Can always tell when a new version has been released

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
933 messages Options
1234567 ... 47
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
On 11/22/2012 9:33 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/22/2012 11:15 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what [hidden email] graced us
>> with on 11/22/2012 7:43 AM:
>>> On 11/21/2012 9:03 AM On a whim, jetjock pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> responder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/21/2012 9:43 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because users have addons being disabled, toolbars disappear, sites
>>>>>> don't open any longer, etc, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Silent" updates?  Hasn't happened yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not only that and I know the loyalist will quickly respond, but I duly
>>>>> upgraded to 17 when my reminder popped up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides the inane changes which to me have no logical meaning, the
>>>>> single biggest problem I am experiencing is that it slowed down the
>>>>> access and loading to an absolute crawl.
>>>>> Yes, I have plenty of resources, etc...don't need to go there.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I opened the crappy IE 8 and bingo...everything sped along as it
>>>>> used to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then downgraded to 16.0.2 and within 60 seconds was back to normal.
>>>>> Zippy, speedy access and loading.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have the talent to be a developer and I suppose maybe because
>>>>> my ego isn't nearly large enough to want to push my thoughts
>>>>> unilaterally onto everyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, Why, Why???
>>>> And yet, there are still folks in this group who just can't understand
>>>> why people like me will not jump on the auto-update bandwagon!
>>>> We get accused of endangering the entire Internet by not having the
>>>> latest and greatest "security" upgrades! Me, I'll stick with what I
>>>> know works. That said, I _*am*_ extremely greatfull to all you folks
>>>> that do the beta checking of the new releases so when I do update,
>>>> I know that version works.  :-)
>>> I get users all the time demanding to have Firefox stop updating.
>>> Because of how Firefox updates so poorly, users don't want to update
>>> at all.  I can't blame them.
>>>
>> Why not recommend the ESR release for them?
>>
> What?  An lose his talking point?  Nawww.
>

Here Ron, this was posted on another newsgroup about Firefox.  And as a
reminder, this is NOT "my" experience"

- - - - - BEGIN
FWiW, here's what became of my FireFox update experience.

Until a few moments ago, my 32-bit Vista system (3 GB RAM) had been
happily using FF 16.0.2. Notification arrived that FF 17 was available,
would I like to update to that? "Sure," I thought, "why not?" and
proceeded to gather in the update material -- 9.9 MB worth of it.

Next: stop and restart FF. Stopping went easily. When Process Explorer
showed no more Mozilla processes were running, I restarted FF. Almost
immediately, an error message cropped up, as illustrated in the jpg, saying

[X] Couldn't load XPCOM.  [OK]

(Title (in the Title Bar) for that message: "Firefox".)

Once I click on the [OK], all Mozilla processes close again.

OK: I go find the FF 17 Mozilla download site, and download it all again...
- - - - END

It is issues like this that makes users feel that Firefox is not a
reliable program.


--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by The Wanderer
On 11/24/2012 9:04 AM, The Wanderer wrote:

> On 11/23/2012 03:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2012 8:45 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2012 7:57 AM On a whim, WaltS pounded out on the keyboard
>
>>>> Is it how Firefox updates so poorly, or extensions, and themes don't
>>>> work
>>>> because during the 6 week Aurora cycle, and 6 week Beta cycle they
>>>> don't
>>>> test them, and update them to work.
>>>
>>> Firefox.  I've mentioned several times what users get with FF
>>> updates. Nothing "silent" about them.  In fact, they seem to make a
>>> big deal about
>>> an update occurring, unlike any other browser.
>>
>> Seems to me that other than the default theme, all the themes and
>> extensions
>> are developed by OTHER than Mozilla.  So, how can you blame Mozilla
>> for that?
>
> Because Mozilla are the ones who changed the browser in a way that isn't
> backwards compatible. It used to work, now it doesn't, and the only
> difference
> is that Mozilla changed something; therefore, Mozilla are to blame (or,
> if you
> want different possibly-unfair terminology, "responsible") for it breaking.
>
> Compatibility breaks should be a major thing, taking place only rarely, and
> should never happen as part of a routine update; they should be reserved
> for a
> major upgrade, such as - under the traditional model - when a new major
> version
> is released.
>
> That being one aspect of the main reason why breaking with that traditional
> model by making every release a major-version release is a bad idea. A
> major-version change is a way of saying "there are big, important
> changes here";
> that lets people know they might want to investigate the new version
> closely
> before upgrading.
>
> Making *every* release a major-version release, and releasing one every six
> weeks or so, either breaks the "major versions include big changes" rule
> (and
> therefore provides no at-a-glance hints of what releases *do* include big
> changes) or overloads people with those close investigations; in
> practice, from
> what I've observed, it seems to do both.
>
If you feel that way, you must be very put out by a host of
manufacturers of just about everything you use in your life.  Things
change, and often they change in such a way that it renders something
you have unusable.  On the other hand, should things always remain the
same so that nothing becomes obsolete?  I don't think so.
If you don't like frequent changes to Firefox/TB, then use the ESR
releases so that you only get 'shocked' once a year.  I very much favor
the incremental approach so that each release may break one or two
things, rather than once a year, accumulated, changes that may break
most of them.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 10:10 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/23/2012 12:17 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/22/2012 8:54 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>>> No Ron.  It's pointless, that's why.  ESR updates also.  The resolve is
>>> to turn off auto-update.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, that is self-destructive, and quite unnecessary.
>>
>
> Not when users would rather have their addons work properly than get a
> Firefox update that breaks them.
>
>
>
>
>
Those who want NOTHING to change should report to the local cemetery,
where things remain the same, for eternity.  Happiness.
For my part, I enjoy changes, most of the time.  THose who aren't able
to adapt, and modify, will be left standing, while the rest of use go on
into the scarey future.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 10:12 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/23/2012 12:16 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/22/2012 8:53 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>>> I have, but usually the response is negative, and ESR still updates,
>>> regardless.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In other words, they WANT something to gripe about, and WANT to be
>> exposed to hacking?  That makes NO sense.
>> OF course in the military, it is often pointed out that people aren't
>> happy unless they have something to gripe about.
>>
>
> No, they want a truly "silent" update that works.  That appears to be
> asking too much in the Mozilla world.
>
>
>
>
If you are willing to give up just about everything about Firefox that
is worthwhile, you could have those silent updates that break nothing,
but then they extensions would DO nothing.  That is, they would be
limited to just working with the data that comes in, rather than the way
the program works, and how the interface looks.
Example:  I find that my mouse pointer is used about 90% of the time on
the right half of my screen, so I moved my back arrow, and other such
controls to the right.  Try that with ANY other browser.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 10:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/23/2012 12:20 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/22/2012 9:05 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2012 9:21 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 9:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>> I updated over two dozen workstations on one network, and over half of
>>>>> the machines required me to do something that shouldn't be required of
>>>>> an average user.  One kept stating "Apply update" in the About dialog,
>>>>> even though it stated the version was 17.  Another required 3 tries to
>>>>> update even though I launched it with Administrator rights each time.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, the Maintenance service doesn't seem to work on Limited user
>>>>> accounts, regardless of the claim.  And yet Chrome updates and no one
>>>>> ever notices.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason I update this way on network machines is to monitor
>>>>> how
>>>>> an "average" machine reacts to updates.  Personally, it's faster
>>>>> for me
>>>>> to download the complete file and install it rather than screwing
>>>>> around
>>>>> with the poor update mechanism.  And that resolves the frequent
>>>>> firewall
>>>>> not registering the new file issue also.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So, you are blaming Firefox for the deficiency of your firewall?
>>>> Amazing.  If you would rather use Chrome, by all means do so.  If you
>>> Amazing?  Did I "blame" anything?  I only stated that from reports from
>>> user experiences, and telling them to download the complete file is
>>> easier than explaining how to register the file in their firewall.
>>>
>>>> like IE better, USE it.  If you want to use Firefox, then use that.  I
>>>> have had VERY few problems with updates.  Some of the more useful
>>>> (complex) addons have to be updated to work with new versions.  IF you
>>>> don't like that, use some other addon, or don't use addons, or go to a
>>>> browser that doesn't allow that kind of addon.  This kind of carping
>>>> just doesn't make sense to me.
>>>>
>>> I don't use hardly any addons personally, as Firefox is mainly used for
>>> support since it doesn't paste images into Gmail as explained in another
>>> thread.
>>>
>>>
>> Apparently YOURS doesn't.  Mine does.  Probably some subtle parameter
>> setting somewhere.  I have, at last count, 22 installed, and active,
>> extensions in Firefox.  Except for TACO with Abine (anti-tracking
>> extension), they all seem to keep up with beta versions quite nicely.  I
>> sometimes download a complete file, and sometimes update.  No trouble
>> with either in a very long time.
>>
>
> Ron, I don't usually refer to my Firefox issues here.  I don't have any
> issues, and if I do, I know how to resolve them.  I only report issues
> for users like you who are in a little bubble and think everything is
> peachy in Mozilla land.
>
> You're a 2 computer person, right?  I deal with two to three hundred
> Mozilla users a week about Mozilla issues.  Your minimal experience is
> nothing compared to what personal communication I have, and listening to
> what they go through.  And as I mentioned elsewhere, most of them are
> users your age.
>
>
>
Actually, I have 4 working computers in the house.  And spent 38 years
in the computer business, including time on the company 'help desk'.  No
lack of experience here.  Yes, I understand how users react to ANY
change.  Most people would be perfectly happy to still be living in
caves, and spending all day hunting fruits and nuts, and dragging women
back to their caves by their hair.  Just as long as NOTHING ever
changed.  I don't happen to be one of those people.  To me, lack of
change means death.  THere will be plenty of time for no change after I
am dead.  For now, I enjoy watching things change, even though I often
feel the changes are NOT for the better, at least they are still
changing.  Change is an indication of the life processes.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 10:24 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/22/2012 9:33 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/22/2012 11:15 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what [hidden email] graced us
>>> with on 11/22/2012 7:43 AM:
>>>> On 11/21/2012 9:03 AM On a whim, jetjock pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> responder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/21/2012 9:43 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because users have addons being disabled, toolbars disappear, sites
>>>>>>> don't open any longer, etc, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Silent" updates?  Hasn't happened yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not only that and I know the loyalist will quickly respond, but I
>>>>>> duly
>>>>>> upgraded to 17 when my reminder popped up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides the inane changes which to me have no logical meaning, the
>>>>>> single biggest problem I am experiencing is that it slowed down the
>>>>>> access and loading to an absolute crawl.
>>>>>> Yes, I have plenty of resources, etc...don't need to go there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I opened the crappy IE 8 and bingo...everything sped along as it
>>>>>> used to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then downgraded to 16.0.2 and within 60 seconds was back to normal.
>>>>>> Zippy, speedy access and loading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have the talent to be a developer and I suppose maybe because
>>>>>> my ego isn't nearly large enough to want to push my thoughts
>>>>>> unilaterally onto everyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, Why, Why???
>>>>> And yet, there are still folks in this group who just can't understand
>>>>> why people like me will not jump on the auto-update bandwagon!
>>>>> We get accused of endangering the entire Internet by not having the
>>>>> latest and greatest "security" upgrades! Me, I'll stick with what I
>>>>> know works. That said, I _*am*_ extremely greatfull to all you folks
>>>>> that do the beta checking of the new releases so when I do update,
>>>>> I know that version works.  :-)
>>>> I get users all the time demanding to have Firefox stop updating.
>>>> Because of how Firefox updates so poorly, users don't want to update
>>>> at all.  I can't blame them.
>>>>
>>> Why not recommend the ESR release for them?
>>>
>> What?  An lose his talking point?  Nawww.
>>
>
> Here Ron, this was posted on another newsgroup about Firefox.  And as a
> reminder, this is NOT "my" experience"
>
> - - - - - BEGIN
> FWiW, here's what became of my FireFox update experience.
>
> Until a few moments ago, my 32-bit Vista system (3 GB RAM) had been
> happily using FF 16.0.2. Notification arrived that FF 17 was available,
> would I like to update to that? "Sure," I thought, "why not?" and
> proceeded to gather in the update material -- 9.9 MB worth of it.
>
> Next: stop and restart FF. Stopping went easily. When Process Explorer
> showed no more Mozilla processes were running, I restarted FF. Almost
> immediately, an error message cropped up, as illustrated in the jpg, saying
>
> [X] Couldn't load XPCOM.  [OK]
>
> (Title (in the Title Bar) for that message: "Firefox".)
>
> Once I click on the [OK], all Mozilla processes close again.
>
> OK: I go find the FF 17 Mozilla download site, and download it all again...
> - - - - END
>
> It is issues like this that makes users feel that Firefox is not a
> reliable program.
>
>
Since neither of us really know just what the user did, or how, or what
the state of his computer was, it may well be that he did something
wrong, or something went wrong with his computer.  The fact is that
computers and operating systems aren't perfect.  The message indicates
the OS had a problem finding a file, without which Firefox couldn't be run.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

»Q«
In reply to this post by F1Com
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:24:37 -0800
[hidden email] wrote:

> It is issues like this that makes users feel that Firefox is not a
> reliable program.

Anyone could easily find posts about problems with any complicated
piece of software, to paste here as you do with Firefox posts.  You've
made the point that users don't like problems several dozen times, if
not hundreds already, in this group.  Is there something you're trying
to accomplish by doing this or is it just a compulsion?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/24/2012 9:05 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 9:04 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
>> Because Mozilla are the ones who changed the browser in a way that isn't
>> backwards compatible. It used to work, now it doesn't, and the only
>> difference
>> is that Mozilla changed something; therefore, Mozilla are to blame (or,
>> if you
>> want different possibly-unfair terminology, "responsible") for it breaking.
>>
>> Compatibility breaks should be a major thing, taking place only rarely, and
>> should never happen as part of a routine update; they should be reserved
>> for a
>> major upgrade, such as - under the traditional model - when a new major
>> version
>> is released.
>>
>> That being one aspect of the main reason why breaking with that traditional
>> model by making every release a major-version release is a bad idea. A
>> major-version change is a way of saying "there are big, important
>> changes here";
>> that lets people know they might want to investigate the new version
>> closely
>> before upgrading.
>>
>> Making *every* release a major-version release, and releasing one every six
>> weeks or so, either breaks the "major versions include big changes" rule
>> (and
>> therefore provides no at-a-glance hints of what releases *do* include big
>> changes) or overloads people with those close investigations; in
>> practice, from
>> what I've observed, it seems to do both.
>>
> If you feel that way, you must be very put out by a host of
> manufacturers of just about everything you use in your life.  Things
> change, and often they change in such a way that it renders something
> you have unusable.  On the other hand, should things always remain the

Yes, but hardly every six weeks.

> same so that nothing becomes obsolete?  I don't think so.
> If you don't like frequent changes to Firefox/TB, then use the ESR
> releases so that you only get 'shocked' once a year.  I very much favor
> the incremental approach so that each release may break one or two
> things, rather than once a year, accumulated, changes that may break
> most of them.
>

The whole point is, why should anything "break" every six weeks?  You
find that acceptable?





--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

responder-2
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/24/2012 12:14 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 11/24/2012 10:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> On 11/23/2012 12:20 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 11/22/2012 9:05 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2012 9:21 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/22/2012 9:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>> I updated over two dozen workstations on one network, and over
>>>>>> half of
>>>>>> the machines required me to do something that shouldn't be
>>>>>> required of
>>>>>> an average user.  One kept stating "Apply update" in the About
>>>>>> dialog,
>>>>>> even though it stated the version was 17.  Another required 3
>>>>>> tries to
>>>>>> update even though I launched it with Administrator rights each time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And no, the Maintenance service doesn't seem to work on Limited user
>>>>>> accounts, regardless of the claim.  And yet Chrome updates and no one
>>>>>> ever notices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason I update this way on network machines is to monitor
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> an "average" machine reacts to updates.  Personally, it's faster
>>>>>> for me
>>>>>> to download the complete file and install it rather than screwing
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> with the poor update mechanism.  And that resolves the frequent
>>>>>> firewall
>>>>>> not registering the new file issue also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are blaming Firefox for the deficiency of your firewall?
>>>>> Amazing.  If you would rather use Chrome, by all means do so.  If you
>>>> Amazing?  Did I "blame" anything?  I only stated that from reports from
>>>> user experiences, and telling them to download the complete file is
>>>> easier than explaining how to register the file in their firewall.
>>>>
>>>>> like IE better, USE it.  If you want to use Firefox, then use that.  I
>>>>> have had VERY few problems with updates.  Some of the more useful
>>>>> (complex) addons have to be updated to work with new versions.  IF you
>>>>> don't like that, use some other addon, or don't use addons, or go to a
>>>>> browser that doesn't allow that kind of addon.  This kind of carping
>>>>> just doesn't make sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't use hardly any addons personally, as Firefox is mainly used for
>>>> support since it doesn't paste images into Gmail as explained in
>>>> another
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Apparently YOURS doesn't.  Mine does.  Probably some subtle parameter
>>> setting somewhere.  I have, at last count, 22 installed, and active,
>>> extensions in Firefox.  Except for TACO with Abine (anti-tracking
>>> extension), they all seem to keep up with beta versions quite nicely.  I
>>> sometimes download a complete file, and sometimes update.  No trouble
>>> with either in a very long time.
>>>
>>
>> Ron, I don't usually refer to my Firefox issues here.  I don't have any
>> issues, and if I do, I know how to resolve them.  I only report issues
>> for users like you who are in a little bubble and think everything is
>> peachy in Mozilla land.
>>
>> You're a 2 computer person, right?  I deal with two to three hundred
>> Mozilla users a week about Mozilla issues.  Your minimal experience is
>> nothing compared to what personal communication I have, and listening to
>> what they go through.  And as I mentioned elsewhere, most of them are
>> users your age.
>>
>>
>>
> Actually, I have 4 working computers in the house.  And spent 38 years
> in the computer business, including time on the company 'help desk'.  No
> lack of experience here.  Yes, I understand how users react to ANY
> change.  Most people would be perfectly happy to still be living in
> caves, and spending all day hunting fruits and nuts, and dragging women
> back to their caves by their hair.  Just as long as NOTHING ever
> changed.  I don't happen to be one of those people.  To me, lack of
> change means death.  THere will be plenty of time for no change after I
> am dead.  For now, I enjoy watching things change, even though I often
> feel the changes are NOT for the better, at least they are still
> changing.  Change is an indication of the life processes.
>

You wax philosophical, but yours is not the only real world.

There are many of us who come from a variety of places and have
knowledge and experience that others don't have.

For anyone who doesn't go with the mainstream on this board, to make a
point is like trying to push a car uphill with a rope.

We all have our issues that emanate from many different sources, not all
related to computing. You like it hot and I like it cold....so what?

Whether we pay for a product or not, we should all be able to express
our opinions without fear of insulting those who either developed it or
those who only see it their way.

I early on posted that with the advent of 17, my access and page loading
slowed down to a virtual timeout. After racking what little brain I have
left, I simply, without touching the profile or anything else in my
system, installed 16.0.2 over 17....without uninstalling or anything,
and immediately got back my full loading and speed.
After that post, I got lots of input, some related, some not and went
about my way.

Today, just for fun, I installed 17 over the 16.0.2 and yes, everything
slowed down to a major crawl...so I repeated installing 16.0.2 back over
17 and I couldn't be happier.

My initial post about this had nothing to do with criticizing the
developers...only to point out what I did to solve a problem hoping it
might help someone in a similar situation.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/24/2012 9:07 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 10:10 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> On 11/23/2012 12:17 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 11/22/2012 8:54 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> No Ron.  It's pointless, that's why.  ESR updates also.  The resolve is
>>>> to turn off auto-update.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, that is self-destructive, and quite unnecessary.
>>>
>> Not when users would rather have their addons work properly than get a
>> Firefox update that breaks them.
>>
>>
>>
> Those who want NOTHING to change should report to the local cemetery,
> where things remain the same, for eternity.  Happiness.
> For my part, I enjoy changes, most of the time.  THose who aren't able
> to adapt, and modify, will be left standing, while the rest of use go on
> into the scarey future.
>

What you call "change" is when (by your own words), "(I) favor the
incremental approach so that each release may break one or two
things..."  THAT is unacceptable.

If iOS broke something every time you updated, would you be using it?  I
think not.  And yet you feel the "scary future" of browser updates
breaking things is okay.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/24/2012 9:17 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 10:24 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Here Ron, this was posted on another newsgroup about Firefox.  And as a
>> reminder, this is NOT "my" experience"
>>
>> - - - - - BEGIN
>> FWiW, here's what became of my FireFox update experience.
>>
>> Until a few moments ago, my 32-bit Vista system (3 GB RAM) had been
>> happily using FF 16.0.2. Notification arrived that FF 17 was available,
>> would I like to update to that? "Sure," I thought, "why not?" and
>> proceeded to gather in the update material -- 9.9 MB worth of it.
>>
>> Next: stop and restart FF. Stopping went easily. When Process Explorer
>> showed no more Mozilla processes were running, I restarted FF. Almost
>> immediately, an error message cropped up, as illustrated in the jpg, saying
>>
>> [X] Couldn't load XPCOM.  [OK]
>>
>> (Title (in the Title Bar) for that message: "Firefox".)
>>
>> Once I click on the [OK], all Mozilla processes close again.
>>
>> OK: I go find the FF 17 Mozilla download site, and download it all again...
>> - - - - END
>>
>> It is issues like this that makes users feel that Firefox is not a
>> reliable program.
>>
>>
> Since neither of us really know just what the user did, or how, or what
> the state of his computer was, it may well be that he did something
> wrong, or something went wrong with his computer.  The fact is that
> computers and operating systems aren't perfect.  The message indicates
> the OS had a problem finding a file, without which Firefox couldn't be run.
>

I know the user is an advanced computer user, by the advice he offers in
the newsgroup.  He is only reporting his failed update experience.

I find your defense of update breakage almost amusing.  "he did
something wrong", "something went wrong with his computer", computers
and OS's aren't perfect".  Yeah, blame EVERYTHING but Firefox.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/24/2012 9:09 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 10:12 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> On 11/23/2012 12:16 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 11/22/2012 8:53 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> I have, but usually the response is negative, and ESR still updates,
>>>> regardless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In other words, they WANT something to gripe about, and WANT to be
>>> exposed to hacking?  That makes NO sense.
>>> OF course in the military, it is often pointed out that people aren't
>>> happy unless they have something to gripe about.
>>>
>> No, they want a truly "silent" update that works.  That appears to be
>> asking too much in the Mozilla world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> If you are willing to give up just about everything about Firefox that
> is worthwhile, you could have those silent updates that break nothing,
> but then they extensions would DO nothing.  That is, they would be
> limited to just working with the data that comes in, rather than the way
> the program works, and how the interface looks.

You obviously haven't installed Firefox in a Limited User account.  The
"silent update" still doesn't work properly, even with the Maintenance
service running.  I have to run FF using an Admin account for it to
update on dozens of workstations.  And yet Chrome installs silently in
LU accounts.

> Example:  I find that my mouse pointer is used about 90% of the time on
> the right half of my screen, so I moved my back arrow, and other such
> controls to the right.  Try that with ANY other browser.
>

Well, moving the mouse cursor over to the Back button is lame IMO.
ALT-left arrow is twice as fast, and you can do that in ANY browser!




--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/24/2012 9:14 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 10:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Ron, I don't usually refer to my Firefox issues here.  I don't have any
>> issues, and if I do, I know how to resolve them.  I only report issues
>> for users like you who are in a little bubble and think everything is
>> peachy in Mozilla land.
>>
>> You're a 2 computer person, right?  I deal with two to three hundred
>> Mozilla users a week about Mozilla issues.  Your minimal experience is
>> nothing compared to what personal communication I have, and listening to
>> what they go through.  And as I mentioned elsewhere, most of them are
>> users your age.
>>
>>
>>
> Actually, I have 4 working computers in the house.  And spent 38 years
> in the computer business, including time on the company 'help desk'.  No

That isn't the point.  You have 4 computers and yourself.  I hear from
thousands of individuals on their computers.

And Firefox issues were non-existent 38 years ago.

> lack of experience here.  Yes, I understand how users react to ANY
> change.  Most people would be perfectly happy to still be living in
> caves, and spending all day hunting fruits and nuts, and dragging women
> back to their caves by their hair.  Just as long as NOTHING ever

Silly and not true.

> changed.  I don't happen to be one of those people.  To me, lack of
> change means death.

And to thousands of users, a browser breaking every 6 weeks is death,
when they can't do something simple like open a web page.






--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Christian Riechers-3
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 08:19 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/24/2012 9:09 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>> If you are willing to give up just about everything about Firefox that
>> is worthwhile, you could have those silent updates that break nothing,
>> but then they extensions would DO nothing.  That is, they would be
>> limited to just working with the data that comes in, rather than the way
>> the program works, and how the interface looks.
>
> You obviously haven't installed Firefox in a Limited User account.  The
> "silent update" still doesn't work properly, even with the Maintenance
> service running.  I have to run FF using an Admin account for it to
> update on dozens of workstations.  And yet Chrome installs silently in
> LU accounts.

The silent update feature works fine for others. Did you consider this
being a problem with your machines? Have you filed a bug for this?

--
Christian

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 1:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/24/2012 9:05 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/24/2012 9:04 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
>>> Because Mozilla are the ones who changed the browser in a way that isn't
>>> backwards compatible. It used to work, now it doesn't, and the only
>>> difference
>>> is that Mozilla changed something; therefore, Mozilla are to blame (or,
>>> if you
>>> want different possibly-unfair terminology, "responsible") for it
>>> breaking.
>>>
>>> Compatibility breaks should be a major thing, taking place only
>>> rarely, and
>>> should never happen as part of a routine update; they should be reserved
>>> for a
>>> major upgrade, such as - under the traditional model - when a new major
>>> version
>>> is released.
>>>
>>> That being one aspect of the main reason why breaking with that
>>> traditional
>>> model by making every release a major-version release is a bad idea. A
>>> major-version change is a way of saying "there are big, important
>>> changes here";
>>> that lets people know they might want to investigate the new version
>>> closely
>>> before upgrading.
>>>
>>> Making *every* release a major-version release, and releasing one
>>> every six
>>> weeks or so, either breaks the "major versions include big changes" rule
>>> (and
>>> therefore provides no at-a-glance hints of what releases *do* include
>>> big
>>> changes) or overloads people with those close investigations; in
>>> practice, from
>>> what I've observed, it seems to do both.
>>>
>> If you feel that way, you must be very put out by a host of
>> manufacturers of just about everything you use in your life.  Things
>> change, and often they change in such a way that it renders something
>> you have unusable.  On the other hand, should things always remain the
>
> Yes, but hardly every six weeks.
>
>> same so that nothing becomes obsolete?  I don't think so.
>> If you don't like frequent changes to Firefox/TB, then use the ESR
>> releases so that you only get 'shocked' once a year.  I very much favor
>> the incremental approach so that each release may break one or two
>> things, rather than once a year, accumulated, changes that may break
>> most of them.
>>
>
> The whole point is, why should anything "break" every six weeks?  You
> find that acceptable?
>
>
>
>
>
I don't have anything that breaks every 6 weeks, and I use the beta
versions.  TACO stops working until about time for the next release, but
I am not that fond of it anyway.  Nothing else has broken for several
releases.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
On 11/24/2012 1:40 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 1:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> On 11/24/2012 9:05 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 11/24/2012 9:04 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
>>>> Because Mozilla are the ones who changed the browser in a way that isn't
>>>> backwards compatible. It used to work, now it doesn't, and the only
>>>> difference
>>>> is that Mozilla changed something; therefore, Mozilla are to blame (or,
>>>> if you
>>>> want different possibly-unfair terminology, "responsible") for it
>>>> breaking.
>>>>
>>>> Compatibility breaks should be a major thing, taking place only
>>>> rarely, and
>>>> should never happen as part of a routine update; they should be reserved
>>>> for a
>>>> major upgrade, such as - under the traditional model - when a new major
>>>> version
>>>> is released.
>>>>
>>>> That being one aspect of the main reason why breaking with that
>>>> traditional
>>>> model by making every release a major-version release is a bad idea. A
>>>> major-version change is a way of saying "there are big, important
>>>> changes here";
>>>> that lets people know they might want to investigate the new version
>>>> closely
>>>> before upgrading.
>>>>
>>>> Making *every* release a major-version release, and releasing one
>>>> every six
>>>> weeks or so, either breaks the "major versions include big changes" rule
>>>> (and
>>>> therefore provides no at-a-glance hints of what releases *do* include
>>>> big
>>>> changes) or overloads people with those close investigations; in
>>>> practice, from
>>>> what I've observed, it seems to do both.
>>>>
>>> If you feel that way, you must be very put out by a host of
>>> manufacturers of just about everything you use in your life.  Things
>>> change, and often they change in such a way that it renders something
>>> you have unusable.  On the other hand, should things always remain the
>> Yes, but hardly every six weeks.
>>
>>> same so that nothing becomes obsolete?  I don't think so.
>>> If you don't like frequent changes to Firefox/TB, then use the ESR
>>> releases so that you only get 'shocked' once a year.  I very much favor
>>> the incremental approach so that each release may break one or two
>>> things, rather than once a year, accumulated, changes that may break
>>> most of them.
>>>
>> The whole point is, why should anything "break" every six weeks?  You
>> find that acceptable?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I don't have anything that breaks every 6 weeks, and I use the beta
> versions.  TACO stops working until about time for the next release, but
> I am not that fond of it anyway.  Nothing else has broken for several
> releases.
>

I was only going by what you said, "...so that each release may break
one or two things..."



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by responder-2
On 11/24/2012 1:08 PM, responder wrote:

> On 11/24/2012 12:14 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/24/2012 10:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2012 12:20 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 9:05 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/2012 9:21 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the
>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/22/2012 9:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>> I updated over two dozen workstations on one network, and over
>>>>>>> half of
>>>>>>> the machines required me to do something that shouldn't be
>>>>>>> required of
>>>>>>> an average user.  One kept stating "Apply update" in the About
>>>>>>> dialog,
>>>>>>> even though it stated the version was 17.  Another required 3
>>>>>>> tries to
>>>>>>> update even though I launched it with Administrator rights each
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And no, the Maintenance service doesn't seem to work on Limited user
>>>>>>> accounts, regardless of the claim.  And yet Chrome updates and no
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> ever notices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason I update this way on network machines is to monitor
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> an "average" machine reacts to updates.  Personally, it's faster
>>>>>>> for me
>>>>>>> to download the complete file and install it rather than screwing
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> with the poor update mechanism.  And that resolves the frequent
>>>>>>> firewall
>>>>>>> not registering the new file issue also.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are blaming Firefox for the deficiency of your firewall?
>>>>>> Amazing.  If you would rather use Chrome, by all means do so.  If you
>>>>> Amazing?  Did I "blame" anything?  I only stated that from reports
>>>>> from
>>>>> user experiences, and telling them to download the complete file is
>>>>> easier than explaining how to register the file in their firewall.
>>>>>
>>>>>> like IE better, USE it.  If you want to use Firefox, then use
>>>>>> that.  I
>>>>>> have had VERY few problems with updates.  Some of the more useful
>>>>>> (complex) addons have to be updated to work with new versions.  IF
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> don't like that, use some other addon, or don't use addons, or go
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> browser that doesn't allow that kind of addon.  This kind of carping
>>>>>> just doesn't make sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use hardly any addons personally, as Firefox is mainly used
>>>>> for
>>>>> support since it doesn't paste images into Gmail as explained in
>>>>> another
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Apparently YOURS doesn't.  Mine does.  Probably some subtle parameter
>>>> setting somewhere.  I have, at last count, 22 installed, and active,
>>>> extensions in Firefox.  Except for TACO with Abine (anti-tracking
>>>> extension), they all seem to keep up with beta versions quite
>>>> nicely.  I
>>>> sometimes download a complete file, and sometimes update.  No trouble
>>>> with either in a very long time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ron, I don't usually refer to my Firefox issues here.  I don't have any
>>> issues, and if I do, I know how to resolve them.  I only report issues
>>> for users like you who are in a little bubble and think everything is
>>> peachy in Mozilla land.
>>>
>>> You're a 2 computer person, right?  I deal with two to three hundred
>>> Mozilla users a week about Mozilla issues.  Your minimal experience is
>>> nothing compared to what personal communication I have, and listening to
>>> what they go through.  And as I mentioned elsewhere, most of them are
>>> users your age.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Actually, I have 4 working computers in the house.  And spent 38 years
>> in the computer business, including time on the company 'help desk'.  No
>> lack of experience here.  Yes, I understand how users react to ANY
>> change.  Most people would be perfectly happy to still be living in
>> caves, and spending all day hunting fruits and nuts, and dragging women
>> back to their caves by their hair.  Just as long as NOTHING ever
>> changed.  I don't happen to be one of those people.  To me, lack of
>> change means death.  THere will be plenty of time for no change after I
>> am dead.  For now, I enjoy watching things change, even though I often
>> feel the changes are NOT for the better, at least they are still
>> changing.  Change is an indication of the life processes.
>>
>
> You wax philosophical, but yours is not the only real world.
>
> There are many of us who come from a variety of places and have
> knowledge and experience that others don't have.
>
> For anyone who doesn't go with the mainstream on this board, to make a
> point is like trying to push a car uphill with a rope.
>
> We all have our issues that emanate from many different sources, not all
> related to computing. You like it hot and I like it cold....so what?
>
> Whether we pay for a product or not, we should all be able to express
> our opinions without fear of insulting those who either developed it or
> those who only see it their way.
>
> I early on posted that with the advent of 17, my access and page loading
> slowed down to a virtual timeout. After racking what little brain I have
> left, I simply, without touching the profile or anything else in my
> system, installed 16.0.2 over 17....without uninstalling or anything,
> and immediately got back my full loading and speed.
> After that post, I got lots of input, some related, some not and went
> about my way.
>
> Today, just for fun, I installed 17 over the 16.0.2 and yes, everything
> slowed down to a major crawl...so I repeated installing 16.0.2 back over
> 17 and I couldn't be happier.
>
> My initial post about this had nothing to do with criticizing the
> developers...only to point out what I did to solve a problem hoping it
> might help someone in a similar situation.
>
Your experience, as you have already been told, is NOT the norm.  In
fact, from absence of a number of 'me toos', I suspect it is something
on your system.  Have you tried the standard troubleshooting process?
Or do you expect all your clothes to fit 'off the rack'?  People who
want the software to work the way they want it too have to be willing to
invest some of their own time, especially when the software comes FREE.
  Believe me, I criticize the developers quite often, but it can
degenerate into griping for griping's sake, pretty quickly.
What you did to solve the problem, DIDN'T solve the problem, it just
avoided it.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

F1Com
In reply to this post by Christian Riechers-3
On 11/24/2012 1:10 PM On a whim, Christian Riechers pounded out on the
keyboard

> On 11/24/2012 08:19 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> On 11/24/2012 9:09 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>> If you are willing to give up just about everything about Firefox that
>>> is worthwhile, you could have those silent updates that break nothing,
>>> but then they extensions would DO nothing.  That is, they would be
>>> limited to just working with the data that comes in, rather than the way
>>> the program works, and how the interface looks.
>> You obviously haven't installed Firefox in a Limited User account.  The
>> "silent update" still doesn't work properly, even with the Maintenance
>> service running.  I have to run FF using an Admin account for it to
>> update on dozens of workstations.  And yet Chrome installs silently in
>> LU accounts.
>
> The silent update feature works fine for others. Did you consider this
> being a problem with your machines? Have you filed a bug for this?
>

What others?  Have YOU seen FF update in a Windows LU account?  I doubt
the same problem would exist on over two dozen workstations.  The only
thing they have in common is they run under a LU account.




--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 1:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/24/2012 9:07 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/24/2012 10:10 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2012 12:17 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 8:54 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>> No Ron.  It's pointless, that's why.  ESR updates also.  The
>>>>> resolve is
>>>>> to turn off auto-update.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, that is self-destructive, and quite unnecessary.
>>>>
>>> Not when users would rather have their addons work properly than get a
>>> Firefox update that breaks them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Those who want NOTHING to change should report to the local cemetery,
>> where things remain the same, for eternity.  Happiness.
>> For my part, I enjoy changes, most of the time.  THose who aren't able
>> to adapt, and modify, will be left standing, while the rest of use go on
>> into the scarey future.
>>
>
> What you call "change" is when (by your own words), "(I) favor the
> incremental approach so that each release may break one or two
> things..."  THAT is unacceptable.
>
> If iOS broke something every time you updated, would you be using it?  I
> think not.  And yet you feel the "scary future" of browser updates
> breaking things is okay.
>
>
>
OH, YES.  It often breaks dozens of apps, sometimes those I use, a lot.
  It is the app writer's responsibility to adhere to standards in order
to keep their apps working, and to fix them when they don't work.
Then there is the issue with the Apple Maps, which many people call
useless because of database irregularities, and rendering problems in
the 3D mode.  I am confident that the bugs will be fixed, and new ones
introduced next update.  It has always been this way in the computer
business.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can always tell when a new version has been released

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by F1Com
On 11/24/2012 1:14 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/24/2012 9:17 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 11/24/2012 10:24 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Here Ron, this was posted on another newsgroup about Firefox.  And as a
>>> reminder, this is NOT "my" experience"
>>>
>>> - - - - - BEGIN
>>> FWiW, here's what became of my FireFox update experience.
>>>
>>> Until a few moments ago, my 32-bit Vista system (3 GB RAM) had been
>>> happily using FF 16.0.2. Notification arrived that FF 17 was available,
>>> would I like to update to that? "Sure," I thought, "why not?" and
>>> proceeded to gather in the update material -- 9.9 MB worth of it.
>>>
>>> Next: stop and restart FF. Stopping went easily. When Process Explorer
>>> showed no more Mozilla processes were running, I restarted FF. Almost
>>> immediately, an error message cropped up, as illustrated in the jpg,
>>> saying
>>>
>>> [X] Couldn't load XPCOM.  [OK]
>>>
>>> (Title (in the Title Bar) for that message: "Firefox".)
>>>
>>> Once I click on the [OK], all Mozilla processes close again.
>>>
>>> OK: I go find the FF 17 Mozilla download site, and download it all
>>> again...
>>> - - - - END
>>>
>>> It is issues like this that makes users feel that Firefox is not a
>>> reliable program.
>>>
>>>
>> Since neither of us really know just what the user did, or how, or what
>> the state of his computer was, it may well be that he did something
>> wrong, or something went wrong with his computer.  The fact is that
>> computers and operating systems aren't perfect.  The message indicates
>> the OS had a problem finding a file, without which Firefox couldn't be
>> run.
>>
>
> I know the user is an advanced computer user, by the advice he offers in
> the newsgroup.  He is only reporting his failed update experience.
>
> I find your defense of update breakage almost amusing.  "he did
> something wrong", "something went wrong with his computer", computers
> and OS's aren't perfect".  Yeah, blame EVERYTHING but Firefox.
>
>
>
IF the problem occurred on all systems, then it might be FF's fault.  If
it occurs only rarely, on random computers, I am going to look elsewhere
for the problem.  The first, and most common, source of errors, is the
human in the process.  And nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234567 ... 47