other machines with v2.x

The 3.01 came out with no mention if the tab problem was solved. Fortunately TMP gurus are working again. Have not tried it but they have a pre-release version for 3.01.

Personally, after using v3, I didn't see any great additions to where I HAD to have it (a lot like Vista). In fact, trying to alphabetize my bookmarks has become a pain.

Also, I might note that web developers like having an older version of the browser to test pages until the usage percentages go down far enough that it's not worth their time. So (if it becomes) a "pushy" browser reminding you to upgrade, it isn't going to be appreciated.

I HAVE A SOLUTION!

[lmok]

1. if you have FF3, downgrade to FF2
2. get nagged but always decline the upgrade
3. mozilla will notice that adding a nag screen does the opposite
4. ?????
5. uh.. profit?

Re:My browser doesn't need to be awesome

[omnipresentbob]

'cuz it would have required too much testing or something. I'd guess old code didn't work too well w/ new code.

http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/06/9-tweaks-for-firefox-3s-location-bar/

The big deal is the change in leadership

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of a product release signals the change in leadership from an engineering perspective to a marketing perspective. If mozilla had stock, it is when one changes from "buy and hold" to "sell on the rumor" strategy. It is the end of good things from that organization, and time to begin looking for an alternative browser to adopt, say around 2010.

that is the big deal.

Re:The big deal is the change in leadership

[maxume]

Phoenix was as much marketing as it was engineering.

They wanted to build a browser that people wanted to use, not a browser with every feature that anybody ever thought of.

Re:just like vista

[Jarjarthejedi]

Precisely. I'd be willing to bet good money that the GP has only a few of the most popular extensions, and none of the rarer ones. For someone like me upgrading to FF3 isn't really much of a choice right now, a lot of the extensions I used everyday, every minute while browsing, aren't updated yet. Could I live without them? Certainly, but why should it? Since when is giving up features expected of users?

A Nag screen is probably a good idea in the long run, because it'll make sure that the people who don't know what FF3 is get it, and they probably need it. Repetitive nagging or auto-updating would be bad. I'll happily upgrade to Firefox 3...as soon as I can be sure most of my extensions will follow me. Until then it's more important for me to have access to those extensions than to have a fancy new bookmark system. Perhaps that'll change when FF2 stops updating at all, but for now FF3 isn't a good choice for someone like me.

Re:just like vista

[rubycodez]

but Firefox 3 is unstable and explodes sometimes. this is just like vista where customers are being forced into unstable betaware so they can be guinea pigs.

Collateral damage

[kmkznobeikoku]

(sigh) Guess it's back to Konqueror until I can find something else again.... Lovely....

Privacy

[raijinsetsu]

I've read many people have an aversion to FF3 because of the "Uber Bar" auto-completing URls. I find this to be a useful feature, as I don't need to open the browser history. If you don't like the feature, turn off the history you fools.

As for the nag screen, users need to be able to disable it. However, there really is no reason not to upgrade. FF3 is more secure, uses less resources, and is generally more standards compliant than it's predecessor. If you do not like it because of cosmetic reasons, that's fine. But don't start complaining when someone exploits an un-patched security flaw and gives you a nasty virus.

what if we CAN'T upgrade?

[amigabill]

I use Linux at work, and a number of us would love to have Firefox 3 available. Our Sysadmin is not interested in dealing with all the required libraries and other prerequisites to making this happen on all our machines. We're at the mercy of him and the managment that allows him to disregard requests from us users. So what, we'll need to deal with nag screens we are powerless to comply to? That sucks.

Upgrading...

[CFBMoo1]

Getting updates for my 1000 40G EEE PC from Asus has been a royal pain since day 1 of my purchase. It's a beautiful machine and runs great with Linux, but not Xandros since Asus's update servers have not played nice to even let me get the necessary packages to go to full desktop mode. I honestly doubt I can get a full update to the latest FF3 either so I'm stuck at FF2. :(

I still don't want to switch to Windows though. Vista is a hog and XP on the EEE's causes a lot of disk IO compared to Linux. At least XP chewed away at the disk when I put it on for a short period of time on my 701 EEE.

Tired of FF

[spire3661]

I like some of the new features in FF3. Uberbar is ok, and i like how the password saver is now a small pop bar at the top instead of a full on, show stopping popup. I think they turned off session restore by default too.

Private Browsing

[blueZ3]

This is a feature of Safari that... um.. a "friend" of mine likes. Choose > Private Browsing and sites that you visit are not added to the browser's history until you turn Private Browsing off. So you open a tab, switch to PB, do your... um... gift shopping, and then close that tab and your mom/significant other/spouse need never know that you were looking at... tableware.

I'd love to see this in FF

Re:just like vista

[i.of.the.storm]

Yeah, I also ran Minefield nightlies since the later alphas and I have to say it was pretty stable for the most part. I'd guess he's having extension, plugin, or site-specific problems. I got off the nightly train for 3.1 though because one of the checkins broke my favorite extension, Liveclick.

This is news?

[Atheose]

A company creates a new product and wants users to upgrade, so there will be a pop-up asking them to upgrade? How the hell is this news-worthy?

Re:just like vista

[Random BedHead Ed]

Did. Same issues. My experience with 3 on various platforms is that the issues I've seen on Windows may be specific to my XP installation. I have no clear evidence to suggest this aside from the fact that other people don't seem to have the problems I have, and none of the usual fixes work.

I can't really rebuild this machine, but it will hopefully be replaced at some point soon. At that point I'll almost certainly try to embrace Firefox 3.

Re:just like vista

[jp10558]

Great - more users upgrading to FF3.x which DOES NOT WORK with our timecard system... 2.x is fine. IE6 and IE7 are fine. This is really a problem for managed use of FF, in fact, it drives users back to IE6, which we can still keep on the systems because MS lets us actually say "Don't update that".

Sure, we do have plans to go to the latest version of the Timecard system, but it won't be for a while, as there is really no reason to update it save for FF3. We'll go back to IE6 before we upgrade the entire system in some emergency schedule because Mozilla wants everyone on the latest and greatest.

Re:just like vista

[Workaphobia]

Firefox may be the shining gem of the open source community (according to xkcd), but it sure as hell doesn't act like an open source project. Everything from its origins to the way its funded to the way it promotes itself, and yes, its actual behavior with regards to SSL certs and upgrades, point to it being... something else.

It's still better than the main alternative, but I'm wondering if I should start investigating Opera.

Re:just like vista

[hedwards]

I'm with GP, if you don't trust NoScript's website, what on earth are you doing installing it on your computer? It's not a third-party website, it's the website that the developers of NoScript use to communicate about bug fixes. It's not included by the Firefox devs.

In general if you can't trust the website of the programmers that provide the extension to have a clean site, why would the extension be any less of a risk?

In this case, the link contains information about what's changed and in some cases information about security information that you need to know. Sometimes new security features are preliminary.

FF2 runs faster on my old HP

[vrbtm]

I love FF3 on my Vaio lappy, my Dell desktop, and my Eee, but it's a memory hog on my old HP. I ran it for months, but I had to jump back. It's sad, but I don't know what else to do! Don't abandon me, y'all. I don't wanna be left behind.

Re:just like vista

[hedwards]

I personally would love it if MS would force updates. Many of the IE caused web hassles will be around for a good long time because people don't know how or won't update their browser.

The nice thing about the way that Firefox handles it is that you don't have to reboot and don't have it interrupting the session too bad.

Re:just like vista

[Kopiok]

My Firefox 3 has been running stable for months, no crashes. Same with my copy of Vista.

Re:just like vista

[Workaphobia]

How do you justify classifying the automatic action of visiting a website to be an *additional* risk, when you just downloaded and installed a plugin from the same people who run that website? You just ran an executable piece of code but don't want to allow the chance for the same people to insert a data-based attack against Firefox proper, as if such an attack would give them access they didn't have before? If you don't trust NoScript's webpage, I'd advise against using their plugin as well. If you trust the developers but not their ability to keep their webpage secure, then I don't know why you trust their ability to keep their code secure, both against attacks and against the servers that host the plugin download.

Move to non-informed auto update...

[blahplusplus]

... but make sure you are backwards compatabile with plugins.

Do not use nag screens, they do not work, just update the program behind the scenes, I've done security for users before and it's like the guys who make stuff just don't get how 99% of the people operate -- they won't update their shit, unless it interferes with content they want to browse or use.

The majorit of users cannot be counted on to update their stuff, if you have a nag screen it should be to "turn off auto update", and recommended "only for advanced users", then we can see how many dumb people are out there who turn it off.

The thing I've hated about firefox is that whenever a new version comes out I have to wait for all the plugins to be updated, this is total CRAP. They need to do something about the plugin issue, it's why I held onto old versions of firefox for so long. That and not all plugins play nicely together (which sucks).

RTFF

[teridon]

Turning that feature off is in (you guessed it!) the FAQ!
http://noscript.net/faq#qa2_5

In short, toggle the preference noscript.firstRunRedirection to false.

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:RTFF

[Buran]

For something this vital, I shouldn't have to muck around in the config file. I removed the script because there was no way to get rid of this behavior -- I looked in every single config page in the settings dialog and it wasn't there. No, this does not count.

These people need to get over their need to inflate page views and let us turn it off the proper way.

Nudge this

[Ottair]

They add a "nudge screen" and I'm demanding a refund. 3.0 suuks.

Re:just like vista

[schwaang]

You're not getting it. I can want to trust the code for the add-on, and still not want to trust the website. You say the website is just as secure as and equivalent to the add-on code. As a coder with a website myself, I know better than to say that. Because I'm a software coder, not a web guy. If the world depended on the security of my web skills, heaven help us.

[And really, after the Kaminsky DNS flaw I can't believe we're even having this discussion.]

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

[rtoads]

I mean, an upgrade the *users* can't install. Duh.

Re:just like vista

[sukotto]

You can trust noscript... but can you ever be *really* sure that their website is NOT compromised?

A smart cracker could own the site, release an "update" to the extension, then compromise lots of browsers by putting evil code in the landing page.

Telnet?

[smittyoneeach]

C'mon: OpenSSH

Re:Telnet?

[X0563511]

Whoosh. You can use telnet for more than telnet servers. IE, you can do an HTTP get request with telnet and get the HTTP headers and code dumped to your screen.

Re:Annoying for me however...

[nhaines]

My answer--my honest, sincere answer--is that if you want to be able to use a Linux distro with strong upgradability, then you should install a different distro.

I recommend Ubuntu. 8.04.1 has Firefox 3 and a new version of the disto is released every 6 months. Security and bugfix updates are released constantly for all applications (Firefox 1.5 is still supported in Ubuntu 6.06 for example) and in October when 8.10 is released, you can upgrade directly from 8.04 to 8.10, which will allow you to continue to receive more up-to-date software on a regular basis, without having to bother with manual installs.

There are, of course, other distros that support upgrades from one version to another, but I can vouch for Ubuntu personally.

Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades

[www.upfuse.com]

Firefox 3 has some problems. I hope the Mozilla team is working on fixing these issues. Firefox rocks and I would hate having to use another browser.

FF3 versus FF2

[jackspenn]

Does anybody know the % market share on a per browser version basis? Something like 15% - FireFox2, 10% - FireFox3, etc. I am just wondering if FF2 or FF3 is more prevalent.

Re:FF3 versus FF2

[vrbtm]

Those stats are gathered by sites that browsers hit, and are correlative to the type of site collecting the stats. Slashdot will have a much higher FF3 share versus TMZ or hampsterdance.

So update me!!!

[hunangarden]

I'm running FF 2.0.0.16.
Help->Check for Updates...

"There are no new updates available. Firefox may check periodically for new updates"

So ah like what are they waiting for? Where is my "A new version of Firefox is available" message????
They shouldn't put a nag screen up if their own update tool won't actually update anything.

Re:just like vista

[beckerist]

Well, I just found something in the about:config screen:

noscript.firstRunRedirection = true

Not sure if this has anything to do with it, I just set it to "false" and will let you know.

Re:just like vista

[PitaBred]

So... you don't trust the extension then. Or, you install it once and never update it, even if there was a security bug in it?

Really, how do you live with that kind of cognitive dissonance? You HAVE to trust their website and their plugin IF you trust their plugin at all. Period, end of story. If you don't, don't use it.

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

[leenks]

Have you had the upgrade nag already then?

Re:just like vista

[PitaBred]

You get the add-on from the website. Game, set, match. You can't NOT trust the website and still trust the plugin. You bitching about it only reinforces the point that the rest of us are glad we don't depend on your web security skills (and hopefully not your coding skills, if they're as equally well thought-out).

Re:just like vista

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:just like vista

[beckerist]

OK so I don't know if this is a good test, but here goes:

I hadn't restarted Firefox in a while, apparently. After setting that option to FALSE I went to go check for add-on updates and noticed that NoScript currently said "must restart the browser."
So I did, and when it came back up guess what...NO POPUP SCREEN!
Crossing my fingers for a new update soon so I can give a definitive answer.

Re:just like vista

[rubycodez]

that's nice, but even the three windows engineers I work with are not having that happy experience with either Vista or Firefox 3 on it.

I'm having my troubles on Ubuntu 8.04.

Fix it first: Firefox stopped working after 3 RC1

[Alzheimers]

I had all of the Firefox 3 betas installed and working on my PCs until RC1 was released. Since then, no version of FF3 has worked on my PC.

I've contacted their technical support and apparently I'm not the only one having this problem, but they've been unable to do any kind of regression testing (I'm guessing cause they're lazy) to find out what changed between the versions that broke it.

DO NOT ADD A NAG SCREEN FOR A BROKEN PRODUCT.

Re:just like vista

[Buran]

In other words, you want to expose users to security holes rather than patch everything to be safe ad secure. There is plenty of reason to update when you have crappy old software that only works with insecure clients. Good job. Care to explain how you made a choice to leave security holes open and force users into insecure software to your bosses? Better fix it BEFORE you get a virus/get hacked.

Re:just like vista

[beckerist]

Wow so I was beaten to the punch by a few clicks above. Good to know, thanks poster! Wish I'd figured this out a long time ago...

Re:just like vista

[PitaBred]

He must be talking about Windows Media Player. Windows guy who doesn't know that there's a much better piece of software out there actually called mplayer or something. Because mplayer doesn't ever nag or check for anything.

Re:just like vista

[Kent Recal]

Erm. If a cracker compromises an extension then why would he put evil code in the landing page when he can put it directly in the extension?

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.

Mozilla Vista

[areusche]

Would you like to upgrade Mozilla Firefox? Cancel? Allow?

Have they fixed the right-click problem?

[Master of Transhuman]

On Linux, Firefox 3 randomly executes one of the right click menu items when you right click on an image to do a "Save As".

Since I download a lot of images, this makes Firefox 3 utterly useless for me. Until they fix it, fuck 'em, I'm not upgrading.

Re:just like vista

[Skrapion]

It's not really a security concern. After all, if NoScript wanted to compromise your machine, they wouldn't have to do anything as exotic as inserting a browser exploit on their webpage. You already willingly installed their program on your machine!

I've never used NoScript, but some plugins have an option to turn off going to the release notes after an update. If NoScript doesn't have that option, you should badger them about it.

I did upgrade

[kju]

<scnr>It asked me to upgrade and so i installed Opera.</scnr>

But seriously: I've switch to Opera quite a while ago when i had major issues with firefox 2.x (e.g. very slow upon large input fields as found on wikipedia). While there are still some sites who don't operate well with Opera, i'm very satisfied. It has all the features i need - including user site customization - without the need to install a bunch of addons, it is fast and i really love the new sync feature for bookmarks which allows me to keep my bookmark consistent at three different computers. While it notifies me about new versions, it does not try to force me into upgrade and it allows me to visit ssl webpages with selfsigned, CAcert and other strange certificates (of course it warns, but it does not require me to do multiple steps to allow the page to be shown).

If you are a firefox user and are disturbed by their plans, just give opera a try. You might like it. (No, thats no advertising, i'm just a happy user).

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.

Distrust Plugin

[chazchaz101]

This is already available through the Distrust plugin. http://www.gness.com/distrust/

Re:just like vista

[uncqual]

Even if at the time you downloaded the add-on you could trust the associated web site, you may not always be able to.

What if the guy who provided the add-on gets hit by a truck and no one thinks to renew his domain reg and Evil Guy buys the domain? Certainly you can't trust it anymore at that point (in most cases you probably should never have "trusted" it anyway, but that's another issue).

Ubuntu?

[fmrbastien]

What about Ubuntu prior to 8.04? In december there will be no more security updates from mozilla, thus security updates from canonical can be applied, but the browser cannot be named "firefox". I suppose they will do a security update for "firefox" that will change its name to "iceweasel"...
Debian knows The Truth. Debian IS The Truth.

Re:Ubuntu?

[LifesABeach]

I was thinking along the same lines, but mostly thinking, "Could the Ubuntu people have a update where we could upgrade to 3.x seamlessly?"

No means no

[markdowling]

Once is enough to offer, after that let people manually choose Check For Updates.

Nagging is for spouses and as, the parent noted, Microsoft products like Clippy and Vista UAC.

Re:just like vista

[iminplaya]

but Firefox 3 is unstable and explodes sometimes.

You mean like an iPod nano? Well, as long as you keep it off the airplane, I won't mind.

Danger, Will Robinson

[bill_mcgonigle]

Ditto for old versions of MacOS X. My wife was an early adopter of MacOS X, but we got tired of paying $130 to Apple for every point upgrade. There's more and more software that won't run on her machines now. I tried installing ff3, and it didn't run.

You know you're probably vulnerable to compromise if you're running pre-Tiger on the Internet, right? Apple doesn't do security updates for OSX.n where n 4.

I wish somebody were keeping a list...

Apple already dropped support

[bill_mcgonigle]

They also dropped support for OSX 10.3, which is not all that old.

Mac users need to expect to pay the upgrade tax every couple years. Yeah, it can be thousands if your software is old. But Mozilla shouldn't have more responsibility than Apple does.

Google Browser Sync?

[Big Boss]

Is there a FULL replacement for GBS yet? And no, Foxmarks isn't one. It's good, but not what I want. Weave is Alpha quality and not widely available. I'd really love the GBS code updated for FF3 and to use a server of my choice to save the data. If I had time to learn the code I'd do it myself, but I have far too many projects right now. That's one thing keeping me on FF2, no decent multi-computer syncing.

Re:With one addition

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

#1: Firefox 3 is now available. Would you like to upgrade? (Yes/Later/STFU and never bother me again!)

If I take option 3 (STFU), there should never be a #2.

Well the idea is that the first notice is an update notice for Firefox 3 whereas the second one is an end-of-life notice for Firefox 2 which gives the Firefox 3 update as a possible course of action. I could live with that situation, provided of course that if I say no to both Mozilla will trust me to know better than they do about what's best for me.

firefox: where do you want to go today?

[Hut_tuH]

the firefox folks have definitely taken a page from microsoft's book.. what "made" firefox great was that it didnt tell you / give you / do anything you didnt want. It was a brwoser, it did what it was supposed to, and it did it well. Seems the success has gone to their heads and they are moving away from a browser and buying into all the web 2.0 hype by trying to become an *insert latest internet marketing mumbo jumbo* application. there is innovation and keeping up with the times...and then there is shoving things down your throat without giving you a Choice (hi bill). dammit, the awsome bar is Not awsome.

Re:just like vista

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

Then you don't trust NoScript.

I really don't see the point of this rebuttal. I trust my doctor, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hand him a rubber glove and drop my pants every single time I visit.

Have they fixed the repaint bug?

[tlhIngan]

The one where you can change tabs, load a page, or have a page reflow and it doesn't repaint the screen correctly?

Sometimes you swap tabs, and the new tab's contents don't appear, but you see the last tab. If you scroll down then up, the new contents are drawn over. I would've thought it was the Windows desktop heap thing, but it apparently happens in Linux as well.

Or during a page load, as it reflows the page, it forgets to erase the old page first, so it ends up being a mess with text everywhere as it was redrawn multiple times, graphics overlayed as they shifted around, etc.

I wish I could easily swap between installations to see if firefox fixed this bug. Installing FF3, then testing it, then finding it's not fixed and reinstalling ff2 gets to be a pain in a while.

Other than that, ff3 is nice.

Network home bug is a killer for my Mac users

[namgge]

"At this time, Firefox 3 cannot be used when the user profile is stored on an AFP directory (bug 417037)"

This is an old bug and it means that users with network home directories are fscked. Unless this is fixed soon I'm going to be forced to deploy Opera.

Namgge

Now those morons are evil

[Snaller]

You don't nag me - ever, you hear? It's none of your fucking business which version i'm using, nor should you phone home on a regular basis. And what "support" from Mozilla? If you can't figure something out you are generally fucked unless you can find a user to help you, what help are they supposed to ever have offered.

Guess its time to go back to microsoft. Unless someone can hack this out of the program.

Re:just like vista

[Blue Stone]

I run noscript. And I don't want to visit their website after every update. I have no need to. It just pisses me off.

Morons at Mozilla

[Carbon016]

How about a working Check for Updates button? All my copies of 2.0.0.16 say that there are no updates available. Perhaps a one-click solution that actually worked correctly rather than a nag screen to piss off users that _don't_ want to upgrade might be a better solution.

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

[aitan]

If the OS isn't supported they won't see the upgrade option: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418129

Microsoft lover

[Snaller]

No, they are wrong and should stop behaving amorally.

Oh bloody hell!

[Eminor]

As a an administrator I am not happy about this. Now all my users are going to be prompted to upgrade, even though they can't.

We need to upgrade Firefox when our network is ready for it (which will be soon). How do they expect organizations to deal with this? Do they not realize that upgrades have dependencies?!

It's only been out for a couple of months. Do they expect site administrators to be at their beck and call?

Obviously they haven't thought this through.

It's still the best browser. I just wish they'd have consideration for anyone other desktop users.

Re:just like vista

[jp10558]

Simple really, our bosses don't actually think there's a big problem with using whatever works. Upgrades are a real pain, for little percieved user gains. We're still migrating users off of Eudora 6, and they don't actually want to migrate. We're still having users who don't want the down time to upgrade from Windows 2000. Virus attacks just don't happen near as much as I'd expect when talking about home systems, and I think it's because they aren't Admins on their computers.

Part of it may be endemic, part of it may be management, but they are interested in issues they have now, not what might possibly happen sometime later. When viruses happen maybe once every 6 months, and take at worst 2 days to reimage one users PC, there just isn't a big belief that they are a big deal. New versions of software are known to make old scripts and procedures and products break, and that's believed to be a problem, so when you compare breaking what used to work vs a remote chance of a virus, guess which wins? Not patching/upgrading.

You could argue about the software vendors having crappy products, but then we can't switch every time there's an issue. And I expect the feeling is why pay someone who makes our work harder by deliberatly breaking programs? Worst of all budgets are tight right now, and we have to bill out time. No one wants to pay to upgrade our timecard system when there's literally nothing wrong with it. It's 6 months old revision. That'd be like trying to convince someone to pay to replace their 6 month old car... Just doesn't happen. And of course it's a major version change now, so it's not equivelent to changing the oil,but a big replacement and re-training of people how to use it. All so we can use Firefox 3? Just can't justify it.

Now, I agree that the vendor ought to have a web app that works in FF 1-3, Opera 9.x, IE7, Safari and everything else. But they don't. This was in place when I started, so I had no imput, but even if I had, the working is often more important than the idealiogical purity. I think this happens all the time everywhere, bosses want stuff that functions more than they want to follow best practices.

Seriously?

[RudeIota]

Screw you. You don't get to do things to me for my own good. -- Fulcrum Of Evil

I don't want to be forced to install anything -- RudeIota

With that kind of attitude, you can write a browser yourself, then. And if you adore your freedom that much, use another one. Mozilla's job isn't to cater to you or your incredibly narrow ideology of "You don't get to do things to me for my own good."

Someone, somewhere in your life has made your mind up for you on more than one occasion. From the time you are born, you have been told what to do and who you are today is a result of that. Whether you like/accept it or not, you are a product of other people's guidelines. Your whole life is will remain so forever because that's how humanity's societal structure works.

So, to tell me to screw myself because I can empathize with a non-profit organization wanting to push you into updating the software they wrote for your personal use... sounds a little silly. :) If you really want to make a change, try dissolving government and corporate rule... Don't scold me because I believe (most) people will benefit from an update notification that can be disabled before and/or after the fact.

Re:No FF3 support on OS X 10.3.9

[project-nova]

They won't.
Compatibility is checked server-side, as someone else already stated - see this and this Bug.

Firefox Update

[CmdrPorno]

If they want people to upgrade, why don't they push FF3 to FF2 users via the built-in software update function, like they did with the other releases of FF2?

Re:Firefox Update

[BZ]

That's what they're doing.

Re:just like vista

[Dan541]

Vista doesn't nag for updates.

I hate this

[Mike610544]

I'll update my software when I experience a bug that might have been fixed, or see that there's a cool new feature. The developers are so focused on the work that they're doing that they can't imagine anyone not wanting the latest and greatest, but the end user just wants something that does what they need it to do (Apple is the worst for this IMO, I don't need a new iTunes update every 4 days.)

Re:just like vista

[ESRB]

Firefox 3 is not worth it from my experience. It's crashed 3 times to the point where it wipes out all my settings and I have to reconfigure everything, such as permitted sites with NoScript. It's crashed several more times where nothing was lost, but that still put its on the same level as IE.

On top of that, its handing of multiple windows seems to be very buggy. The bookmarks toolbar disappears and sometimes it won't let me into subfolders on the bookmarks menu. It also feels considerably more sluggish, and this is on a freshly formatted machine (only reason I "upgraded."). Among other issues, such as occasional problems with Gmail.

Next time I get a settings wipe I am probably just going to return to Firefox 2.

It's a three part system

[Cathoderoytube]

The nags can be categorized into three parts

1: A polite reminder

2: Well beyond your threshold of pain

3: Spectacularly fatal

Re:just like vista

[teh moges]

It wouldn't be the guys running NoScript, it would be someone breaking into the site, uploading an exploit and then that exploit runs after every single NoScript upgrade. Which, if you have NoScript, you'll know that they have an 'update incrementally, frequently' policy.

Less than the security factor, its really annoying that NoScript opens its page after every upgrade, especially combined with the previously mentioned upgrade policy.

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

[BZ]

What made you think that? The update won't be offered on OSX 10.4. Give people some credit for not being morons, eh?

Re:just like vista

[Sizzlebeast]

In about:config, change noscript.firstRunRedirection to false. I don't know of a global way to do it though.

Re:just like vista

[Barnoid]

I run noscript. And I don't want to visit their website after every update. I have no need to. It just pisses me off.

from http://noscript.net/faq#qa2_5
If you're a power user and you feel you don't need such heads up, you can disable this feature by opening about:config (just like it was a normal web address) and toggling off the noscript.firstRunRedirection preference.

Re:just like vista

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Aaannnd, WHY did you pick THAT particular analogy to share with us?

If a reasonable and intelligent conversation was going on, I wouldn't have had that post to respond to. So I had to go for shock. :P

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.

Re:just like vista --- NOT!

[lpq]

Hey, I'm as slow as the next guy...(or not), but not upgrading to FF3 seems to be a fairly stupid action unless you know of a particular problem with your plugins that you can't work around.

Vista had and HAS known feature deficits compared to XP -- not to mention incompatibilities with drivers, software, and a 10% speed hit vs. xp2, and (given that xp3 is about 10% faster than xp2, that would make Vista around 1/5th slower than XP. It uses more resources for no functional gain except to control Hi-Definition A/V to allow more creator content control -- like disabling Media-Player based recording systems on broadcaster command (or 'accident' as NBC (as in MSNBC, or MicroSoftNBC) would have us believe). It unlikely that the NBC broadcasting arm of MSNBC would "accidentally" turn on a recording block that only MS-based players honored -- it is likely that that NBC of MSNBC would test MS's digital content recording control. Sounds like it worked. Next test will take a bit longer since people are resisting BluRay -- but certainly, something company will take the jump and offer some compelling content with special content control to only output hi-def on end-to-end encrypted paths (only supported on Vista with a newer generation HDCP encrypted monitor). It might even be on 'optional' content and not the main movie as a market 'test' -- to see what feedback they get -- just like Disney and WB added the "enhanced region encoding" feature designed to break playback on region-free DVD players (which was was easily evaded on better players, but a shot across the bow to consumers hoping to be able to view purchased foreign material on a 'domestic' player. But it will happen -- and it will get worked around -- but the slowness added to all Vista drivers for this harassment will never be eliminated -- it will just be covered up by lower expectations and faster hardware -- eventually...

FF3, on the other hand is faster than FF2, uses less memory, seems to have fixed the memory leakage problems, despite more security hoops needed for developing and using custom extensions -- which is likely a good thing, usually, but could be annoying for those who were used to doing things the easier way. But from a performance and feature viewpoint, FF3 is certainly NOT like Vista -- exactly the opposite -- like Vista SHOULD have been if MS hadn't sold the customers out to Hollywood -- but end users, or customers have never been important for Microsoft. Big Business is where the money is, and there is no government regulation to stop MS from offering whatever features other corporations want to buy on our computers (assuming we stay on the MS treadmill).

With FF3, extensions are the only drag on switching for most people and even there, you can just unpack most of them, and add V3.X compatibility in the contents.rdf file (or whatever its called) or turn off extension-version compatibility checking -- but those workaround won't solve real compatibility problems, but those are thankfully few. This is coming from someone who uses about 60-70 extensions...

Re:just like vista

[Blkdeath]

Firefox 3 is not worth it from my experience. It's crashed 3 times to the point where it wipes out all my settings and I have to reconfigure everything, such as permitted sites with NoScript. It's crashed several more times where nothing was lost, but that still put its on the same level as IE.

On top of that, its handing of multiple windows seems to be very buggy. The bookmarks toolbar disappears and sometimes it won't let me into subfolders on the bookmarks menu. It also feels considerably more sluggish, and this is on a freshly formatted machine (only reason I "upgraded."). Among other issues, such as occasional problems with Gmail.

Next time I get a settings wipe I am probably just going to return to Firefox 2.

I know it's annoying, but have you tried uninstalling FF2, FF3 and wiping your profile folder? Sure you have to re-configure everything but that's cure #1 for the crash problems. Since my initial experience with FF3 closely mirrored yours and after I cleared my old profile I've never experienced a crash so you should be safe.

Orders of Magnitude, Not Degree

[curmudgeon99]

I guess my grudge is against software that is designed with such stupidity and lack of comprehensive foresight that is is continually vulnerable to so many new attach vectors. I look at it as a failing in design imagination, to design such a weak system. I know my gripes extend to the underlying protocolls. You simply cannot watch a parade of weaknesses being found in this public software--I'm just damn disappointed with the limitations of the people who took on the challenge of coding Firefox. As a software developer myself, I know that it remains an art form. Software is crystallized thought. There are usually a thousand different ways to soft a particular problem. But the difference between an "okay" solution and a brilliant, elegant solution is orders of magnitude, not degree.

Re:Orders of Magnitude, Not Degree

[BZ]

The real problem is unexpected interactions between the many different things that need to happen... and the fact that thinking through all of them ahead of time is impossible due to combinatorial growth.

Seriously, designing a robust, fast system (using limited resources!) that has to do more than about one thing is very very difficult. I would claim impossible.

Re:Orders of Magnitude, Not Degree

[curmudgeon99]

Well, if that's your attitude, then I guess we can kiss off any miracle developments coming from you. Why are you so desirous of failure? I find such a defeatist attitude naive and unhelpful. If you swear off aspiration, of course you are stuck in the status quo.

Re:Orders of Magnitude, Not Degree

[BZ]

I'm not desirous of failure. I'm reluctant to claim perfection where it's unlikely to exist, and realistic in terms of the amount of effort required to attain perfection.

If you've never read it, I recommend . It's not that the situation is satisfactory, it's just that shipping imperfect software is usually better than shipping nothing.

A lot of life is like that. That doesn't eliminate aspiration, it just means you have to make tradeoffs in practice.

Re:just like vista

[Blue Stone]

Thanks, Barnoid!

Re:just like vista

[EmperorKagato]

Schwaang states he trusts NoScript but hates how it goes to their website after every update. Mozilla Foundation does not control the makers of NoScript.

Therefore, where should he direct his complaints?

Firefox 2.0.0.16 is "not standards compliant"?

[markdowling]

Of course, Firefox 3 isn't either - *if* you include standards it hasn't got to yet.

As for time horizons - half a year from when? FF3 only went gold on June 17! We get a toolbar from Newsgator which they initially refused to fix a bug until there was an RC rather than a beta. Fortunately they did fix and ship the xpi but that's a small project compared to a CMS!

However, as we've previously seen with the Suite and Thunderbird, Mozilla can do no wrong on Slashdot when it comes to casting loose products which both individuals and businesses depend on. Meanwhile god help Gates and Ballmer if they talk about ending Windows XP support.

Re:Fix it first: Firefox stopped working after 3 R

[jesser]

Maybe Mozilla QA hasn't been able to find a regression window for your bug because they can't reproduce the bug themselves? You should be able to do it with nightlies from around that time (between Firefox 3 Beta 5 and Firefox 3 RC1?), which are still available.

Re:just like vista

[anasciiman]

Take the time to read the site. It tells you how to stop that behaviour.

Re:just like vista

[Workaphobia]

I support it to the extent that I will gladly choose it over Microsoft any day, and because I believe it fosters diversity and competition in general for better browsers. But its positive effects on the market don't give it a blank check to act in opposition to my ideals. Now, this kind of thing along isn't going to force me away from it, but there is a growing feeling in me that firefox just isn't the same kind of project at its heart as debian or kde. The communal feeling is a little colder and their design decisions make me feel like the devs are more distant from where I stand.

Re:just like vista

[Hurricane78]

I thought that was the starting point of the discussion, and if you wanted to show something, then, that regular software uses popups too. :)

Oh goody

[Autonomous Crowhard]

This is the Vistafication of Firefox. I'm forced to deal with other products constant whining. "Update now!" "You haven't rebooted in the last 5 mintes!"

How is this different from spam?

I know what's on my machine. I take care to maintain what's on my machine. Leave me the f alone and let me actually use my machine.

Nag back at 'ya

[jman.org]

Sure would be nice if FireFox end users could cause to pop up on every developer's screen an annoying message to to FIX THE IDIOTIC CERT PROBLEM in v3.

I know, it was supposed to improve security. But though there are scads of legitimate uses for a self-signed cert, that's not the point.

The real point is that I'm the one actually using the browser, and if I want to let someone in the door whether or not their cert came from FF's built-in whitelist, it's MY decision, not that of some policy committee over at Mozilla.

Anyone who prefers FireFox and runs multiple domains from the same IP (i.e., shared or VPS hosting) has lost their ability to securely access their control panel, at least without hassle. (BTW, TB's virtual id extension would work well here, hint, hint)

The worst thing about the bug - actually, not so much of a bug as a behavioral flaw - is that the option is still there to have the self-signed cert permanently added. Unfortunately, FF doesn't want to listen to that little checkmark.

All in all, v3 is a great improvement. Memory footprint is down, speed is up. Unfortunately, the self-signed cert problem will do more to hurt FF than folks not upgrading from v2.