Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Mozilla To Bug Firefox Users With Old Adobe Reader, Flash, Silverlight

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the they-should-hire-an-annoying-mascot dept.

Firefox 247

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today announced it will soon start prompting Firefox users to upgrade select old plugins. This will only affect Windows users, and three plugins: Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight. Mozilla says Firefox users will 'soon see a notification urging them to update' when they visit a web page that uses the plugins."

cancel ×

247 comments

update (5, Funny)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about 2 years ago | (#41575467)

Update at 5:10PM EST: No dice. “At this time, Mozilla does not have additional information to share beyond the blog post content,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Next Web in a statement. “We’ll be sure to update you once we have additional details to share regarding the timing, version(s) impacted and visual look of the message.”

Re:update (0)

PieDude (2745317) | about 2 years ago | (#41575483)

This also establishes Silverlight on the market as a true competitor to Flash. Otherwise Firefox wouldn't care about Silverlight.

Re:update (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41575689)

I think Firefox (or rather Mozilla) cares about their users' experience primarily.
In this respect Silverlight is as much an "established competitor to Flash" as malware is.

Re:update (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 2 years ago | (#41575877)

People use Silverlight?

Re:update (3, Interesting)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about 2 years ago | (#41576021)

Last year I read that 30% of internet bandwidth in North America was being used to watch Netflix. Netflix still uses Silverlight.

Re:update (1)

contrapunctus (907549) | about 2 years ago | (#41576203)

It doesn't mean they are using computers with silverlight installed.
Roku, game consoles, google players, a lot of TVs and DVD/blueray players, tablets, and phones play netflix.

Re:update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576845)

I've been using Netflix Watch Instantly for more than 3 years.
I have never used Silverlight in any form. I watch Netflix on my Wii.

Re:update (1)

bluescrn (2120492) | about 2 years ago | (#41576411)

People use Netflix. Netflix uses Silverlight

turn it off? (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41575491)

anyone know if it can be turned off? I got some crap that gets broken with new versions of reader.

Maybe i'll just have to switch browsers.

Re:turn it off? (1)

deniable (76198) | about 2 years ago | (#41575567)

We're running 10 at work, so this shouldn't bug us for a while.

Re:turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575805)

Not necessarily. I'm using 10 ESR and saw the nag screen today.

Re:turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576737)

lah-dee-dah i'm a hipster i'm using 10. The last good version of firefox was 3.x, i tried the new versions and they still have the missing scroll bar on the right side.

Re:turn it off? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575573)

You can turn it off by ditching Firefox and using a real web browser.

Re:turn it off? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575709)

We believe that Firefox is an excellent web browser.

Re:turn it off? (1)

lxs (131946) | about 2 years ago | (#41575855)

Is that the royal "We"?

Anyway there is a difference between the least shitty web browser and an excellent web browser, although the 64bit Nightly build on Win7 isn't too bad.

Re:turn it off? (2, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41576307)

We believe that Firefox is an excellent web browser.

I think a similar thing might have been said by some guy in my signature.

Re:turn it off? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575581)

Just turn off the plugin, download PDFs and open them automatically with the reader. That'll even run smoother for both applications, and you get all the reader features instead of a subset.

Re:turn it off? (1)

laurelraven (1539557) | about 2 years ago | (#41576677)

Just turn off the plugin, download PDFs and open them automatically with the reader. That'll even run smoother for both applications, and you get all the reader features instead of a subset.

Except that some sites only display PDFs through the plugin (which I think is silly, but when it's your payroll site, you don't have a choice in the matter). This also ignores the fact that Flash and Silverlight only run as plugins (yes, I know there are ways to download them and run them locally, but frankly, most people (myself included) really don't want to bother with that, as it is a pain in the ass).

Re:turn it off? (3, Interesting)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41575617)

I run Win2k and Flash can't be upgraded any more anyway. And I use Acrobat 4. I don't want any later version. I don't want to be nagged to upgrade things. I know what I have and I know what I need.

Re:turn it off? (5, Insightful)

SpaceCracker (939922) | about 2 years ago | (#41575653)

I run Win2k ...

Firefox has detected an old version of Windows. It is strongly recommended that you upgrade Windows to the latest version.

Re:turn it off? (4, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#41575731)

I run Win2k and Flash can't be upgraded any more anyway. And I use Acrobat 4. I don't want any later version. I don't want to be nagged to upgrade things. I know what I have and I know what I need.

Actually, when you look at the Archived Flash Player versions [adobe.com] , it seems that the 10.x line (the last one compatible with Windows 2000) still gets some kind of minor updates.

Re:turn it off? (5, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#41575789)

Opera is probably the wisest browser choice for Win2K.

Then again, using an OS that stopped getting security updates more than 2 years ago on an Internet-connected computer implies you don't care much about making wise choices.

Re:turn it off? (2, Interesting)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41575879)

Opera is probably the wisest browser choice for Win2K.

Which is my default browser. . But some sites just don't work and the I resort to Firefox.

Then again, using an OS that stopped getting security updates more than 2 years ago on an Internet-connected computer implies you don't care much about making wise choices.

Or it shows that I don't trust the OS whether updated or not and have a hardware firewall and third party security software. And use a version of Windows that doesn't try to call home or have IE embedded so deeply in it.

Maybe having been online for over 20 years and never having a malware infection implies I actually have a clue. (Or maybe I'm just too dumb to realise how much malware is on my PC, feel free to believe that if it helps you to feel superior.)

Re:turn it off? (0)

znrt (2424692) | about 2 years ago | (#41575933)

Or it shows that I don't trust the OS whether updated or not and have a hardware firewall and third party security software.

interesting ... so you trust your third party security software? and your harware firewall, really?

And use a version of Windows that doesn't try to call home or have IE embedded so deeply in it.

and you believe in unicorns, too. IE has been unresectable from windows ever since, starting at 2.0/win 3.11 when they started the whole COM idiocy ... up to this day.

Maybe having been online for over 20 years and never having a malware infection implies I actually have a clue.

it means you actually have a clue regarding healthy network/web habits. your seemingly blind faith on third party "security" software or firmware is still naive. you might as well just have been lucky. regarding the IE/win relation no, there you obviously haven't (a clue).

(Or maybe I'm just too dumb to realise how much malware is on my PC, feel free to believe that if it helps you to feel superior.)

Re:turn it off? (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#41576597)

interesting ... so you trust your third party security software? and your harware firewall, really?

It's not me you're replying to, but the way I take it, the original poster just doesn't trust the Windows operating system on his network, period. Well, honestly, I barely trust it on my own network unless the machine in question was set up by me with a known good, crap-free installation media, and no one else ever touches the system without my supervision, after first telling me exactly what it is that they want to do. Not even a hardware firewall can help when you've got an infected zombie on the inside spewing shit across the Internet... as well as on your own personal LAN.

I don't run Windows anymore (stopped completely back in late 2006), but I still feel somewhat the same when someone brings over an "unknown" Windows laptop and wants to connect to my network. It's not as bad now, because at least I now run something else and my systems are basically immune to the vast majority of attacks that fuck over Windows machines.

I left Windows due to the impending atrocity that was Vista combined with the road to nowhere that XP was heading on; Microsoft's excessively bad behavior toward the competition and with regards to open standards that seemed to only get worse; to escape vendor lock-in and the inevitable DRM before it got worse; for the security benefits of a UNIX or UNIX-like OS and for more power and control over my machine; as well as to escape having to plop a few hundred dollars down for an OS upgrade (especially when they consist of such duds as Windows ME, Vista and Windows 8). I don't regret it.

Re:turn it off? (1)

laurelraven (1539557) | about 2 years ago | (#41576751)

I left Windows due to the impending atrocity that was Vista combined with the road to nowhere that XP was heading on; Microsoft's excessively bad behavior toward the competition and with regards to open standards that seemed to only get worse; to escape vendor lock-in and the inevitable DRM before it got worse; for the security benefits of a UNIX or UNIX-like OS and for more power and control over my machine; as well as to escape having to plop a few hundred dollars down for an OS upgrade (especially when they consist of such duds as Windows ME, Vista and Windows 8). I don't regret it.

Vista was terrible, but in a sense, it was necessary terrible. They broke the way things worked to fix the problems plaguing windows since forever (note: I'm not defending Vista, it was a pile of crap; it did introduce some great technology, though, which is great in its successor).

As for their stance towards open standards, I never thought I'd see the day, but for a change, they are actually getting better with them. Much better.

And with 8, I actually think it is a really good OS. They just needed to either leave out or give an option to bypass the Metro start screen and use the classic Start Menu. Otherwise, it is an incredible upgrade to 7. If only they had that ability to natively get past Metro, I might have actually introduced it to my network. Until they do that, though, I'm not incurring additional training costs for a crappy tablet interface, just for the (admittedly really nice) enhancements in the rest of the OS.

Mind you, I'm not trying to troll you; I'm happy for you that you've managed to escape them. I often wish I had been able to, but I really don't have a choice in the matter (my career pretty much depends on them right now). Just trying to point out that it's not all crap over on this side.

Re:turn it off? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 2 years ago | (#41576029)

You don't have to use IE on the Internet, so it shouldn't matter whether IE is on your computer.

I gave up on Windows 2000 two or three years ago when most developers stopped supporting it and compatibility quality gradually degraded as a result.

Good user habits are important, but it's not a comprehensive solution. For one, even reputable sites get hacked.

Re:turn it off? (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41576561)

You don't have to use IE on the Internet, so it shouldn't matter whether IE is on your computer.

Its very hard to stop Windows form using IE in one way or another. Every now and then it pops up when hardcoded in some applications. But I've blocked it at the firewall so it's effectively neutered (I hope).

I gave up on Windows 2000 two or three years ago when most developers stopped supporting it

It's only this year the apps I need to use have started to become incompatible. MS made changes to their compilers last year I think and basically forced the issue. While modders are fighting a rearguard action to patch Win2k, I'll probably move to XP next year. I regularly use a lot of quite old software so am dragging my feet. I could do it all in emulation on a newish PC, and may end up doing that a few more years later. Maybe hosted on Linux. Unix was my first OS, so I'd be happy if I could get back to that and still use my DOS and Windows apps.

Re:turn it off? (1)

bobbutts (927504) | about 2 years ago | (#41576731)

Try XFCE if you haven't yet, it's got that minimal efficient desktop feel like XP and 2K.

Re:turn it off? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576147)

I've been using Opera as my primary browser for over 5 years. I think I found one website in that time that didn't work, but it was so long ago I forget the exact nature of the problem. Can you provide a few examples?

Or it shows that I don't trust the OS whether updated or not and have a hardware firewall and third party security software. And use a version of Windows that doesn't try to call home or have IE embedded so deeply in it.

And that shows you're a fucking idiot. At least you're on the right website.

Re:turn it off? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41576089)

That's bull. Why should anybody have to spend hundreds of dollars to replace a perfectly functional system?

Security is part of the functionality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576393)

Traditionally security is part of the functionality of the operating system. So, if there are any security holes and they will never be fixed, it's not "perfectly functional". If the holes aren't widely exploited, it might be "functional enough", though.

Re:turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576635)

Running Win2k is reasonably safe if you know what you're doing and can control impulsive behaviours. Ditto for Flash and Reader. It sure ain't for your average joe who uses these tools with unvetted or dubious sites, but risky behaviour will put you in harms way even if you are using the latest software with the latest patches.

Re:turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576355)

The really ancient flash player versions were more secure then present ones, same for reader, they had less surface area (ie, less redundant things supported by SWF and PDF to account for), most of the problems the newer versions have are a side effect of showing all kinds of crap into the formats that didn't belong there in the first place.

Re:turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576877)

I run Win2k and Flash can't be upgraded any more anyway. And I use Acrobat 4. I don't want any later version. I don't want to be nagged to upgrade things. I know what I have and I know what I need.

Actually, the later versions of firefox don't run on win2k, so you won't get the nag message.

Re:turn it off? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41576159)

Well, you started a lot of chatter, but the question remains unanswered.

I'm experimenting with it now. Maybe somebody will answer in the meantime.

Re:turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576209)

Why would we just turn it off ?

How about deleting the stuff if unused ?
If a consumer uses it, and many will , updates are very serious. It's not Functionality but rather mitigating risks of being exploited that is the danger.. The public in general is security inept ,Many think that updated security software will protect them when it more than often wont and these exploits are often tested in the face of Fully updated security software ,The fact is that Malware infections have no symptoms.
  Even after an identity theft crisis, the public remains inept and doesn't understand or want to understand how their computer became compromised

Two questions... (1)

WD (96061) | about 2 years ago | (#41576447)

1) Why are you using the Adobe Reader web browser plug-in? Downloading and opening PDFs is much safer.

2) Why are you using a version of Adobe Reader that has known security vulnerabilities? If Reader doesn't do what you want, there are alternatives.

Keeping software up to date is important for staying safe. But perhaps this is not a concern for you.

Re:Two questions... (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41576559)

Instead of a lecture, do you have an answer to the question that was originally posted? All we are getting is BS and no solution as to how to disable the damn thing.

Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575523)

Why not java? It has just as many exploits doesn't it?

Re:Java? (1)

jarkus4 (1627895) | about 2 years ago | (#41575615)

Because they just turn java off on regular basis. Sometimes even when user explicitly tells them not to do this

Re:Java? (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 years ago | (#41575771)

In this day and age a minority of the web actually requires applets. The option should be to 'whitelist' only particular websites.

[Aside: I have a public JRE installed on a windows box for work purposes. I may be vulnerable to rogue Java Web Start apps but there's a scary security warning each time I click on a JNLP link.

As for applets, I can sleep easy knowing there's no chance of infection. It's a 64bit JDK... All of the browsers from Mozilla, MS and Google are 32bit. So on my Windows machine no browser can load the 64 bit plugin!]

Re:Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575857)

It is already enabled for Java.

Who still uses silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575583)

Who still uses silverlight? C'mon, it's 21st century already...

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (1)

jarkus4 (1627895) | about 2 years ago | (#41575621)

Very large part of sites that want/need to stream DRMed video content.

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 years ago | (#41575779)

Indeed, one of the major sporting competitions here in Australia uses a Silverlight plugin to load videos via a flash plugin.

On my Linux box I have Chrome setup with Moonlight for that particular website. I use Chromium sans flash for regular HTML5 video browsing. (Firefox is a bit heavy for a P4).

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576031)

I don't use silverlight. I have Firefox v10 ESR on this machine. (See AR1600. Upgraded to 3GB RAM.) I have Flash installed for Opera, so I had to do something in Firefox (portableapps.com version by the way) so it wouldn't use Flash at all. I use Opera for Flash on this machine. One browser to rule all Flash uses in a sense.

On my other machine, I don't have Firefox installed. I may put it on there, but I'm concerned. (See eMachines T1090. Intel Celeron 900MHz. Upgraded to 512MB Ram.) I don't know if the newer versions will run.

On either machine, I have no interest in HTML5 video. (I want to be able to toggle all HTML5, not just video.) And if Mozilla is going to be pulling more stupid students like this, they're going to drive people away from upgrading to newer versions. It's bad enough with this rapid release cycle. Version 16 and version 4 are pretty much the same, are they not? There are things that bug me: down arrow key only going like one line at a time; find words on page not mentioning the number of finds without any sort of add-on; and the find word bar stuck on the bottom. And any sort of nagging will just push people away. An option to disable nagging would be great, but if it can't be turned off easily, that's pathetic.

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 2 years ago | (#41576435)

> uses a Silverlight plugin to load videos via a flash plugin

What is the Flash plugin for in this scenario?

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576503)

You mean porn websites?

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575625)

Netflix instant watch uses silverlight.

Re:Who still uses silverlight? (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#41575821)

Netflix, Lovefilm and Sky TV all use it here in the UK because no-one's broken the DRM yet.

For whom are they developing??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575585)

For Google? No, they have Chrome. For Techies? No, they don't want to be blocked access to "non-mozilla-aproved" pages (SSL_DUPLICATE_SERIAL-"Feature"), and generally don't like to be told by a 3rd party what software they are "ordered" to update. For Enterprises? No, they want MSI & Policys. For the users? No, they don't want to be bugged, eighter the other software does the update themself (that's why most brings their own update-background-memory-eating-home-phoning-crap), or it won't be updated, no matter how much a browser bugs them.

So WTF???? Try again be the best browser, not the one with the most annoying features :-@

Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575587)

Don't forget java! And what about turning off the plugins and requiring manual activation?

Great, more prompts (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575599)

If you know what the right thing to do is, just do it. If you don't know, don't bug the user about it. I get the calls when you show the unwashed masses around me yet another incomprehensible prompt about some thingamabob inside their computers that they didn't know was there in the first place. Make it work or shut up.

Re:Great, more prompts (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about 2 years ago | (#41576017)

Spot on.

I'm running Windows 2000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575607)

And the latest updates for Acrobat, Flash, Silverlight, etc. don't support Windows 2000. Then again, the latest Firefox doesn't support Windows 2000 either, so maybe I won't see these new prompts.

Re:I'm running Windows 2000 (1)

El Lobo (994537) | about 2 years ago | (#41575851)

If you are still running W2000, then Flash, Acrobat, etc are the least of your concerns.

Re:I'm running Windows 2000 (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#41576061)

What's exactly the problem with Win2K (outside of being Windows) if you're not directly facing a hostile network and are not suicidal to use Microsoft's client software (IE, Outlook, etc)?

Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575635)

I am wondering why the Java plugin is not on the list. Its security track has been bad for quite a while, and its on way more PCs tha silverlight

Re:Java? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#41575729)

I am wondering why the Java plugin is not on the list. Its security track has been bad for quite a while, and its on way more PCs tha silverlight

If they put really insecure shit like Java on the list, several shady revenue streams might be threatened. And when that happens, the lucky ones get an unexpected visit from Fingers and Lefty and their baseball bats. The unlucky ones die slowly after a few bullets from an untraceable weapon.

Re:Java? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575881)

The Java plugin already was on that list. They already warn for old versions of Java when the plugin is used.

Before (3, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#41575639)

It should prompt to update every day, regardless of whether they visit a site with flash/PDF/etc. That way the update gets applied before they "want to view content NOW". Otherwise they'll click cancel.

Re:Before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575711)

Better yet, it should prompt to update every hour. Or even every minute. That would make users even happier!

Re:Before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576385)

I don't think that's enough. It should follow you on every program you run. It should also put a flashing neon sign over your head that says "Mock me! I run outdated Flash because the latest one doesn't work". The sign should follow you everywhere you go. Everyone needs a net-nanny to take care of them you know.

Re:Before (2, Funny)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41576553)

I think that updating Adobe's PDF reader every minute means you'll still be behind the curve. The amount of effort they put into updating that thing is amazing. My ability to read textual documents using it has come a long way in the last 5 years - there's just no comparison between reading pdf documents then and now.

Re:Before (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41576437)

It should prompt to update every day, regardless of whether they visit a site with flash/PDF/etc. That way the update gets applied before they "want to view content NOW". Otherwise they'll click cancel.

You realize, of course, that not all of us need or want to stay at the bleeding edge of every product we use?

Most people just want the same thing they used yesterday to work today. Most people get really, really annoyed when what worked yesterday starts nagging them to upgrade today (or worse, "Adobe Flash (malware) has been blocked for your protection" - Fuck you, Moz!).

Keep it up, guys... Google can't thank you enough for pushing us to use Chrome. And yes, I know that Chrome updates itself, but it doesn't change (aka "break") anything each time.

Re:Before (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#41576511)

Bonus points if they get it to show right on top of the annoying adobe update pop ups.

Sloshdat: News that mattered, once. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575657)

For the last few upgrades it's been taking you to the Plugins Check Page if you have one or more outdated plugins. This is just more nagging.

Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575661)

Google Chrome already does this? And has for a while?

A relatively minor change to an FOSS application is news on /.?

Excellent news selection as always.

Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575667)

Google Chrome has done this for a while not already.

Yet some FOSS software does it, and it's news on Slashdot. Awesome.

Workaround (2)

200_success (623160) | about 2 years ago | (#41575795)

To bypass this nagging, just continue to use an old release of Firefox.

Re:Workaround (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576615)

That, or uninstall Flash and Silverlight... Most vids on Youtube or other sites that I visit work with HTML5, YMMV.

Re:Workaround (1)

pongo000 (97357) | about 2 years ago | (#41576851)

To bypass this nagging, just continue to use an old release of Firefox.

I use 3.5.7 (for various reasons, including better support for some protocols), and trust me, the nag dialog is there too. Got one yesterday before I read the /. article, was like "wtf?"...

Mozilla targetting wrong people (5, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 2 years ago | (#41575835)

As a Linux user, Mozilla should be targetting Adobe not me. For example, Adobe released a not working version of their flash player, it changes the colours of video on places like Youtube if you have hardware acelleration enabled. To get proper colours you have to disable hardware accelleration, which has a massive impact on system performance, even on a dual core machine.

To add to the problem, Adobe said they will no longer be working on Flash for Linux (at least the 64 bit version). So they released a known buggy version, and refuse to revert to previous version that worked.

Me updating is not the problem, it's companies like Adobe that need to be targetted.

Re:Mozilla targetting wrong people (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575949)

This will only affect Windows users

Re:Mozilla targetting wrong people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576743)

I totally agree. Linux Flash versions later than 11.1 are broken. From what I can tell neither Adobe or Ubuntu have a solution. I can't say a move to HTML5 is any better with it's proprietary codec.

Re:Mozilla targetting wrong people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576779)

They can't revert to a previous version that worked because the only change they made was enabling hardware acceleration by default, rather than disabling it by default. It never worked properly, you just didn't notice in older versions because it was disabled.

Good news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575843)

People's use of old versions (particularly of Web browsers, but plug-ins too) really fragments and complicates Web development.

Maybe Firefox should bug users to switch from Windows as well... ;)

--libman

Adobe refuses to port Flash 11.4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575887)

Adobe refuses to port Flash 11.4 to Linux. I question if they are really servicing Flash 11.2. I've heard rumors of Flash crashing anyway. Furthermore, I'm concerned about entering another situation, similar to when Linux only had Flash 7, and everyone else had Flash 8, and Flash 9.Virtually the only thing that worked with Flash video was Youtube.

I know there is Gnash, but I've never gotten Gnash to play anything at all. So color me concerned.

Make sense (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#41575965)

Considering the Linux flash player won't be upgraded any more ;)

Also as I remember it Firefox totally refused to use my plugin earlier claiming it was old with no way to turn it on so I don't see what's new really. Unless that message was a bug.

Fine! Make me update silver light (1)

Holammer (1217422) | about 2 years ago | (#41575979)

I'll just disable it again.

Great (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 2 years ago | (#41575995)

Great. More endless updates. What a nightmare

i HATE this strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41575999)

how do i know the "update" isn't some tricky javascript/xhmtl shenanigans from a compromised website? This happens with adobe plugins on my mac (i have to have adobe suite installed for work) and sometimes flash sites will cause a pop-up saying "do you want to update flash now?" and my first instinct is to say "fuck no!" like every other pop-up that pops up asking me to install something. This seems like a really bad idea and it's going to get abused.

Re:i HATE this strategy (1)

meustrus (1588597) | about 2 years ago | (#41576231)

This is the most important point. I don't feel safe updating Adobe Reader on Mac because it pops up saying "Please let me have admin access to update/install something." And then I have to go to Adobe's actual web site and clog my computer with the installer every time so Adobe will stop bugging me. I think most of us appreciate that security holes get fixed and updates get pushed out (in fact many of us would like it to happen more) but the updates really should be distinguishable from random malware pop-ups.

config: (1)

sponse (1468283) | about 2 years ago | (#41576025)

As far as you can disable this behavior using "config:" protocol, I don't care. Is just something else to add to the list.

Business model: Annoy your users (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about 2 years ago | (#41576043)

Pissing me off after forcing an update onto me that WILL NOT install but which retries that install EVERY FUCKING TIME I start each and every Mozilla program; an "update" which can't be removed without a full uninstall and which requires a confirmation in the focus-stealing pop-up after each time it fails.

Then there's Chrome constantly bugging me to log in and give other details so I can be tracked as if I was the star of The Running Man.

Why hello, Opera. How've you been?

Re:Business model: Annoy your users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576295)

Why hello, Opera. How've you been?

I've been doing great. Still rocking it. You may have noticed that I still use an outdated version numbering system. Please do not be alarmed by that.

Mozilla to BUG Firefox? (1)

foma84 (2079302) | about 2 years ago | (#41576087)

I find the title of TFS very, very low standard.
It's so prone to misinterpretation, it took me quite some time to get it, despite I've alredy seen the message in my browser.

Mod this up to make it a pledge to mods for quality's sake.

Thank you.

Re:Mozilla to BUG Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576875)

From your confusion, and the grammar of your post, I conclude that English is not your first language.

A day late, it seems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576103)

I believe this has been rolled out already. I got a banner warning me of outdated plugins while visiting Hotmail yesterday. You're then brought to this plugin check page for a full assessment:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/#

I wasn't forced to update and I certainly welcome the heads-up. Win7 and FF15 here. YMMV.

Disable (4, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about 2 years ago | (#41576167)

I have no problem with Mozilla doing this as long as the user (or admin) can disable it through about:config.

Re:Disable (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41576235)

Don't hold out on us! Where do you disable it? I'm trying now. So far no joy...

They'll SOON start? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576261)

Sadly, they've started already.

I opened my browser yesterday evening to find it had opened a new tab in addition to my homepage, with a list of plugins that it tagged as either urgently needing updates, were just out of date or were "ok". If this continues, I'll be taking steps to block the intrusion...

Pale Moon? (4, Interesting)

C0L0PH0N (613595) | about 2 years ago | (#41576265)

Pale Moon ( http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org] ) is a long-standing fork of Firefox produced by Moonchild Productions, which is distinguished by being optimized for efficiency and speed in 64 bit Vista and Windows 7. There are 32 bit versions as well. Firefox does not provide a 64 bit version at this time. If you've never heard of Pale Moon, check it out. It is now my main browser of choice. Here is a review: http://www.softwarecrew.com/2012/08/pale-moon-15-building-a-better-browser/ [softwarecrew.com] .

Perhaps this browser will give you your "Firefox" experience without the upgrade "bugging" that Mozilla is introducing.

Good one ( & another optimized 64-bit FF) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576305)

WATERFOX: -> http://waterfoxproject.org/ [waterfoxproject.org]

(Same basic idea as PaleMoon, in a 64-bit more highly compiler &/or "by-hand" optimized version of FireFox's "latest/greatest" builds...)

* Enjoy...

APK

P.S.=> I honestly can't decide WHICH is "the superior warrior" of the 2, but there you go - Either is a highly-optimized build of FireFox (for Windows users @ least)...

... apk

Disabling this bullshit (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41576297)

It seems to be a real problem that nobody has answered yet. I've changed some settings in about:config, and damned if they don't change back to their defaults when I restart the browser. Since Google has been no help, I'm counting on Slashdot for some help here. Don't let me down.

and java! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576521)

I finally responded to java's nag box on a net book last night. After the install, Firefox let me know that the plugins were not up to date and to update those.

catering to the tards (4, Informative)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 2 years ago | (#41576617)

They are trying get everyone to upgrade because the number 1 issue they have had on the tracker for months is related to people using old versions of flash and it reflects negatively on peoples view of the browser

Firefox PPC Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576781)

I use Firefox PPC Mac 3.6.26 on one unit and for the past couple of months every time I load a new tab it displays that message. Also when typing this very message the feedback speed for text updating on the screen is a crawl reminiscent of my 1978 BBS chats via 1200 baud modem. Is it really necessary to break old reliable software to make room for the new?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...