Comments on: Fun and Games with Major Updates (some new options) http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/ Wed, 16 May 2012 01:47:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Robert Strong http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23832 Robert Strong Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:21:36 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23832 Bah... I misspoke to John and switched the purpose of the Later button with the purpose of the Never button. I created the namespace icon for Firefox, etc. years ago and as it stands it is not something I would provide in an official release as I stated in the bug. With effort it is possible to separate the update check from the browser as is other apps have done. The binary that actually applies the updates is completely separate though it is launched by Firefox... this gives us a lot of assurance that it isn't doing bad things since it never touches the net. As for the problem with being one update behind being solved by separating the update process completely from Firefox I'm not convinced this is the only or best way to fix that. As a matter of fact for Windows if we implemented MSI's we could use the MSI update facility which also allows non-admin users to update as long as the same cert is used. Bah… I misspoke to John and switched the purpose of the Later button with the purpose of the Never button.

I created the namespace icon for Firefox, etc. years ago and as it stands it is not something I would provide in an official release as I stated in the bug.

With effort it is possible to separate the update check from the browser as is other apps have done. The binary that actually applies the updates is completely separate though it is launched by Firefox… this gives us a lot of assurance that it isn’t doing bad things since it never touches the net.

As for the problem with being one update behind being solved by separating the update process completely from Firefox I’m not convinced this is the only or best way to fix that. As a matter of fact for Windows if we implemented MSI’s we could use the MSI update facility which also allows non-admin users to update as long as the same cert is used.

]]> By: Noah http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23814 Noah Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:15:44 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23814 It's called a desktop namespace shortcut: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264889 Although I think we should tie in Check for Updates, Crash Reports, and Profile manager choices on the menu. It’s called a desktop namespace shortcut:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264889

Although I think we should tie in Check for Updates, Crash Reports, and Profile manager choices on the menu.

]]> By: Noah http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23790 Noah Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:01:01 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23790 Hey AndersH, I like your separate updater idea. What comes to mind is a lot of software does have this separation of update service. Like Apple's Software Update, which alot of us hate. And I think Adobe has one too. But ours could be better, we already have updater.exe (which got a brand new icon that I don't like, the old one was better) and currently I don't know what happens if I try to open updater.exe with Firefox open or closed, but could we have it open standalone and ask if we want to update Firefox. I think though that we could add a 'Check for Firefox updates' shortcut in the user's Mozilla Firefox start menu folder, even though some users never look there. Also I'm not a fan of the downloading a update in the background while surfing, this makes the user think the browser is slow while they're surfing forgetting they are doing a background update. It seems to only benefit 56k users. I'd rather an in your face immediate download of an update happened for users with a fast connection. And there's a enhanced Firefox desktop icon that's been created a few years ago, that I think should be used by default in Firefox. Where a user can simply choose Safe Mode, Crash Reports, Check for Updates, etc just by right clicking the desktop icon. Currently, I think we only have "Browse the Internet" & "Firefox Options". Hey AndersH, I like your separate updater idea. What comes to mind is a lot of software does have this separation of update service. Like Apple’s Software Update, which alot of us hate. And I think Adobe has one too. But ours could be better, we already have updater.exe (which got a brand new icon that I don’t like, the old one was better) and currently I don’t know what happens if I try to open updater.exe with Firefox open or closed, but could we have it open standalone and ask if we want to update Firefox.

I think though that we could add a ‘Check for Firefox updates’ shortcut in the user’s Mozilla Firefox start menu folder, even though some users never look there. Also I’m not a fan of the downloading a update in the background while surfing, this makes the user think the browser is slow while they’re surfing forgetting they are doing a background update. It seems to only benefit 56k users. I’d rather an in your face immediate download of an update happened for users with a fast connection.

And there’s a enhanced Firefox desktop icon that’s been created a few years ago, that I think should be used by default in Firefox. Where a user can simply choose Safe Mode, Crash Reports, Check for Updates, etc just by right clicking the desktop icon. Currently, I think we only have “Browse the Internet” & “Firefox Options”.

]]> By: John O’Duinn’s Soapbox » Fun and Games with Major Updates (more followup) http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23719 John O’Duinn’s Soapbox » Fun and Games with Major Updates (more followup) Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:25:08 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23719 [...] AndersH asked an important question in comments to my last post., which deserved a proper response, hence this blog post. Thanks AndersH, sorry, I should have been more clear. [...] [...] AndersH asked an important question in comments to my last post., which deserved a proper response, hence this blog post. Thanks AndersH, sorry, I should have been more clear. [...]

]]> By: Robert Helmer http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23405 Robert Helmer Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:30:15 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23405 It should be possible on the AUS side to offer both a major and minor update at the same time (in the same update.xml), any reason not to do that and then change the client so the user is offered a choice between major and minor update? It should be possible on the AUS side to offer both a major and minor update at the same time (in the same update.xml), any reason not to do that and then change the client so the user is offered a choice between major and minor update?

]]> By: AndersH http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23375 AndersH Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:44:19 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23375 It seems the main problem is that you can't do a 2.(any)->3.(latest) upgrade, because of possible migration issues since testing all upgrade paths would be a huge task. But couldn't you, instead of having a lot of upgrade paths, lead the users on a upgrade hiway? That is, a user on any old major version (1.x or 2.x) would first be upgraded along that major version (possibly to 1.(latest) or 2.(latest)) until a major upgrade was possible and then upgraded on that branch, etc. To the users this would be advertised as a upgrade to the latest version (perhaps users would be allowed to choose what major version they would like to end at -- with the latest being the defualt -- if they have some particular objection to the latest major version). All the upgrades would be combined into one UI with one common progress bar. This would mean that the tested upgrade machinery would be used, but to the user it would look as one upgrade. Then any version (minor or major) larger than the user current could be advertised to the user, so users on old versions wouldn't ever stop receiving those pesky upgrade dialogs. The increased download size might be a issue, but then make it easy to have the download happen in the background. For example, when a upgrade is available you start downloading in the background and just popup a yellow bar in the top of the screen (the kind we by now are trained to ignore) saying that you have done so and giving some -- not to easy to accidentally hit -- way of stopping it. If the load on mirrors starts to become a issue, wouldn't it become time to look at using something like bittorrent in the browser to help out via web seeding. Lastly, couldn't the upgrade dialogs be contained in a "system addon" (that couldn't be removed or could easily be restored) so they would be upgraded independently of the browser, so you are not continusly a cycle behind? It seems to me that the upgrade checker/dialogs/advertising/offer doesn't need to be deep inside the browser. It seems the main problem is that you can’t do a 2.(any)->3.(latest) upgrade, because of possible migration issues since testing all upgrade paths would be a huge task. But couldn’t you, instead of having a lot of upgrade paths, lead the users on a upgrade hiway? That is, a user on any old major version (1.x or 2.x) would first be upgraded along that major version (possibly to 1.(latest) or 2.(latest)) until a major upgrade was possible and then upgraded on that branch, etc.

To the users this would be advertised as a upgrade to the latest version (perhaps users would be allowed to choose what major version they would like to end at — with the latest being the defualt — if they have some particular objection to the latest major version). All the upgrades would be combined into one UI with one common progress bar. This would mean that the tested upgrade machinery would be used, but to the user it would look as one upgrade.

Then any version (minor or major) larger than the user current could be advertised to the user, so users on old versions wouldn’t ever stop receiving those pesky upgrade dialogs.

The increased download size might be a issue, but then make it easy to have the download happen in the background. For example, when a upgrade is available you start downloading in the background and just popup a yellow bar in the top of the screen (the kind we by now are trained to ignore) saying that you have done so and giving some — not to easy to accidentally hit — way of stopping it.

If the load on mirrors starts to become a issue, wouldn’t it become time to look at using something like bittorrent in the browser to help out via web seeding.

Lastly, couldn’t the upgrade dialogs be contained in a “system addon” (that couldn’t be removed or could easily be restored) so they would be upgraded independently of the browser, so you are not continusly a cycle behind? It seems to me that the upgrade checker/dialogs/advertising/offer doesn’t need to be deep inside the browser.

]]> By: Robert Kaiser http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23344 Robert Kaiser Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:09:40 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23344 I really like 1 and 2, not so sure about 3 (esp. due to the last point you make here yourself) - and 4 might be useful but might need some more careful UE thinking. I really like 1 and 2, not so sure about 3 (esp. due to the last point you make here yourself) – and 4 might be useful but might need some more careful UE thinking.

]]> By: Jesper Kristensen http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23342 Jesper Kristensen Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:49:56 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23342 I thought the "Later" button meant "ask me again in X hours", whereas the "Never" (renamed "No thanks") button meant "don't ask me again for this particular Major Update offer". Am I way off here? Do you talk about adding a fourth button to the major update dialog? I thought the “Later” button meant “ask me again in X hours”, whereas the “Never” (renamed “No thanks”) button meant “don’t ask me again for this particular Major Update offer”. Am I way off here? Do you talk about adding a fourth button to the major update dialog?

]]> By: Daniel Einspanjer http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23338 Daniel Einspanjer Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:49:09 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23338 I'm sorry to nag.. but we expect people to be able to download 3.x and install it regardless of what point release of 2.0.0.x they have. QA doesn't test every point release migration path for that, why can't we extend the same minimal compatibility to these users rather than cherry picking particular point releases? If we wanted to be more upfront with the users, I guess we could build some sort of wrapper installer that told the user what they are potentially in for, and maybe even offer them the choice of upgradding to the latest point release for them, run that version (to do whatever migration is needed) and then upgrade to the major. At least that streamlines the process for them. I’m sorry to nag.. but we expect people to be able to download 3.x and install it regardless of what point release of 2.0.0.x they have. QA doesn’t test every point release migration path for that, why can’t we extend the same minimal compatibility to these users rather than cherry picking particular point releases?

If we wanted to be more upfront with the users, I guess we could build some sort of wrapper installer that told the user what they are potentially in for, and maybe even offer them the choice of upgradding to the latest point release for them, run that version (to do whatever migration is needed) and then upgrade to the major. At least that streamlines the process for them.

]]> By: bwmaister http://oduinn.com/blog/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23336 bwmaister Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:25:05 +0000 http://oduinn.com/2009/03/09/fun-and-games-with-major-updates-some-new-options/#comment-23336 I like this, especially the increased coverage of old dot releases. I would just say, and I'm sure you've considered it, that if it's possible to notify users on a non-supported old release that the upgrade process is going to be two-step (to make sure that all data is migrated safely, etc) that will save a lot of confusion and probably frustration. (I wanted to upgrade to 3 not 2! what's going on? how do I upgrade?) Obviously a double-upgrade is kindof lousy because of the fact that you have to restart Fx, and restarts (especially with lots of tabs) aren't exactly the speediest operation, so the fewer the number of people that have to do that, the better. With regards to the "How many people would accept the MU offer," slightly more than half (subjectively) of the people that I've upgraded didn't know that they were on an old release. The fact that "Later" means "Possibly never" or "Extremely Rarely" is not what people from a microsoft background are used to :-) Gently prompting every 6 weeks or so is probably completely acceptable and even a good idea, in my book. I like this, especially the increased coverage of old dot releases. I would just say, and I’m sure you’ve considered it, that if it’s possible to notify users on a non-supported old release that the upgrade process is going to be two-step (to make sure that all data is migrated safely, etc) that will save a lot of confusion and probably frustration. (I wanted to upgrade to 3 not 2! what’s going on? how do I upgrade?)

Obviously a double-upgrade is kindof lousy because of the fact that you have to restart Fx, and restarts (especially with lots of tabs) aren’t exactly the speediest operation, so the fewer the number of people that have to do that, the better.

With regards to the “How many people would accept the MU offer,” slightly more than half (subjectively) of the people that I’ve upgraded didn’t know that they were on an old release. The fact that “Later” means “Possibly never” or “Extremely Rarely” is not what people from a microsoft background are used to :-) Gently prompting every 6 weeks or so is probably completely acceptable and even a good idea, in my book.

]]>