Slashdot Mirror
Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades
ruphus13 writes "Firefox has been pushing version 3.0 very aggressively, and firmly believes that it is a solid product. The Download Day was just one of their ways to drum up user support for the new release. Now, Firefox is going to 'gently nudge' users of Firefox 2.0 to upgrade. Some users may have been waiting for their add-ons to get upgraded, but now Mozilla is planning to apply a little nudge. Sometime within the next week, people using Firefox 2.0.0.16 will see a request to upgrade and though you'll have the option to decline, it's likely Firefox will ask again anyway. Users will most likely be offered a second chance to upgrade after several weeks. (Mozilla will stop supporting version 2 in December.) It will be interesting to see if this speeds up the rate of upgrade by users, as well as upgrades of the add-ons."
Using software that isn't supported is inherently dangerous. And the fact is, Firefox 3 is gratis so getting the new version is no upgrading treadmill. As long as they are not too annoying(5 minute Windows reboot nag screen) like a screen every 2 weeks, I don't see a problem with this.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I use Adblock Plus. I'm sure I won't see it. No problemo.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
... someone finally makes an addon that wholly, completely, disables the StupidBar. Yes, I know about the about:config hacks and the existing addons. This is an issue I keep up with, after all.
And please, don't bother to reply if you're just going to parrot how much you LOVE the "Awesome Bar" and think I should give it an umpteenth chance. Been there, done that, still think it sucks.
got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
IT department locks all the computers from installing anything. So my work PC's software is running old, buggy, insecure code.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
All I'm saying, is I don't them to tell me but one time. I'm stubborn and I'll do it when I want.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
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*
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.
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?
Corporatism != Free Market
Can I create a nag screen to tell the developers to STFU? :)
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.
Firefox 3 requires too many libraries that I don't have on my Mandrake 10.2 box.
If I wanted to be nagged I wouldn't have divorced Evil-X!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
There's an option to turn it off.
The rest is just fear mongering.
"you can turn it off now, but they may code in another one in a couple months, which you can once again turn off!, OH THE HORROR!"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
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. :(
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
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.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Until you get WORM_STORM_X on your PC from a website that exploited the browser.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
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?
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
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.
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.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
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
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
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.
:) I'm not a mac guy so I didn't notice this situation until recently.
Any free advice?
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.
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.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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.
Support an expanded Amtrak!
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.
Only certain add-ons do that, and it is the code of the add-on to load that page, not in Firefox.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
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).
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Then you don't trust NoScript.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
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.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
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.
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).
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".
Upgrade? I'm still using Mosaic
Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2
If by "better" you mean "buggier," then yes, you are correct.
The number of UI bugs in FFX3 is astounding, at least on OS X.
Go ahead and cmd+click a bookmark. Does it open in a new tab? Nope.
Go ahead and cmd+w on Slashdot. Does it close the tab? Not until after waiting for five seconds while Slashdot tries to figure out if the keypress was for it.
Go ahead and install the Brief extension, and then try cmd+m to minimize. Does it minimize? Nope. Why? Because like websites, extensions can steal core UI keystrokes with impunity.
Firefox 3 has been buggered from the start. It's the worst web browsing software I've used since IE for Mac. Maybe since before. It's an inexcusable mess.
If one really believes "...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.
And I'm saying Firefox should have a guideline to handle this, since they distribute the code through addons.mozilla.org.
lynx
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
Erm.
Web Developer extension bacame FF3 compatible on May 19, 2008.
See here.
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
... 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What?
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.