Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades 565
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."
Actually a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
Re:Actually a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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 -
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Without nagging, you then have a repeat of tons of people continuing to use grossly insecure software long after they should be as a result of their ignorance. Mozilla may be about choice, but it's not about every single choice possible unless you plan to recode and recompile. They give you choice based on their decision about how their fork is going to be developed. If you don't like it, change it. That's your choice.
The only people who really complain about this are a very small percentage of users whose
That's OK... (Score:5, Funny)
Why not earlier? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Corporations will use some sort of managed upgrade procedure anyway, as users do not have permissions to install updates.
This is absolutely not true as far as Firefox is concerned.
You can install it into "My Documents" (or any directory in your profile) and it will work just fine (at least on Windows XP).
I'll upgrade when... (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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)
Your loss. People said the same thing about tabbed browsing when it was introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, done that, still think it sucks.
IE doesn't put out at all!
agreed (Score:2)
A horrible decision by FF.
In a way pushing it on people reminds me of Microsoft and Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen
Re:I'll upgrade when... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:I'll upgrade when... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:I'll upgrade when... (Score:5, Informative)
Private Browsing (Score:3, Informative)
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)
If only it would work (Score:2)
Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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???
Who sez Win98 isn't secure? (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:Who sez Win98 isn't secure? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Users that run windows 98 or ME connected to the internet are not to be coddled, they are to be pitied.
Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (Score:5, Informative)
IT Locks computers (Score:4, Insightful)
IT department locks all the computers from installing anything. So my work PC's software is running old, buggy, insecure code.
Re:IT Locks computers (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox portable. [portableapps.com]
marketing speak infected. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:marketing speak infected. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Firefox approach leads to an annoying, "I know you wanted to browse the web right now, indicated by your clicking the FF icon, but I'm going to spend 3 minutes doing things unrelated to your browsing the web. Thank you." effect. It's like it normally has a 10-second start-up time, then every week or so it has a 3-minute start-up time. Extremely annoying.
It should either silently install upgrades after you close the browser, or wait until I manually do it. But when I click the FF icon, I want to *browse
Software Exists To Solve Problems! (Score:2)
nag screen (Score:4, Funny)
Can I create a nag screen to tell the developers to STFU? :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Firefox 3 requires too many libraries that I don't have on my Mandrake 10.2 box.
Screw FF3... (Score:2)
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
Option to turn it off.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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. :(
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get this. I have ff3 and I can still export my bookmarks to bookmarks.html. Parent is simply incorrect.
This may be a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Options for unsupported OSX? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any free advice?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
not until they support mac 10.3.9, I won't. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
No FF3 support on OS X 10.3.9 (Panther, that is) (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Firefox product activation. (Score:5, Funny)
Nags are virus vectors (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Move to non-informed auto update... (Score:3, Interesting)
... 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).
Fix it first: Firefox stopped working after 3 RC1 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just like vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just like vista (Score:4, Funny)
Upgrade? I'm still using Mosaic
X is bloatware: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:just like vista (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [noscript.net] 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 (Score:4, Informative)
Only certain add-ons do that, and it is the code of the add-on to load that page, not in Firefox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm saying Firefox should have a guideline to handle this, since they distribute the code through addons.mozilla.org.
Re:just like vista (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you don't trust NoScript.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [mozilla.org]
Just because you don't think like a cracker doesn't mean you're not a honky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:just like vista (Score:5, Funny)
If I wanted to be nagged I wouldn't have divorced Evil-X!
If One Really Believes This... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The power to do the update without disturbing your work.
Any kind of software installation presents a risk of breaking stuff. You don't want stuff to break when you're in the middle of an important task and you're on a deadline.
For that matter, that's also why I don't want updates to run "quietly and unobtrusively". I hat
Re:just like vista (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Linux users (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I hate it! (Score:4, Insightful)
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*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I hate it! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I hate it! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I hate it! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because new versions often have security fixes and they don't want to keep supporting legacy code.
Besides, upgrading is free and dead simple, almost automatic. How the hell can it be worse than when commercial software nags you? Also, they already said it will be several weeks between the "nags", which is pretty reasonable IMHO.
Re:My browser doesn't need to be awesome (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Erm.
Web Developer extension bacame FF3 compatible on May 19, 2008.
See here [chrispederick.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 t