Firefox Users Stay Ahead On the Update Curve

Reader Alex links to news of a study comparing the currency and patch level of various Web browsers, excerpting: "Firefox users were far and away the most likely to use the latest version, with an overwhelming 83.3 percent running an updated browser on any given day. However, despite Firefox's single click integrate auto-update functionality, 16.7 percent of Firefox users still continue to access the Web with an outdated version of the browser, researchers said. The study also revealed that the majority of Safari users (65.3) percent were likely to use the latest version of the browser between December 2007 and June 2008, after Safari version 3 became available. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Internet Explorer users ranked last in terms of safe browsing. Between January 2007 and June 2008, less than half of IE users — 47.6 percent — were running the most secure browser version during the same time period."

47%

[Geak (790376)]

47% are still using Mosaic????

Re:47%

[rootphreak (1320921)]

What you really need is a gopher client, or if you have to be lame enough to use an http client then lynx ftw. Mosaic is for losers.

Re:47%

[by Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 1.5-2.0 have Gopher support, as did IE5 and IE6 (although it was later disabled in a patch). I believe the reason that it was removed in Firefox and IE was because it's a codepath that wouldn't receive much testing and so it might have bugs or security holes. Considering any Gopher ramifications of any protocol change or sandbox change is an unnecessary overhead (and if you really need Gopher to view a gopher site [moo.ca] you can just install a Gopher client... speaking of which that'd be something to have as a Firefox addon).

Re:47%

[csnydermvpsoft (596111)]

I found this file [uiuc.edu] rather amusing:

We are currently in the process of writing a new FAQ due to some recent changes in licensing policy. Questions concerning commercial licensing of NCSAMosaic should be directed to [e-mail]

Questions concerning the copyright on NCSAMosaic should be directed to: [e-mail]

A new, up-to-date FAQ will be appearing here shortly.

-David Mitchell
  08/24/94

Re:47%

[YukiCuss (960733)]

breaks repeatedly on my system which is so cool and better than all yours here are its specs

Re:47%

[Darkness404 (1287218)]

You mean that your computer can run Vista at an acceptable speed?!?

Trust

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

I leave the auto-update feature on in Firefox because I trust that when Mozilla pushes updates they are valuable to me in terms of security or features and that they've been well tested. This has generally held to be true.

On the other hand, on any system I administer I immediately disable automatic updates because Microsoft sometimes pushes patches that only partially address a problem, creating a false sense of security, and then later re-issue them, push things like updates to Windows Media DRM as critical updates (it's not critical to me, Microsoft!), and release updates that go on to cause problems with other software or system stability in general.

When I can trust Microsoft to apply only security updates to IE (or other components of my choosing), maybe I'll consider turning automatic updates back on. Maybe.

Re:Trust

[martin-boundary (547041)]

I'm not in favour of auto-update type features for software. IMHO, it's much better if the updates are integrated directly with the system package manager, so that all the software on a computer can be upgraded consistently and regularly.

If users are asked to upgrade their software shortly after they've launched it, it's firstly an annoyance, but secondly it means that the software they don't launch regularly won't get updated regularly, and other software which might need to interoperate will fall out of sync with the new version.

Perhaps it's time to define a standard package manager API (not a standard package manager, just an API available in all major languages), before we get a culture where every piece of software manages its own updates interactively?

Re:

[setagllib (753300)]

http://packagekit.org/ [packagekit.org]

Re:Trust

[jsebrech (525647)]

You're approaching this too much from a geek's perspective. Updating "the system" is too esoteric for the majority of users. If the user has to be bothered with such a concept as a package manager, it's bad UI.

Anyway, microsoft has a package manager, somewhat, and they have a consistent auto-update system that takes care of dependancies. And yet half of IE users use an old version.

Re:Trust

[Darkness404 (1287218)]

And yet half of IE users use an old version.

Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of them prefer IE 6 to IE 7. For me IE 6 was good, rendered pages rather quickly, had a decent looking UI, sure it didn't have tabs, but that wasn't a big deal for me. I had seen IE 7 on another person's computer and I decided not to upgrade to it, it's UI was ugly and it seemed to be a bloated version of IE 6, sure it was more secure but really, when running a Windows box, security isn't that big of a deal. I later wiped the HD and installed Ubuntu.

Re:Trust

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of them prefer IE 6 to IE 7.

On behalf of webmasters everywhere: those people should be taken out and shot.

Re:Trust

[houghi (78078)]

Such a standard exists not so much as a standard under Linux. Each distribution does this.
The reason is that each distribution CAN do this because of GPL or other licenses.
When you are talking about closed source, this will become almost impossible.

Obviously Microsoft can do this for their own product. What if you run Opera and Photoshop as well? Microsoft can not be asked to do the updates for them, because they did not provide them.

It could work with some sort of contract, but then there are companies who might not be able to get such a contract. This due to unwillingness at both sides.

Re:Trust

[quantumphaze (1245466)]

Not to mention Apple sneaking in Safari with an iTunes critical update and many programs having regressions in updates.

Can we trust Apple not to issue a firmware update that makes the iPod stop working with 3rd party media players?

I myself keep everything updated (as much as Ubuntu repos let me anyway). But things like kernel updates force my to recompile my wifi driver so I can understand how people don't upgrade.

Re:

[setagllib (753300)]

Push to get your wireless driver into mainline or at least the Ubuntu modules package, so it will be re-integrated and distributed when new kernel versions are. All of my devices, including proprietary video drivers and wireless cards, are supported in Ubuntu's official packages because other thoughtful people already did this. I never have to compile, let alone recompile.

Re:Trust

[quantumphaze (1245466)]

It is supported, just badly.

It's an Atheros 5005G chipset, works fine with the supplied modules until I use WPA-EAP at university, where it will lock up the system every 2nd connection attempt. Compiling from source is the easiest way to fix it, but (back on topic) needs to be recompiled every kernel update.

Portable Firefox

[rvw (755107)]

When using Portable Firefox, the automatic updates installs the normal version when updating. This results in something you don't want. So I uncheck the automatic update, and do this manually.

Re:Trust

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

When Mozilla sends out a buggy update, which has happened twice to my memory, a) it doesn't cripple the entire system, and b) there's a new version the next day. This goes back to my personal definition of trust: I don't necessarily expect a software vendor to be perfect 100% of the time. That's unrealistic. But I expect mistakes to be infrequent, non-severe, and for them to correct them quickly so that I'm not inconvenienced too much.

OTOH when Microsoft sends out a buggy update you have to keep your fingers crossed for something to be available in a few weeks. I don't want to come across as anti-Microsoft, but realistically that's the difference between the two in my experience.

Understandable

[Morgor (542294)]

This is understandable, considering the level of obnoxiousness. Firefox gives you a discrete notice that it has downloaded an update, and you can choose not to install it right away, but instead having it installed next time you start firefox. Windows Updates are so damn obnoxious that I always consider turning it off and doing my updates manually. I know how to update my computer manually, but I suspect the bulk of users out there, just get frustrated about the constant bells and whistles of Windows Update, that they turn it off and leave it like that.

Re:Understandable

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

Frankly, I'm sorry I upgraded to Firefox 3. Had problems with my google homepage and with YouTube since. Good thing there's IE Tab.

Somewhere deep in hell a demon just snorted battery acid and gasoline on the keyboard and then Alt Tabbed back to Visual Studio, project title IE8.

Re:Understandable

[BradleyUffner (103496)]

There is an option in the group policy manager you can apply locally by running gpedit.

Usual drivel

[taustin (171655)]

When Microsoft has shit flashing on the screen automatically to remind you to do updates, it's evil intrusion in to one's privacy. But when Firefox does exactaly the same thing, they're God's gift to enlightenment.

The reason most Firefox users use the most up to date version is that it's the only way to get rid of the annoying pop-ups.

Re:Usual drivel

[by Anonymous Coward]

But it doesn't do this, and that's the point. It merely pops up when you exit the software, and it doesn't have a death-clock countdown until the reboot that you need to interrupt to rescue any unsaved work (my main gripe with Windows update).

Re:Usual drivel

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

In XP I found out you could type

NET STOP WUAUSERV

That stops the Windows Update service if you're not ready to reboot. When you do reboot the updates will be installed as a side effect.

In Vista you can set it to download the updates automatically and only install them when you reboot - I've never seen a deathclock.

Re:Usual drivel

[nschubach (922175)]

(I know I probably shouldn't say this... but I can't stop typing!)

You see, this is why ____ will never make it. If I have to keep using these obscure command line fixes in order to make my system work the way I want, regular people will never use it.

Re:Usual drivel

[One Childish N00b (780549)]

What?? Why should I have to type out arcane commands just to get basic functionality??

If the answer to everything on Windows continues to start with "Just drop to a terminal...", it will /never/ be ready for the desktop!

Re:Usual drivel

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Actually, the Windows XP way is to run "Computer Management", then go to "Services" and stop the appropriate service. Computer Management is found inside Administrative Tools, which by default appears in Control Panel. You can also make it appear in other locations. No idea where they put it in Vista, but it makes actual logical sense in Windows XP. I'm not really sure what they were thinking, changing the XP GUI layout so much.

Microsoft is way way WAY behind the curve on basically everything but market position, but boy did they get XP right (for a very Microsoftian value of "right".)

Re:Usual drivel

[arotenbe (1203922)]

When Microsoft has shit flashing on the screen automatically to remind you to do updates, it's evil intrusion in to one's privacy. But when Firefox does exactaly the same thing, they're God's gift to enlightenment.

Firefox requires you to restart your browser, but Windows requires you to restart your whole computer.

Then again, with Firefox it takes just as long...

Re:Usual drivel

[Artuir (1226648)]

What computer are you using, Babbage's Difference Engine?

Re:Usual drivel

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

The difference is that when Firefox has an update, it is for the browser. When Microsoft has an update, it is for the

Oh, wait.

Re:Usual drivel

[beelsebob (529313)]

Safari uses the same update method as all apple's software -- in OS X it uses the built in software update mechanism, and in Windows, it uses a port of that mechanism. It's about as annoying as all the others (except windows update, because it doesn't pop up every 5 minutes, and it doesn't have a death clock before destroying all your work by restarting).

This makes sense

[The Ancients (626689)]

It's rational fear of the unknown.

I've never had a Firefox or Safari issue toast my machine. I've had IE updates do it twice before (on different machines).

I just don't see how a browser can cause such mayhem to the OS - considering it's the browser that supposedly runs inside the OS, and not the other way around.

Well ok, I can. To rephrase: I don't see how a browser should cause such mayhem to the OS.

Re:This makes sense

[techno-vampire (666512)]

I just don't see how a browser can cause such mayhem to the OS

It's easy when you consider that Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer are the same program. I remember back when IE 5 came out. If the upgrade program failed in just the right way you would reboot to a blank desktop with no icons, no task bar, no way out except the power switch or reset button. You had to reboot in DOS, edit win.ini to use progman instead of explorer, enter Windows and revert to the previous version of IE. (Sometimes progman didn't even work right. I found it much easier to use control.exe as the shell, because that brought up control panel, which was exactly what was needed.) Then, you had to restart in MS-DOS mode, undo the change to win.ini so that you could go back into Windows and try again. That is, if the tech support person you called knew what the problem was and how to fix it. If not, you were pretty much hosed until you re-installed Windows.

the reason

[by Anonymous Coward]

The majority of IE users use IE "because it's there." These people see no reason to download a different browser because one is already provided for them. These are the same people that usually end up relying on Automatic Updates to secure their browser, in most cases not even aware that these updates were taking place to begin with. Chances are that these people don't know that their browser even has updates, much less that they are running an insecure, outdated browser.

Users of alternative browsers, by contrast, use their browser deliberately. They know that IE is there, but they blatantly decide to go against the tide and use something else. Whatever the reason for this depends on the user, but most of them share this common trait. Said browsers can't use Automatic Updates, so they must have their own update checking mechanisms in place. Every alternative browser I've used will check every so often for an update and display a pop-up for the user. The user then knows that their browser is out-of-date. Such users also tend to want the latest version, again for various reasons. Firefox is a bit more aggressive that most, downloading the update by default and installing it regardless of whether the user chooses to have it done now or later, which better explains its higher percentage.

Likely business users skew the results.

[eccenthink (1312043)]

Where I work we had IE 7 a couple years ago but the corporate intranet didn't work properly or IT didn't want to support it or something so I'm forced to use IE 6. I couldn't update IE if I wanted to on the computer where I work. I use firefox at home but I go to quite a few websites during my lunch break. Unless they're filtering out IP's from corporate domains I suspect the results of the study are skewed by users surfing while at work.

Re:Likely business users skew the results.

[barista (587936)]

An organization affiliated with ours has some web apps that only work with IE6, so I leave that on most machines in our department. It was over a year after IE6 came out before they supported that, so I figure it is a matter of time before they support IE7...probably when IE8 comes out. Many of the users in my department wouldn't know what their default browser is if I asked them. They would say it's, "the Internet". All they know is whether it works or not. If it works, that's all that matters.

FWIW, this type of situation might be one of the (many) reasons why Vista hasn't been widely deployed in enterprise (not as widely as XP, anyway). I don't think IE6 is available for Vista, so apps that don't work with IE7 would give some companies yet another reason to think about holding off on deploying Vista.

Well jeeze, you guys!

[iminplaya (723125)]

If I spend all my time keeping up with upgrades, I won't have any time left to actually use my damn computer. And sometimes an older version works better for me. All that automatic crap is turned off. My disks are backed up...I think... I'll upgrade if something breaks. I hope you're ok with that.

"Most secure"

[Legion_SB (1300215)]

Between January 2007 and June 2008, less than half of IE users - 47.6 percent - were running the most secure browser version during the same time period.

That many people still run IE 2.0?

Aren't I the living satan

[heroine (1220)]

Well I still use version 1.5.0.12. Just minimize those annoying upgrade popups every time they pop up. 10 clicks & they just give an error & next day it's another popup for another upgrade. You mean those weren't advertizements? Well, probably just destroyed someone's TimeWarner stock.

easiest to update means it gets updated

[suck_burners_rice (1258684)]

Now that it's mentioned, there really is something about Firefox's update feature that gets you to install and use the latest version. Maybe it's that it's so easy and doesn't mess up anything, e.g., by making drastic changes to the appearance of the browser, etc. I would say that most of the nearly 20% who are running outdated versions are probably the paranoid type who think that updating their software will mean introducing problems, you know, the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But this study is totally correct: Of all the browsers, Firefox makes updating the easiest.

Types of users of different browsers

[Chambers81 (613839)]

It seems that corporate/government users don't have as much of a choice in when to update their browsers and a good number don't have the choice to switch to firefox and are forced to use IE. I know that at my job (government) we can't update on our own and are forced to wait for the IT staff to push the updates through, sometimes days or weeks after they become available.

Re:

[Bogtha (906264)]

It seems that corporate/government users don't have as much of a choice in when to update their browsers

It's not just corporate users. It's everybody who isn't running XP or higher. For a huge number of people, upgrading to the most recent version of Internet Explorer means buying a new operating system. Of course there are a lot of people who aren't upgrading. It's one of the consequences of Microsoft tying Internet Explorer to Windows so tightly. To upgrade to Internet Explorer 7, you need to tak

Stop making it optional

[linzeal (197905)]

Firefox developers heed my call. Stop making security updates optional past a certain version.

Web developers heed my call. Stop making websites accept security corrupting browsers because half the time they are pry zombies. Look at your logs and see the rate at which these computers increase revenue. Drop them at whatever delta you think prudent.

Old Firefox usage

[IBBoard (1128019)]

I wonder how much of the old Firefox usage is old installs in Linux? You can't use the built-in updater if you installed the RPM/DEB because the permissions are (or should be) wrong for letting you write to the folder. AFAIK there's only a few distros who have moved to Firefox 3 so far, so the rest would be showing up as out-dated.

Similarly for Windows, if they're counting Firefox 3 as "up to date" then how many people are still on old v2s because they don't know about v3?

Re:*shrug*

[arotenbe (1203922)]

No reason to fix what isn't broke.

What the hell are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:*shrug*

[ngth82 (1261748)]

No reason to fix what isn't broke.

Oh it's broke. You just don't know.

Re:*shrug*

[Raul Acevedo (15878)]

Well, browsers are a little different, from a security perspective you could argue they *are* broke whenever new vulnerabilities are discovered. For a web browser, they need continuing updates to address new security vulnerabilities. Unfortunately there's only so much interest in continuing security-only fixes to older versions...

Re:

[Hucko (998827)]

Development cycles are too extended to be used in any annual statistics. Perhaps you can petition to have them included in centennial statistics?

Re:What has single click got to do with it?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why they couldn't have the .update option for version 2.xx at least offer the option to update to version 3. It just kept telling me there were no new updates available. I wouldn't call it 'single click' at all.

The option to update to Firefox 3 instead of another security minor version of Firefox 2 (which will still get security updates till the end of the year) hasn't been turned on at the server end yet, and will likely only be done at the next minor version update, like Firefox 3.0.1 or later.
THEN, you'll have a single click.

Re:IE7 is not installed with automatic updates

[c4colorado (1097179)]

I can't tell you how annoying it was to have IE7 forced through the automatic updates system. I would normally say it is a good thing to update the browser... as it is the single most common entry point for spyware, adware, etc (with the email client being the single most common entry point for viruses).

HOWEVER:

a) The "Menu" bar is missing by default (yea the File, Edit, View, Etc... toolbar).

Try explaining to a client over the phone how to "Right-click in an area toward the top of the browser below the title bar, but above the content window, and not in the address bar, oh and not on another toolbar, somewhere kinda blank, maybe to the right of the green arrow, oh that area isn't blank on your screen, oh yea I don't mean blank, just without buttons, did you get the menu, well it should have check marks next to toolbar names, uh something like Standard / Address Bar / Links, yea you got it, wait no, I didn't say click on address bar, ok do it again and turn address bar back on, oh it wasn't on... yea turn it on and then turn on, yes I mean make a check mark by it, yes, ok try it again and turn on the one called, uh something like, just read me what your menu says, yes, that one, ok now do you have File / Edit / View at the top of the window, oh no it's below the address bar and buttons, yea, ok bring up the menu again and uncheck "lock toolbars", then click on the edge, it has little bumps, well more like lines, yea you can grab it there and move it, then you didn't click on the right area, yea try again, ok move it up, well then you have to move the address bar back down, try wiggling it at the top, move it around until the address bar goes onto its own line, yea keep trying, you aren't wiggling it properly, then just drop it there and move the address bar, no it can't go all the way at the top, I don't know why, ask Microsoft why, yea, ok well was there anything else..." and so on.

b) The "Address" bar is hidden by default

See "a"

c) FTP is broken (yep, just fails with "cannot be displayed" when you click an ftp:// [ftp] link ... you have to go into "File > Open With Windows Explorer" to get it to open properly)

Here is a big problem, most software download sites have mirrors at ftp:// [ftp] links, which fail without any reason. IE 6 and previous would re-task the current IE window to a Windows Explorer window and process the FTP request... no so with IE 7(they may have fixed this since). The net result is that users who may try to update their software, or download new software, are unable to. Sites that worked last night suddenly don't. (I first ran into this when a customer called me saying they couldn't download the new version of their anti-virus software, talk about security updates).

d) Common buttons are missing or drastically re-skinned to the extent that users are lost

e) Tabs confuse IE Users (yes I know they are off by default, but users click on things and enable things accidently, and then call me asking why it is broken).

. . .

Shortly after IE 7's relese we implemented a remote desktop application for all phone support requests.