Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox To Get a Nag Screen For Upgrades

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the your-own-sweet-time dept.

Mozilla 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."

cancel ×

565 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

just like vista (1, Insightful)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708231)

Great, now will have more little reminders and popups. Soon everything will be like Vista.

Re:just like vista (5, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708319)

Yea, but the browser is arguably the most important thing to keep updated on your system, so if they plan on stopping security updates for version 2 in December, everyone really does need to upgrade.

Re:just like vista (5, Insightful)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708419)

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.

Re:just like vista (2, Insightful)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708687)

Until you get WORM_STORM_X on your PC from a website that exploited the browser.

Re:just like vista (4, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708535)

If I wanted to be nagged I wouldn't have divorced Evil-X!

Re:just like vista (1, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708555)

if it is the most important thing to keep updated, why are they stopping the V2 security updates half a year after v3 was released?

Re:just like vista (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708727)

YAAAAAAAAAAAWWWN!!!

Re:just like vista (3, Informative)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708787)

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:just like vista (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708943)

I'm glad they didn't do this with Firefox1.5 when 2 came out. It was bad enough (worse?) they had it default to autoupdate, and on several system installs, I had to reinstall Firefox and turn that off before I accidentally let it update itself.

Actually a good idea (5, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708267)

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 (4, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708391)

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 (4, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708449)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708663)

Your answer *should* change as the end-of-life of your software approaches.

Maybe there should be a hidden option for people who know what they're doing to remove the "twice a month" nag screen or at least delay it until security updates stop, but non-technical users who just can't be bothered to upgrade at the moment... well with security updates ending they really should be reminded to update until they actually do it.

It's not so bad... (3, Insightful)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708681)

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:Actually a good idea (0, Redundant)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708661)

We don't like it when Microsoft pressures us to upgrade to Vista, why the hell should we like it when Mozilla pressures us to upgrade to FF3?

Re:Actually a good idea (2, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708789)

Perhaps, it is because upgrading a computer to Vista is expensive?

Re:Actually a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708769)

No it is not. I'm a sys admin for 400 Sunrays and the required servers to run them. I have not upgraded to Firefox 3 because I am having issues with it running under Solaris. I definitely will not appreciate my users getting bothered by Firefox update messages when:

1) They can't update it anyways.

2) The problems FF3 is having under Solaris.

This is a retarded idea.

That's OK... (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708287)

I use Adblock Plus. I'm sure I won't see it. No problemo.

Why not earlier? (5, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708295)

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? (4, Informative)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 6 years ago | (#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? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708573)

I don't buy this argument, neither from Mozilla nor Microsoft.

Corporations will use some sort of managed upgrade procedure anyway, as users do not have permissions to install updates.

On the IE7 side, this can be managed using WSUS, SCE, SCCM. On the Firefox side, i guess it would have to done by using a software deployment solution like SCE or SCCM.

I have no idea - never looked into Firefox deployment options.

Re:Why not earlier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708751)

Many 3rd party plugins, especially commercial ones, break with FF3. Many products have support statements for only FF2, and that's it. There's no updating for countless people in the nearest YEARS. Adding a nagging popup, or automatically forcing major upgrade just irritates when you simply can not allow that.

I hate it! (1, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708307)

I hate it when commercial software nags you to upgrade, but having firefox nag you is even worse. Not even trying to RTFA because it's surely slashdotted, I wish the summary would have said why they're so hell-bent on getting users to upgrade.

Re:I hate it! (3, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708421)

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:I hate it! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708677)

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! (2, Insightful)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708477)

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! (1, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708603)

in that case, releasing firefox 2 was a violation of their own charter.

Re:I hate it! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708655)

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.

Well if would greatly improve my browsing experience if my fucking browser didn't hector me to upgrade.

Re:I hate it! (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708515)

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:I hate it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708691)

You are a botnet's best friend.

Re:I hate it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708709)

I hate it when commercial software nags you to upgrade, but having firefox nag you is even worse. Not even trying to RTFA because it's surely slashdotted, I wish the summary would have said why they're so hell-bent on getting users to upgrade.

I've a good idea. Vote with your dollars. Take the money you would have had to spend on Firefox 3 and spend it elsewhere

Oh wait...

I'll upgrade when... (4, Insightful)

medeii (472309) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:I'll upgrade when... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708371)

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

Re:I'll upgrade when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708471)

And there are plenty of us that hate and therefore do not use either of them!

Re:I'll upgrade when... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708409)

Been there, done that, still think it sucks.

IE doesn't put out at all!

agreed (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708443)

A horrible decision by FF.

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

Re:I'll upgrade when... (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708445)

Amen

Re:I'll upgrade when... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708463)

I love the Awesome Bar. You should give it another chance.

Re:I'll upgrade when... (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708493)

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... (5, Funny)

MagdJTK (1275470) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:I'll upgrade when... (5, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708869)

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... (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708913)

Unlikely...Everyone past puberty knows to clear your browser history when Mom's nearby.

Re:I'll upgrade when... (1)

strabes (1075839) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708903)

You could just disable having FF store your browser history, couldn't you?

Re:I'll upgrade when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708597)

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.

As opposed to your parroting how much you HATE the "StupidBar" and think that everyone else is stupid, which is obviously so much finer a dogma to repeat?

I honestly like the AwesomeBar. I do appreciate being able to quicksearch my history by page title , especially when the start of the URL is very nonintuitive (no, not every page on every website has an obvious domain name, but thanks for playing). Certainly, it may not be everybody's cup of tea, but lumping everyone else in this "parrot" category when you're doing it yourself doesn't quite reflect well on your opinion. Seriously, "arrg I hate Firefox 3 because of StupidBar" isn't in the least bit original, yourself.

Re:I'll upgrade when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708897)

I really, really don't get why anyone dislikes the new address bar. The first day or two it had some odd behavior, but since then it's become as good as or better then the old bar for everything I've typed into it.

I rather suspect the reason there's no option for the "old" behavior is because people would turn it off on the first day and never go back, including people who would really like it after a day or two. I wouldn't be surprised if reverting to the old bar was added as an option a month or so after FF2 stops getting security updates.

If only it would work (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708323)

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.

Re:If only it would work (1)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708559)

Did you go through their troubleshooting documentation? Probably your profile is corrupted and it only accidentally works on firefox 2.

Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708327)

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 (5, Funny)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708439)

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 (4, Funny)

iritant (156271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708733)

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 (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708795)

Speak for yourself. My "ancient" notebook, from which I'm posting right now, still runs 98SE because anything past that is too much of a hog for the limited resources. No spyware, no viruses - never had 'em, never will. Maybe I'll switch it over to Debian eventually, like my desktop, but not until I'm finally and forever done with all my favorite old games.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708899)

What are the specs? Depending on what you mean by "ancient" it might actually run a stripped-down version of XP pretty well.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (4, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708927)

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:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (2, Insightful)

cephah (1244770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708551)

Let's halt progress for the sake of the few, then? If people are either 1. too poor to upgrade their system 2. too stubborn to switch, then neither of them should be much of a concern to Mozilla. If they're too poor, they could run a minimal Linux flavor but really, halting progress for the sake of a few rarely yields good results.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708799)

An upgrade nag is not progress, it's an annoyance to the user.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (2, Insightful)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708579)

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 (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708599)

Microsoft cut those users off in 2006 [microsoft.com]

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (1)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708729)

If you're on Win98 or WinME, your entire operating system is already no longer supported by its vendor, so why do you care if your browser is supported by anyone? You're probably already a zombie in several spam networks, so any security vulnerabilities that show up in your browser are not going to affect you in any practical way.

I think once an OS vendor ends support for that OS, you really shouldn't expect third party software vendors to continue supporting it.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708775)

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?

Probably "get a new computer".

I mean seriously, I've got sympathy for people who have to run old versions of Windows, but I don't think Firefox is doing anything unreasonable in this case by dropping support for an operating system which Microsoft itself stopped supporting over two years ago. It may be annoying for Firefox users on 98/98SE/ME to be bothered to upgrade to a version which won't run on their computer, but that's probably the least of the problems they'll come across while running an OS that old.

Re:Firefox 3 doesn't run on Windows 9x (5, Informative)

zzxc (635106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708845)

Users running on unsupported operating systems will not get the major update notice. This is checked server side, see bug 418129 [mozilla.org] . The updater even checks that the updated version will be compatible for Linux users [mozilla.org] . For information on the release and the testing that is being done, read the 2.0.0.16->3.0.1 Major Update [mozilla.org] page on the Mozilla wiki.

IT Locks computers (3, Insightful)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708353)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708797)

Yeah, I'm reading /. on IE6. It works most of the time. I'd kill for a modern browser - you know maybe something with tabs? Wish I was joking...

Re:IT Locks computers (5, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708929)

Firefox portable. [portableapps.com]

Patch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708415)

So is anyone working on a patch to disable the nagging? That's what Open Source is for, isn't it?

marketing speak infected. (5, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:marketing speak infected. (4, Interesting)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#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>

Re:marketing speak infected. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708901)

Extreme much? Not sure it is fair to equate a update notification for free software with a multiple week interval to "unstoppable advertising popups".

Just because the windows world doesn't have the benefit of a system level framework for keeping the software on the system up to date, doesn't mean it's a bad thing when one of the applications rolls its own update mechanism.

Re:marketing speak infected. (3, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708909)

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.

Addons are a reason not to upgrade (1)

praedictus (61731) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708435)

Version 3 breaks UnPlug and FireWhat, among others, I can see lots of people not wanting to give up their favorite addons to upgrade. I for one upgraded but miss Unplug, its annoying to have to reload video on a slow connection when I want to show something funny to the kids that I found while they were napping.

Re:Addons are a reason not to upgrade (1)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708849)

Version 3 breaks UnPlug and FireWhat, among others, I can see lots of people not wanting to give up their favorite addons to upgrade. I for one upgraded but miss Unplug, its annoying to have to reload video on a slow connection when I want to show something funny to the kids that I found while they were napping.

A five minute search on Mozilla Add-ons led to me this [lummox.wz.cz] , a version of UnPlug that supposedly works with Firefox 3. Not tested it myself, but maybe it's just what you're looking for.

I don't like this (2, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708437)

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.

Increasingly software publishers/creators seem to think that because their program is installed that they are entitled to some say in how I use it, and that it can do whatever the hell it wants on my machine. Piss on that. It's disturbing that Mozilla is following this trend.

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?

Re:I don't like this (4, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708713)

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:I don't like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708781)

There is already an automatic upgrade function. The next version of 2.x will nag them about upgrading to 3.x. That next version of 2.x will be distributed through the automatic upgrade system.

That doesn't "SCREAM spyware/trojan vulnerability" any more than the existing upgrade system.

Please stop the knee-jerk stuff.

Re:I don't like this (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708873)

"All I want it to do is display a PDF."

It's not what you needed. It is what their paying customers, the ones who buy Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Acrobat Pro, wanted to do.

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

Phroggy (441) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708941)

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.

Software Exists To Solve Problems! (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708461)

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 (3, Funny)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708475)

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

Can't. (2, Informative)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708507)

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

Hello Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708513)

The only entity that can nag at me without me kicking its ass to the curb is my wife.

Screw FF3... (1)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708517)

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 columns-worth is all folders...). Even Netscape or some other old browser had these.

"Power-user"-friendly upgrades plz.

Re:Screw FF3... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708609)

"Column bookmarks"? What exactly do you mean by that? Ctrl-B opens the bookmark sidebar, and the bookmarks menu works like it always has.

Re:Screw FF3... (1)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708755)

"Column bookmarks"? What exactly do you mean by that? Ctrl-B opens the bookmark sidebar, and the bookmarks menu works like it always has.

Multiple columns... pretty much just like Windows Start Menu.

Re:Screw FF3... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708825)

Oh... frankly I don't really care for that anyway. Once there are that many items they're kind of hard to navigate... folders are much easier to work with.

Although I'm curious... what happens when you have too many bookmarks? I'd expect the sidebar to scroll, which seems like it'd solve your problem fairly well.

Option to turn it off.. (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#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!"

Still not ready in the first place (-1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708593)

Firefox 3 isn't ready for release in the first place. We tried it here at work and it is so buggy that we weren't even able to go to sites typed in the address bar. We had to set google as the home page and search for websites that we wanted to visit. Firefox 3 was released well before it was ready. I'd love to blame apple (I'm forced to use a mac at work), but Mozilla really dropped the ball on this one and should have waited.

Not without RHEL 4 support I won't (5, Insightful)

greed (112493) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

I 3 FF3, except... (2, Interesting)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 6 years ago | (#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. :(

Re:I 3 FF3, except... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708747)

Uh oh... I'm suddenly wondering if I'll be able to get my bookmarks back. I had to reinstall my OS, leaving files intact, but I reinstalled all my software and it created a clean Firefox profile... I haven't tried to import the bookmarks from my old profile because I figured it'd be easy once I got around to it. Should I be worried?

Re:I 3 FF3, except... (2)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708763)

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

My browser doesn't need to be awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708719)

Why can't I just have a barBar? What kind of shoddy coding can't manage to make this option...optional?

FF3 is a great product? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708801)

Okay...

Then why does FF3 crash *randomly* when I am working on my Drupal website?

Or when I have 50 tabs open?

FireFox 2.x didn't have these issues for me. Literally, they started happening the day after upgrading to FF3. No other system changes were made.

Honestly, I think FF3 hates Vista. I have to use Vista Business at work (using it now, this is Slashdot after all so I have to be at work posting this) and it does it here.

At home I use Debian on my laptop with Iceweasel and Vista x64 ultimate on my desktop with FF3. Before this crashing issue, the only problem I've had is due to the Asus Xonar DX2 drivers (it causes the only blue screens I get).

Mozilla, please look at the bug reports and crash logs! FF3 looks better and really seems better than FF2, except it keeps crashing!

just 2.0 users? (1)

oedneil (871555) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708805)

Hopefully it won't bug me, I'm still running the Firebird nightlies and don't want to be bothered!

Who's that? (0, Redundant)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708819)

Firefox has been pushing version 3.0 very aggressively, and firmly believes that it is a solid product.

And indeed it is — more solid, in fact, than FF2, with its nasty memory leaks and race conditions. But I thought "Firefox" was a software, not a person.

FF3 is missing FF2 features (1)

barrkel (806779) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708827)

Unfortunately, FF3 is missing FF2 features. In particular, FF3 doesn't use a cookies.txt file. This means that it integrates poorly with wget. And this, in turn, is the reason I have not upgraded to FF3 on one of my machines, and may have to turn to IE7 for secure browsing.

Older Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708853)

I've got my Mac running 3.0, but my two Ubuntu boxes are at 7.10 and as such still running 2.x... will I get nagged even if I can't upgrade without upgrading my whole OS?

(I'm waiting to upgrade Ubuntu because: one machine is a mythtv server, and if I upgrade one I have to upgrade both to get to v0.21 as well as upgrade the Mac... so it's not as simple as "just upgrade Firefox!" unless they put it in the Gutsy repos.)

Not all linux distros are ready.... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708875)

I mean...Foxfire 3 is still in experimental in a lot of distributions. What a way to annoy users into switching to Epiphany or Konqueuer/Dolphin.

no thanks! (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708891)

when I can no longer use Firefox-2.0.0.16 safely to browse the internet I will just use Seamonkey...

unless Firefox-3.x adds the ability to turn off the awesome bar and other kludgy features for dummies in the preferences then maybe I will try it...

so far my impression of Firefox-3.x is about like KDE-4.x (released too early & not ready for prime time)...

PLEASES FIX IT FIRST (1)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708921)

My browser crashes anytime I try and print a page on fedora 8. It is an extremely annoying 'feature' that came with the firefox 3.0 upgrade. Until now I decided it was my fault for installing it as soon as it went 'final'. Printing works fine in firefox 2.x, opera and even konqueror. Firefox 3 works fine on OSX, which also uses cups. If they want to start nagging us to upgrade, then I assume its alright to nag them to fix it.

not in my distro's repository (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24708923)

I would love to install FF 3.x on my system, but I'm using Fedora 8 and unfortunately, they decided not to port FF 3.x to it.

A nagging screen will only make me frustrated as it provides no real solution...

AC

That's it, then... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24708945)

... I'm turning off the auto-update feature for the time being. Let's see them nag me then. I'm well enough aware of the new version and I don't need to be nagged; when all my critical extensions have been updated (even if I have to tweak them myself), then and only then will I consider the upgrade.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?