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

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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

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

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

Re:Actually a good idea

[MC Negro]

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

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

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

As it stands, you have plenty of choices -

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

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

Re:Actually a good idea

[ivantheshifty]

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

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

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

Re:Actually a good idea

[Mistshadow2k4]

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

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

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

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

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?

[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?

[gparent]

IE7 _is_ a security update.

I'll upgrade when...

[medeii]

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

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

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[smooth wombat]

they pry Fx 2 from cold, dead hard drive.

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

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

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

Re:I'll upgrade when...

[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...

[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...

[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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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!"

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: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:IT Locks computers

[clone53421]

Firefox portable.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

Re:just like vista

[Life Liberty Freedom]

Upgrade? I'm still using Mosaic

Re:I hate it!

[torstenvl]

Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

If One Really Believes This...

[EXTomar]

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

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