Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet Technology

Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades 565

Posted by kdawson
from the your-own-sweet-time dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades

Comments Filter:
  • by Daimanta (1140543) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:22PM (#24708267) Journal

    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.

    • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:30PM (#24708391) Homepage

      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.

      • by Daimanta (1140543) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:32PM (#24708449) Journal

        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.

        • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:29PM (#24709607) Homepage

          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.

      • It's not so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by RudeIota (1131331) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:42PM (#24708681) Homepage
        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 [wordpress.com] 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sricetx (806767)
          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
      • by MC Negro (780194) * on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:34PM (#24709709) Journal

        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.

        • by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Friday August 22, 2008 @03:50PM (#24710917) Journal

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by svank (1301529)
          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?
  • by ColdWetDog (752185) * on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:23PM (#24708287) Homepage
    I use Adblock Plus. I'm sure I won't see it. No problemo.
  • Why not earlier? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@co[ ]ll.edu ['rne' in gap]> on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:24PM (#24708295) Homepage

    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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jsebrech (525647) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:31PM (#24708427)

      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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by nabsltd (1313397) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:29PM (#24709635)

        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.

  • by medeii (472309) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:26PM (#24708317)

    ... 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by sm62704 (957197)

      Been there, done that, still think it sucks.

      IE doesn't put out at all!

    • A horrible decision by FF.

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

    • Amen

    • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:34PM (#24708493) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by MagdJTK (1275470) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:46PM (#24708759)

        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.

        • by clone53421 (1310749) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:51PM (#24708869) Journal

          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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:06PM (#24709153)

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

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

          • by Speare (84249) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:07PM (#24709177) Homepage Journal

            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: (Score:3, Insightful)

              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?

              • by Speare (84249) on Friday August 22, 2008 @03:34PM (#24710641) Homepage Journal
                "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.
          • Private Browsing (Score:3, Informative)

            by blueZ3 (744446)

            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: (Score:3, Funny)

          That still gives me trouble when I want to visit postgresql.org and my gf is sitting next to me...
  • 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.
  • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:26PM (#24708327) Homepage Journal

    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 Locks computers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sporkinum (655143) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:27PM (#24708353)

    IT department locks all the computers from installing anything. So my work PC's software is running old, buggy, insecure code.

  • by Toonol (1057698) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:31PM (#24708423)
    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.
    • by RealGrouchy (943109) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:48PM (#24708807)

      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>

    • by IamTheRealMike (537420) * <mike@plan99.net> on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:53PM (#24708909) Homepage

      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.

  • I don't like this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WCMI92 (592436)

    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.

    Increas

    • Re:I don't like this (Score:5, Informative)

      by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:44PM (#24708713) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Phroggy (441)

      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.

  • 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.
  • nag screen (Score:4, Funny)

    by C_Kode (102755) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:33PM (#24708475) Journal

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smoker2 (750216)
      Yep, indirectly.
      Change your user agent [cosmicat.com].
      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)
  • Can't. (Score:3, Informative)

    by SCHecklerX (229973) <thecaptain@captaincodo.net> on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:35PM (#24708507) Homepage

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

  • 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 column

  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:37PM (#24708543)

    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!"

  • by greed (112493) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:41PM (#24708653)

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Blain (264390)

      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.

  • I 3 FF3, except... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheDarkener (198348) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:41PM (#24708657)

    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. :(

    • by Daimanta (1140543)

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

  • by Buelldozer (713671) <cliff@gindu l i s . net> on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:56PM (#24708959)

    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.

  • Upgrade not possible (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caffiend666 (598633) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:57PM (#24708991) Homepage

    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

  • by DigitalCrackPipe (626884) on Friday August 22, 2008 @01:58PM (#24709005)
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by King_TJ (85913)

      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 P

  • by swschrad (312009) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:00PM (#24709039) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by rtoads (220214) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:02PM (#24709083) Homepage

    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.

  • by suck_burners_rice (1258684) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:17PM (#24709397)
    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 [theregister.co.uk], 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.
  • by iplayfast (166447) on Friday August 22, 2008 @02:28PM (#24709599)

    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).

  • by blahplusplus (757119) on Friday August 22, 2008 @03:57PM (#24711017)

    ... 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).

  • by Alzheimers (467217) on Friday August 22, 2008 @04:38PM (#24711519)

    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.

Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.

Working...