I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), because they not know the updater.
> I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for > the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of > people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), > because they not know the updater.
Hehe, you want forces updates, and I just had to calm down a few people who were throwing tomatoes at me and Mozilla because we are silently installing software (updates) on their computer, while they just want to be warned and then download and install the update when they like. Those people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything on their computer without their knowledge.
I wonder what they would say to that proposal of forced updates. ;-)
> Those people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything > on their computer without their knowledge.
I would imagine that these people would be eager to opt out of a silent update system. However, I think the majority of users would prefer an application that doesn't bother them with what they view as little details (where a little detail is a minor update, major updates that include UI changes are different). We get a lot of complaints that Firefox updates too often, people can't see even see the difference with the new version (it was actually a security patch), that we change our mind too much and should just ship one version (it was actually a security patch), etc.
For Firefox 4 minor updates will occur automatically. Users can change the setting in Options > Advanced > Update. We'll only be using the major update dialog box for changes like 4 to 4.5 or 5. Unfortunately users will still see the updating progress bar on load, but this is an implementation issue as opposed to a UI one (ideally the update could be applied in the background). We will also be able to prompt the user if they haven't restarted in a very long time and there is a particularly bad security vulnerability that need to be patched.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote: > blackbox schrieb:
> I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for >> the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of >> people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), >> because they not know the updater.
> Hehe, you want forces updates, and I just had to calm down a few people who > were throwing tomatoes at me and Mozilla because we are silently installing > software (updates) on their computer, while they just want to be warned and > then download and install the update when they like. Those people were > arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything on their computer > without their knowledge.
> I wonder what they would say to that proposal of forced updates. ;-)
I don't understand. The Mozilla is the FF's develeoper, not addon creator, the real (authoritative) developer. This is a upgrade for the browser. Very proposed for the users. They interests the install.
The last Chrome version update was a very fast by user, thx by automatic updater. I think this is a great idea. 2010
Robert Kaiser wrote: > blackbox schrieb: >> I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for >> the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of >> people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), >> because they not know the updater.
> Hehe, you want forces updates, and I just had to calm down a few people > who were throwing tomatoes at me and Mozilla because we are silently > installing software (updates) on their computer, while they just want to > be warned and then download and install the update when they like. Those > people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything on > their computer without their knowledge.
I totally agree with them! I don't even let Microsoft do that!
> I wonder what they would say to that proposal of forced updates. ;-)
> blackbox schrieb: >> I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for >> the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of >> people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), >> because they not know the updater.
> Hehe, you want forces updates, and I just had to calm down a few > people who were throwing tomatoes at me and Mozilla because we are > silently installing software (updates) on their computer, while they > just want to be warned and then download and install the update when > they like. Those people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to > install anything on their computer without their knowledge.
> I wonder what they would say to that proposal of forced updates. ;-)
I'm sure they wouldn't like it but there are also people that don't like being notified of updates... there is "no one size fits all" behavior for this that will please everyone just as the current behavior doesn't please everyone.
As for individual applications, the application itself is the one that decides what the default behavior is even with the silent update functionality that I am working on. Also, the update xml for advertising updates to the client has changed on trunk so applications can require a client notification for an individual update even if the client settings are to download / apply the update without notification.
I'm working on silent updates though it might not make Firefox 4. As for 'forced' update (like chrome update and many other update systems prior to chrome) chrome accomplishes this in part by forcing the install of chrome into the user's profile which has a set of issues associated with it that we don't want to have so we aren't taking that route.
> I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for > the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of > people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), > because they not know the updater. > _______________________________________________ > dev-apps-firefox mailing list > dev-apps-fire...@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>> Those people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything >> on their computer without their knowledge.
> I would imagine that these people would be eager to opt out of a silent > update system. However, I think the majority of users would prefer an > application that doesn't bother them with what they view as little details > (where a little detail is a minor update, major updates that include UI > changes are different).
I fully agree with you - as long as we can cater well to both those groups, I think it should work well. :)
I just found it so interesting to come directly from the discussion with that other group to that posting here suggesting the direct opposite. ;-)
Angry people? Solution: 2 choice in the (update) options: - automatic update (recommended - none notice) - notice me, if the program found update (you choose the install/or not)
>>> Those people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install >>> anything >>> on their computer without their knowledge.
>> I would imagine that these people would be eager to opt out of a silent >> update system. However, I think the majority of users would prefer an >> application that doesn't bother them with what they view as little >> details >> (where a little detail is a minor update, major updates that include UI >> changes are different).
> I fully agree with you - as long as we can cater well to both those > groups, I think it should work well. :)
> I just found it so interesting to come directly from the discussion with > that other group to that posting here suggesting the direct opposite. ;-)
> Robert Kaiser
It really doesn't matter which way you go with this, you will stir up a storm of protest. Some people NEVER want to update, others want every update, with no effort on their part, and others want control of what updates are done, and when. I feel like security updates should be automatic, but this may not be feasible, given that some users are still several releases back for their main program.
On Jul 24, 10:11 pm, blackbox <bkox...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for > the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of > people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), > because they not know the updater.
While I care and would opt-out of such a system in order to make sure I maintained full control over my system. Most users don't care and thus those users should be silently updated.
On Jul 26, 5:16 am, sabret00the <sabret00...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:11 pm, blackbox <bkox...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for > > the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of > > people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), > > because they not know the updater.
> While I care and would opt-out of such a system in order to make sure > I maintained full control over my system. Most users don't care and > thus those users should be silently updated.
Add the feature, make it an optional like Blackbox said, add it to the release notes. Then, on the "Firefox updated"/"Welcome to Firefox 4.0!" page when 4.0 is first started/updated, announce in big bold letters: "Make sure you read about all the new features in the RELEASE NOTES! DO IT! DO IT NOW!!"
Of course that might be going a little bit overboard but if users choose not to read about the "new features", that's their problem. Seriously.
> Add the feature, make it an optional like Blackbox said, add it to the > release notes. Then, on the "Firefox updated"/"Welcome to Firefox > 4.0!" page when 4.0 is first started/updated, announce in big bold > letters: "Make sure you read about all the new features in the RELEASE > NOTES! DO IT! DO IT NOW!!"
> Of course that might be going a little bit overboard but if users > choose not to read about the "new features", that's their problem. > Seriously.
You may be surprised to discover that this isn't enough to encourage people to upgrade, and that people often do not upgrade not because of a reasoned choice about whether or not they want the new features, or the additional protection, but because they don't understand software as well as we do.
In the past (see Blog of Metrics for more information) we've discovered that people choose not to upgrade because:
- they think it will cost money, - they think it will take a long time, - they think it will remove all of their customizations, bookmarks and history, - they are uncomfortable installing software
We could write messages (and do alter our messaging) to set aside many of these issues, but ultimately we find that there's a large number of people who don't upgrade because they don't understand the implications, not because they don't want the latest software.
> > Add the feature, make it an optional like Blackbox said, add it to the > > release notes. Then, on the "Firefox updated"/"Welcome to Firefox > > 4.0!" page when 4.0 is first started/updated, announce in big bold > > letters: "Make sure you read about all the new features in the RELEASE > > NOTES! DO IT! DO IT NOW!!"
> > Of course that might be going a little bit overboard but if users > > choose not to read about the "new features", that's their problem. > > Seriously.
> You may be surprised to discover that this isn't enough to encourage people to upgrade, and that people often do not upgrade not because of a reasoned choice about whether or not they want the new features, or the additional protection, but because they don't understand software as well as we do.
> In the past (see Blog of Metrics for more information) we've discovered that people choose not to upgrade because:
> - they think it will cost money, > - they think it will take a long time, > - they think it will remove all of their customizations, bookmarks and history, > - they are uncomfortable installing software
> We could write messages (and do alter our messaging) to set aside many of these issues, but ultimately we find that there's a large number of people who don't upgrade because they don't understand the implications, not because they don't want the latest software.
> cheers, > mike
So what does that exactly mean? Doesn't that mean that Mozilla should be using a forced upgrade in the future?
> On Jul 28, 7:57 am, Mike Beltzner<beltz...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-27, at 7:34 PM, Kirk M wrote:
>>> Add the feature, make it an optional like Blackbox said, add it to the >>> release notes. Then, on the "Firefox updated"/"Welcome to Firefox >>> 4.0!" page when 4.0 is first started/updated, announce in big bold >>> letters: "Make sure you read about all the new features in the RELEASE >>> NOTES! DO IT! DO IT NOW!!"
>>> Of course that might be going a little bit overboard but if users >>> choose not to read about the "new features", that's their problem. >>> Seriously.
>> You may be surprised to discover that this isn't enough to encourage people to upgrade, and that people often do not upgrade not because of a reasoned choice about whether or not they want the new features, or the additional protection, but because they don't understand software as well as we do.
>> In the past (see Blog of Metrics for more information) we've discovered that people choose not to upgrade because:
>> - they think it will cost money, >> - they think it will take a long time, >> - they think it will remove all of their customizations, bookmarks and history, >> - they are uncomfortable installing software
>> We could write messages (and do alter our messaging) to set aside many of these issues, but ultimately we find that there's a large number of people who don't upgrade because they don't understand the implications, not because they don't want the latest software.
>> cheers, >> mike
> So what does that exactly mean? Doesn't that mean that Mozilla should > be using a forced upgrade in the future?
Forced? I sure hope not. Automatic? Probably so, and IIRC, 4.0 will move to a policy of installing minor upgrades automatically (though presumably with a means of canceling the upgrade if desired).
As long as choice is there, I have little or no problem with increased automation.
> > I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for > > the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of > > people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), > > because they not know the updater.
> Hehe, you want forces updates, and I just had to calm down a few people > who were throwing tomatoes at me and Mozilla because we are silently > installing software (updates) on their computer, while they just want to > be warned and then download and install the update when they like. Those > people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything on > their computer without their knowledge.
> I wonder what they would say to that proposal of forced updates. ;-)
> Robert Kaiser
First, from my perspective, this is MY machine!!!!
Now, considering the sneaky way a `certain global operating system monopoly` forced an update tagged as a `security update` onto its users, only to have people discover what it actually did. (I am referring to the infamous WGA fiasco.)
Ever since then, I have taken the stance that an application may NOTIFY me of an update, BUT I AM THE ONE TO DETERMINE when, and if they get installed.
End of discussion.
Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable them and do them manually, is available. Otherwise, I change browsers.
Right now, as I type this out on Minefield 4.0b4pre, build date 20100805, I have a notification that updates are available. When I am done browsing, I will update.
On Jul 25, 10:52 am, blackbox <bkox...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Angry people? Solution: 2 choice in the (update) options: > - automatic update (recommended - none notice) > - notice me, if the program found update (you choose the install/or > not)
Blackbox,
why not three choices: 0 - NO updates 1 - check and notify only 2 - silent updates
This could be even expanded, not unlike Linux file permissions to:
> Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable > them and do them manually, is available.
I think that's a given. The question is what the default setting should be. The general feeling seems to be that for most users the preferred default is to just silently update and be done with it...
On Aug 6, 6:30 pm, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 8/6/10 6:26 PM, fatman wrote:
> > Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable > > them and do them manually, is available.
> I think that's a given. The question is what the default setting should > be. The general feeling seems to be that for most users the preferred > default is to just silently update and be done with it...
> -Boris
I agree, a silent automatic updater would actually be great.
*Boris Zbarsky* wrote: > On 8/6/10 6:26 PM, fatman wrote: >> Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable >> them and do them manually, is available.
> I think that's a given. The question is what the default setting should > be. The general feeling seems to be that for most users the preferred > default is to just silently update and be done with it...
What about asking the user on the first update, if he wants silent updates or every time asked? With default to silent.
> On 8/6/10 6:26 PM, fatman wrote: >> Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable >> them and do them manually, is available.
> I think that's a given. The question is what the default setting should > be. The general feeling seems to be that for most users the preferred > default is to just silently update and be done with it...
> -Boris
I am not in favor of silent updating. I really HATE the way Google Chrome installs. I am always forced to load the program after a while to check the version number to verify that it did, indeed, install. A 'new version update has taken place' message would be nice.
> > On 8/6/10 6:26 PM, fatman wrote: > >> Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable > >> them and do them manually, is available.
> > I think that's a given. The question is what the default setting should > > be. The general feeling seems to be that for most users the preferred > > default is to just silently update and be done with it...
> > -Boris
> I am not in favor of silent updating. I really HATE the way Google > Chrome installs. I am always forced to load the program after a while > to check the version number to verify that it did, indeed, install. A > 'new version update has taken place' message would be nice.
Spending many years watching users respond to different types of software and the way each type of software functions (read: pleases and/or irritates the user), I've found that when it comes to updating a piece of software, there's two types of psychology here. This basically boils down to: 'In what way can we take advantage of a users irritation' or 'how might we best irritate the user to *their* best advantage?'.
What I mean by this is is that we've all seen users in the past end up irritated by silent updates as well as notifications popping up in their face (regardless of the software or OS being used). Understanding you can't possibly please everyone all the time, taking these two types mentioned above and with the users best interest in mind, add "fatman's" 3 options in his previous comment for Firefox, Extension (Add-ons?) and Theme updates into Firefox 4.0 and make "Check and Notify" the default. Then make sure the 'update available' notification pop-up box rather noticeable if you know what I mean and add a check box with a bit of text that states something like; "Check here if you would like Firefox to update itself silently (no notifications)." And, of course, notifications of security updates need to be stressed more strongly than others (reddish background to the notification pop-up?).
If we really wanted to go the extra mile, we could even offer the user a choice of choosing silent updates for each individual type of update; Firefox, Themes or Extensions (Add-ons?) but that may be pushing it.
> On Aug 7, 5:14 am, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 8/6/2010 7:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > > On 8/6/10 6:26 PM, fatman wrote: > > >> Creating an silent updater is fine, as long as the option to disable > > >> them and do them manually, is available.
> > > I think that's a given. The question is what the default setting should > > > be. The general feeling seems to be that for most users the preferred > > > default is to just silently update and be done with it...
> > > -Boris
> > I am not in favor of silent updating. I really HATE the way Google > > Chrome installs. I am always forced to load the program after a while > > to check the version number to verify that it did, indeed, install. A > > 'new version update has taken place' message would be nice.
> Spending many years watching users respond to different types of > software and the way each type of software functions (read: pleases > and/or irritates the user), I've found that when it comes to updating > a piece of software, there's two types of psychology here. This > basically boils down to: 'In what way can we take advantage of a users > irritation' or 'how might we best irritate the user to *their* best > advantage?'.
> What I mean by this is is that we've all seen users in the past end up > irritated by silent updates as well as notifications popping up in > their face (regardless of the software or OS being used). > Understanding you can't possibly please everyone all the time, taking > these two types mentioned above and with the users best interest in > mind, add "fatman's" 3 options in his previous comment for Firefox, > Extension (Add-ons?) and Theme updates into Firefox 4.0 and make > "Check and Notify" the default. Then make sure the 'update available' > notification pop-up box rather noticeable if you know what I mean and > add a check box with a bit of text that states something like; "Check > here if you would like Firefox to update itself silently (no > notifications)." And, of course, notifications of security updates > need to be stressed more strongly than others (reddish background to > the notification pop-up?).
> If we really wanted to go the extra mile, we could even offer the user > a choice of choosing silent updates for each individual type of > update; Firefox, Themes or Extensions (Add-ons?) but that may be > pushing it.
Along with the items that have been addressed in these postings, I offer the following scenerio: I use certain addons which I have been using for quite some time and do not wish to see them go away because of an update to FF. This lack of addon compatibility was, in the past, a rather major factor in my decision to keep an update for FF. If I was unhappy with losing a particular addon, I would fall back to a prior version of FF. So I would find it a little irritating to be 'silently updated' the next time I logged into FF. This example is merely to point out a possible irritation factor even tho it has been suggested there be a option to the silent update. Another point is the "ownership" of a computer by the user. As it has been pointed out, there often is a natural tendency to "rebel" when someone initiates an update policy that does not include the owner. Of course, some individuals (which also has been posted) are not really aware of what the change(s) mean so they may or may not accept them. The users that fall in this category probably need to have help by incorporating an "automatic or silent" update. As I stated earlier, this is just hypothetical and submitted for your consideration (or dismissal). As long as I can opt in or out of these silent updates and as long as I can make changes to a couple of .js files to keep the addons I like without them being silently updated I am happy. For all practical purposes the fact I use FireFox (and have been before version 1.0) suggests that I am pleased with that critter. Enjoy your day.
> If I was unhappy with losing a > particular addon, I would fall back to a prior version of FF. So I > would > find it a little irritating to be 'silently updated' the next time I > logged > into FF.
You will never be silently updated to a version that can't support you addons, from all I'm hearing, this is only in discussion for "minor", i.e. security updates, which even nowadays don't lose any add-on compatibility.
Robert Kaiser
-- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
> > I think against the lot of vulnerability / derelict people, i want for > > the firefox 4 a forced update (aka chrome update). I see lot of > > people's machine, the firefox version is very old. 2.x, 3.x (not 3.5), > > because they not know the updater.
> Hehe, you want forces updates, and I just had to calm down a few people > who were throwing tomatoes at me and Mozilla because we are silently > installing software (updates) on their computer, while they just want to > be warned and then download and install the update when they like. Those > people were arguing that it's a privacy intrusion to install anything on > their computer without their knowledge.
> I wonder what they would say to that proposal of forced updates. ;-)
> Robert Kaiser
yes I support "force" updates even on Major versions, tons of people are using old verseions of firefox and mainly what make people switch to Chrome because of the speed is really slow for 2.x or 3.0
