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.
Can I create a nag screen to tell the developers to STFU? :)
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.
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.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.