SUMO community discussions

EOL for 3.6 and ESR

  • 29 Replies
  • Last reply by James (doing minimal support)
  1. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    I'm wondering if instead of just recommending Opera or Firefox 3.6 to users of unsupported Operating Systems, should we just suggest they run the ESR? It will be more secure for them, at least, more secure than 3.6 (since it will receive updates until 2013), and will provide a better experience than sticking with 3.6.

    It obviously isn't ideal, but if we said that they can use the ESR to receive security updates until 2013, but it isn't a support option, it may be something else to provide there users. They will obviously be upset enough at finding out their computers are ancient, but at least this way it may alleviate some of that.

    Obviously this only applies to those OSes that support 10.

    I'm wondering if instead of just recommending Opera or Firefox 3.6 to users of unsupported Operating Systems, should we just suggest they run the ESR? It will be more secure for them, at least, more secure than 3.6 (since it will receive updates until 2013), and will provide a better experience than sticking with 3.6. It obviously isn't ideal, but if we said that they can use the ESR to receive security updates until 2013, but it isn't a support option, it may be something else to provide there users. They will obviously be upset enough at finding out their computers are ancient, but at least this way it may alleviate some of that. Obviously this only applies to those OSes that support 10.

    Modified by user633449 on

  2. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    See /en-US/kb/firefox-36-no-longer-suppor.../2391 and /en-US/kb/firefox-no-longer-works-win.../2390.

    See [/en-US/kb/firefox-36-no-longer-supported/discuss/2391] and [/en-US/kb/firefox-no-longer-works-windows-2000/discuss/2390].
  3. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    Awesome, thanks for pointing that out.

    Awesome, thanks for pointing that out.
  4. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    No the ESR is not for individuals. Recommending that individuals switch to the ESR is beyond the scope of that project.

    No the ESR is not for individuals. Recommending that individuals switch to the ESR is beyond the scope of that project.
  5. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    It may be beyond the scope of the ESR project, but how do we deal with this in the support forum ? We are already suggesting use of ESR for compatibility issues, and even if we did not some users will use it and suggest it. So I asked /forums/contributors/708306 about that specific point.

    It may be beyond the scope of the ESR project, but how do we deal with this in the support forum ? We are already suggesting use of ESR for compatibility issues, and even if we did not some users will use it and suggest it. So I asked [/forums/contributors/708306] about that specific point.
  6. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    Verdi said

    No the ESR is not for individuals. Recommending that individuals switch to the ESR is beyond the scope of that project.

    SUMO doesn't treat issues specific to organizations (deployment...), but shouldn't ignore organizations. Linking to a FAQ about ESR in these two articles about Windows 2000 and Fx 3.6 should filter individual users. I agree we shouldn't link to it in Install an older version of Firefox.

    By the way, we can't say that Fx 10 is unsecure in Home page - Top and Latest Firefox issues because SUMO is unable to distinguish Fx 10 from Fx 10 ESR.

    ''Verdi [[#post-46239|said]]'' <blockquote> No the ESR is not for individuals. Recommending that individuals switch to the ESR is beyond the scope of that project. </blockquote> SUMO doesn't treat issues specific to organizations (deployment...), but shouldn't ignore organizations. Linking to [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ a FAQ about ESR] in these two articles about Windows 2000 and Fx 3.6 should filter individual users. I agree we shouldn't link to it in [[Installing a previous version of Firefox]]. By the way, we can't say that Fx 10 is unsecure in [[Home page - Top]] and [[Latest Firefox issues]] because SUMO is unable to distinguish Fx 10 from Fx 10 ESR.
  7. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    Specifically, I was thinking this use case:

    User running Windows 2000, sees that Firefox 13 won't run on their OS. They file a thread. Should we give them an option to, along with the "official" fixes in the article, to install ESR to keep using Firefox with security updates. I wasn't meaning the articles should be changed, nor organizations (they should refer to their IT) but just a rough policy on helping individual users who want to keep using Firefox on old OSes.

    Specifically, I was thinking this use case: User running Windows 2000, sees that Firefox 13 won't run on their OS. They file a thread. Should we give them an option to, along with the "official" fixes in the article, to install ESR to keep using Firefox with security updates. I wasn't meaning the articles should be changed, nor organizations (they should refer to their IT) but just a rough policy on helping individual users who want to keep using Firefox on old OSes.
  8. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    We are already suggesting use of ESR for compatibility issues

    Where are we doing this?


    Tylerdowner said

    Specifically, I was thinking this use case: User running Windows 2000, sees that Firefox 13 won't run on their OS. They file a thread. Should we give them an option to, along with the "official" fixes in the article, to install ESR to keep using Firefox with security updates. I wasn't meaning the articles should be changed, nor organizations (they should refer to their IT) but just a rough policy on helping individual users who want to keep using Firefox on old OSes.

    No, we should say what the article says - update windows if they can or switch to Opera. Actually, updating their os (which may have to include hardware updates or a new computer) is the real solution. Using Opera is only slightly better than nothing. Their OS and probably plugins will be vulnerable. But Opera, for now at least, seems to be supporting this so it's better for the user.

    For the vast majority of people, if they can run ESR they can run the latest Firefox and those threads will be searchable and readable by everyone (they won't notice the OS version). To put things in perspective, Windows 2000 users account for 0.17% of SUMO traffic. Linux users are 20X that.

    ''John99 [[#post-46240|said]]'' <blockquote> We are already suggesting use of ESR for compatibility issues </blockquote> Where are we doing this? *For add-on compatibility issues we have these recommendations - [[Add-ons are disabled after updating Firefox]] *For EOL issues we now have these recommendations: **[[Firefox 3.6 is no longer supported]] **[[Firefox no longer works with Windows 2000]] **[[Firefox no longer works with some versions of Windows XP]] **[[Firefox no longer works with Mac OS X 10.4 or PowerPC processors]] ''Tylerdowner [[#post-46242|said]]'' <blockquote> Specifically, I was thinking this use case: User running Windows 2000, sees that Firefox 13 won't run on their OS. They file a thread. Should we give them an option to, along with the "official" fixes in the article, to install ESR to keep using Firefox with security updates. I wasn't meaning the articles should be changed, nor organizations (they should refer to their IT) but just a rough policy on helping individual users who want to keep using Firefox on old OSes. </blockquote> No, we should say what the article says - update windows if they can or switch to Opera. Actually, updating their os (which may have to include hardware updates or a new computer) is the real solution. Using Opera is only slightly better than nothing. Their OS and probably plugins will be vulnerable. But Opera, for now at least, seems to be supporting this so it's better for the user. For the vast majority of people, if they can run ESR they can run the latest Firefox and those threads will be searchable and readable by everyone (they won't notice the OS version). To put things in perspective, Windows 2000 users account for 0.17% of SUMO traffic. Linux users are 20X that.
  9. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Verdi said

    John99 said
    We are already suggesting use of ESR for compatibility issues

    Where are we doing this?

    I was referring to support forum posts by contributors/mods etc as linked in the other thread. I would anticipate such recommendations and solutions proliferating.

    (/questions/925442) You could try the "extended support" version of Firefox 10 from here: ....
    (/questions/924388#answer-323987) Something you may be interested in is the Extended Support Release of Firefox. Right now, it is based off firefox 10, ....

    P.S. Another solution posted by us

    James: Actually it is safe to use the Firefox 10.0 if you resort to using the Extended Support Release ESR channel builds and not regular 10.0 release channel version (10.0.2 ... Read more...
    ''Verdi [[#post-46252|said]]'' <blockquote> ''John99 [[#post-46240|said]]'' <blockquote> We are already suggesting use of ESR for compatibility issues </blockquote> Where are we doing this? </blockquote> I was referring to support forum posts by contributors/mods etc as linked in the other thread. I would anticipate such recommendations and solutions proliferating. <blockquote>([/questions/925442 ]) You could try the "extended support" version of Firefox 10 from here: .... <br/> ([/questions/924388#answer-323987]) Something you may be interested in is the Extended Support Release of Firefox. Right now, it is based off firefox 10, .... </blockquote> -------- P.S. Another solution posted by us <blockquote>James: Actually it is safe to use the Firefox 10.0 if you resort to using the Extended Support Release ESR channel builds and not regular 10.0 release channel version (10.0.2 ... [/questions/927031#answer-331708 Read more]... <blockquote/>

    Modified by John99 on

  10. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    I was referring to support forum posts by contributors/mods etc as linked in the other thread. I would anticipate such recommendations and solutions proliferating.

    I think we should stop doing that immediately.

    ''John99 [[#post-46258|said]]'' <blockquote> I was referring to support forum posts by contributors/mods etc as linked in the other thread. I would anticipate such recommendations and solutions proliferating. </blockquote> I think we should stop doing that immediately.
  11. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    So we'd rather recommend that users stay with Firefox 3.6, which won't receive any more updates after next week, than use a version of Firefox that will receive updates until 2013?

    No, neither situation is ideal, but those users are running unsupported configurations anyway (none of the OSes we are dropping are receiving anymore updates from their vendors) and users should understand that what they are running is non-standard operation anyway.

    Yes, 99.99% of users shouldn't be running anything but Firefox.latest, but some either can't upgrade their OS (not enough money), don't want to (have specialty software), or just plain don't care (those users aren't our focus). But saying "Hey, use this older software that is insecure" when there is a version that will be secure for at least another 6-8 months, is somewhat odd I think.

    We could always say "Hey, if you choose to use this you are running enterprise software on a personal computer. We don't provide any support for this. We strongly urge you upgrade your PC to keep using Firefox.latest." and then link to the landing page of ESR (which is pretty complicated and scary in itself).

    Please note this mainly applies to Windows 2000, the Mac situation is different as 3.6 is the latest that will run on that Os or PPC, and Windows xp users should just upgrade. and as Verdi says, Windows 2000 is a small portion of SUMO traffic.

    So we'd rather recommend that users stay with Firefox 3.6, which won't receive any more updates after next week, than use a version of Firefox that will receive updates until 2013? No, neither situation is ideal, but those users are running unsupported configurations anyway (none of the OSes we are dropping are receiving anymore updates from their vendors) and users should understand that what they are running is non-standard operation anyway. Yes, 99.99% of users shouldn't be running anything but Firefox.latest, but some either can't upgrade their OS (not enough money), don't want to (have specialty software), or just plain don't care (those users aren't our focus). But saying "Hey, use this older software that is insecure" when there is a version that will be secure for at least another 6-8 months, is somewhat odd I think. We could always say "Hey, if you choose to use this you are running enterprise software on a personal computer. We don't provide any support for this. We strongly urge you upgrade your PC to keep using Firefox.latest." and then link to the landing page of ESR (which is pretty complicated and scary in itself). Please note this mainly applies to Windows 2000, the Mac situation is different as 3.6 is the latest that will run on that Os or PPC, and Windows xp users should just upgrade. and as Verdi says, Windows 2000 is a small portion of SUMO traffic.

    Modified by user633449 on

  12. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    I guess what I'm looking for is a official SUMO position so then we can point contributors and users to it concerning ESR. Do we not talk about it and pretend it doesn't exist for our purposes, reference it in some situations, what exactly?

    I guess what I'm looking for is a official SUMO position so then we can point contributors and users to it concerning ESR. Do we not talk about it and pretend it doesn't exist for our purposes, reference it in some situations, what exactly?
  13. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    Individual users with ESR will complain that their extensions with binaries are incompatible.

    Individual users with ESR will complain that their extensions with binaries are incompatible.
  14. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    For the record, in the two cases that John pointed out (1 and 2), the users should have been told to use the latest Firefox. Using an insecure version because you want an extension to work or because you have the mistaken belief that it's less new and therefor more stable is not good. And telling them to use the ESR is also not good because it, for example, will not include backports of any stability fixes (but those users should have an IT department).

    In the cases where the user will no longer be able to use the latest Firefox (and can't or won't upgrade Windows), I've recommended that they switch to the latest Opera. It's better than staying on 3.6. Of course their OS and probably plugins are vulnerable so they are in trouble anyway.

    For mac users who can't or won't update I've left in using 3.6 as an option because there are no good alternatives. Their OS and plugins are definitely vulnerable. The vast majority of them couldn't run the ESR if they wanted to. Really all most of them can do is get a computer that can run 10.6 or 10.7 in which case they can run the latest Firefox.

    For the record, in the two cases that John pointed out ([https://support.mozilla.org/questions/925442 1] and [https://support.mozilla.org/questions/924388#answer-323987 2]), the users should have been told to use the latest Firefox. Using an insecure version because you want an extension to work or because you have the mistaken belief that it's less new and therefor more stable is not good. And telling them to use the ESR is also not good because it, for example, will not include backports of any stability fixes (but those users should have an IT department). In the cases where the user will no longer be able to use the latest Firefox (and can't or won't upgrade Windows), I've recommended that they switch to the latest Opera. It's better than staying on 3.6. Of course their OS and probably plugins are vulnerable so they are in trouble anyway. For mac users who can't or won't update I've left in using 3.6 as an option because there are no good alternatives. Their OS and plugins are definitely vulnerable. The vast majority of them couldn't run the ESR if they wanted to. Really all most of them can do is get a computer that can run 10.6 or 10.7 in which case they can run the latest Firefox.
  15. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    Sooooo, Official SUMO Policy, don't mention ESR to anyone, support goes on like ESR doesn't exist?

    Sooooo, Official SUMO Policy, don't mention ESR to anyone, support goes on like ESR doesn't exist?
  16. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    So to sum up:

    • Windows XP SP 2 and higher => run the latest Firefox
    • Windows XP RTM and SP 1 => upgrade for free to SP 3 and run the latest Firefox
    • Windows 2000 and lower => upgrade windows (and probably your computer) and run the latest Firefox.
      • Or run Opera on a vulnerable system (only an option because I know everyone can't/won't upgrade Windows).
    • Mac 10.4 or PowerPC user => upgrade to 10.6 or 10.7 (probably requires a different computer) and run the latest Firefox.
      • Or stick with 3.6, their whole system is vulnerable and even if we recommended ESR they can't run it. (only an option because I know everyone can't/won't upgrade Mac OS).
    • Linux => Run the latest Firefox.
      • I've only seen one person with a linux box that couldn't run the latest (it has a 13 or 14 year old cpu).
    So to sum up: *Windows XP SP 2 and higher => run the latest Firefox *Windows XP RTM and SP 1 => upgrade for free to SP 3 and run the latest Firefox *Windows 2000 and lower => upgrade windows (and probably your computer) and run the latest Firefox. **Or run Opera on a vulnerable system (only an option because I know everyone can't/won't upgrade Windows). *Mac 10.4 or PowerPC user => upgrade to 10.6 or 10.7 (probably requires a different computer) and run the latest Firefox. **Or stick with 3.6, their whole system is vulnerable and even if we recommended ESR they can't run it. (only an option because I know everyone can't/won't upgrade Mac OS). *Linux => Run the latest Firefox. **I've only seen [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/924444 one person] with a linux box that couldn't run the latest (it has a 13 or 14 year old cpu).
  17. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    Tylerdowner said

    Sooooo, Official SUMO Policy, don't mention ESR to anyone, support goes on like ESR doesn't exist?

    The only place I can see you making a case for the ESR is a Windows 2000 user. But given the choice between telling them to use the ESR and recommending Opera I (and the product and marketing teams) felt it was better to recommend Opera.

    ''Tylerdowner [[#post-46273|said]]'' <blockquote> Sooooo, Official SUMO Policy, don't mention ESR to anyone, support goes on like ESR doesn't exist? </blockquote> The only place I can see you making a case for the ESR is a Windows 2000 user. But given the choice between telling them to use the ESR and recommending Opera I (and the product and marketing teams) felt it was better to recommend Opera.
  18. user633449
    user633449 503 posts
    more options

    Alrighty, awesome, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Thanks for clarifying!

    Alrighty, awesome, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Thanks for clarifying!
  19. Kensie
    Kensie 666 posts
    more options

    Why not add in a suggestion to try linux for the users with old Windows? At least for those who can't afford an upgrade it might make sense. For people who have chosen to stick with it because that's the one they want then that's their choice, we can't help them.

    That's the hard part, we want to help everyone, but especially as this is official Mozilla Support we have to tell some people that their choices are ones we can't help them with. Maybe it's ok to point them to Mozillazine for example? At least then they're in better hands than on their own.

    Why not add in a suggestion to try linux for the users with old Windows? At least for those who can't afford an upgrade it might make sense. For people who have chosen to stick with it because that's the one they want then that's their choice, we can't help them. That's the hard part, we want to help everyone, but especially as this is official Mozilla Support we have to tell some people that their choices are ones we can't help them with. Maybe it's ok to point them to Mozillazine for example? At least then they're in better hands than on their own.
  20. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    Lucy said

    Why not add in a suggestion to try linux for the users with old Windows? At least for those who can't afford an upgrade it might make sense.

    I originally had this option in the article but I took it out because I believe it's not really a solution. Going from Windows 2000 or Mac 10.4 to Linux would require backing up all your important documents, finding the linux build that will work on your hardware (in the case of PPC mac, good luck with that), formatting your hard drive and installing a new operating system and then finally transferring your files over. Oh and now none of the programs you bought will work. This is not a real general computer user kind of solution. This is really a very very edge-case, highly technical solution. I'd guess that all the people in this situation who were technical enough and cared about implementing something like this will just do it. A blurb in our article won't change that.

    ''Lucy [[#post-46290|said]]'' <blockquote> Why not add in a suggestion to try linux for the users with old Windows? At least for those who can't afford an upgrade it might make sense. </blockquote> I originally had this option in the article but I took it out because I believe it's not really a solution. Going from Windows 2000 or Mac 10.4 to Linux would require backing up all your important documents, finding the linux build that will work on your hardware (in the case of PPC mac, good luck with that), formatting your hard drive and installing a new operating system and then finally transferring your files over. Oh and now none of the programs you bought will work. This is not a real general computer user kind of solution. This is really a very very edge-case, highly technical solution. I'd guess that all the people in this situation who were technical enough and cared about implementing something like this will just do it. A blurb in our article won't change that.
  1. 1
  2. 2