Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

John H Meyers-2
My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
but when I manually "check for updates,"
the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.

IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
to force the download upon the user
_before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.

Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
"undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite sequence,
one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of actions.

Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
"Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update" button,
no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even show me
the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!

A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called "Polish joke"
might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"

How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev channel,"
without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?

As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible judgment,
I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own career.

--

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Daniel-257
John H Meyers wrote:

> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
> but when I manually "check for updates,"
> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>
> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
> to force the download upon the user
> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.
>
> Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
> "undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite sequence,
> one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of actions.
>
> Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
> "Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update" button,
> no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
> to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even show me
> the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!
>
> A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called
> "Polish joke"
> might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
> that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
> to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"
>
> How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
> with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev channel,"
> without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?
>
> As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible judgment,
> I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
> to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
> the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
> as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own career.
>

John, although I accept SeaMonkey update when they become available, I,
too, would like to have the option of rejecting an update, if I wanted
to, *AND TO BE ABLE TO DO IT _BEFORE_ THE UPDATE FILE HAS BEEN
DOWNLOADED*, SO i COULD GIVE A VERSION SOME TIME (on someone else's
computer) *before* I then download the update file!

But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Was Greywolf
In reply to this post by John H Meyers-2
On 25/04/2012 6:27 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
> but when I manually "check for updates,"
> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>
> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
> to force the download upon the user
> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it. [Etc]

+1

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by John H Meyers-2
On 4/25/2012 5:27 AM, John H Meyers wrote:

> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
> but when I manually "check for updates,"
> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>
> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
> to force the download upon the user
> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.
>
> Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
> "undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite sequence,
> one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of actions.
>
> Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
> "Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update" button,
> no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
> to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even show me
> the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!
>
> A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called
> "Polish joke"
> might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
> that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
> to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"
>
> How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
> with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev channel,"
> without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?
>
> As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible judgment,
> I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
> to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
> the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
> as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own career.
>
I tend to agree with your position, although not as strongly as you
state it.  I think they should just automatically check to see if there
is an update, and then ASK if you want to install it.  If you click
'yes', THEN download and install.  The developers seem to think that
just asking if there IS an update is permission..  That tends to get the
current version installed more often, which is the intent.

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, Daniel wrote:

> John H Meyers wrote:
>> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
>> but when I manually "check for updates,"
>> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
>> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>>
>> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
>> to force the download upon the user
>> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.
>>
>> Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
>> "undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite sequence,
>> one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of actions.
>>
>> Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
>> "Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update"
>> button,
>> no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
>> to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even
>> show me
>> the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!
>>
>> A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called
>> "Polish joke"
>> might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
>> that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
>> to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"
>>
>> How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
>> with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev channel,"
>> without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?
>>
>> As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible
>> judgment,
>> I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
>> to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
>> the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
>> as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own
>> career.
>>
>
> John, although I accept SeaMonkey update when they become available, I,
> too, would like to have the option of rejecting an update, if I wanted
> to, *AND TO BE ABLE TO DO IT _BEFORE_ THE UPDATE FILE HAS BEEN
> DOWNLOADED*, SO i COULD GIVE A VERSION SOME TIME (on someone else's
> computer) *before* I then download the update file!
>
> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>
So, you don't want to take YOUR turn in the barrel?  Why do you think
you don't have to take an arrow now and then?  Grin.

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

John H Meyers-2
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, Daniel wrote:

[about Thunderbird automatically downloading updates,
even before asking whether you'd want to install them,
and then you can't get rid of the "check for updates" button
having changed to "install update" (not even identifying
what specific version is demanding to be installed)]

> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight),
> I don't think MicroSoft really made it optional
> to not install any MS updates, either.

They didn't?

Well, I once had a murderer living in an apartment next door to me,
so that's why no one should complain if I merely beat up a few of you :)

--


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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

John H Meyers-2
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 4/25/2012 10:13 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I tend to agree with your position, although not as strongly as you state it.

I'm taking the "bad cop" role today -- "somebody had to do it" ;-)

> I think they should just automatically check to see if there is an update,
> and then ASK if you want to install it. If you click 'yes', THEN download and install.

Of course!

But currently Thunderbird downloads first, then asks as an afterthought,
and sits there with the "check for updates" button
permanently changed to "Install update"
(and not even an identification of what update).

> The developers seem to think that just asking if there IS an update is permission.
> That tends to get the current version installed more often, which is the intent.

Here such deceit and entrapment will get your product banned instead.

Barging into my neighbor's house to "update" his plumbing
without asking him might also get you shot.

Although Microsoft has been suspected of sneaking a few things
into Windows Updates without asking, I am asked every single time,
just as I requested in my settings, at TWO points during each update --
first whether I want to download, then whether I want to install,
and every offered update comes with a box to un-check to decline it,
plus a verbose explanation,
even though half of the explanations are the same
(to stop someone from taking control of my computer,
which I think ought to include a defense against Mozilla :)

If even the most formerly arrogant of all dominant vendors
has finally learned its lesson, where does bit player Mozilla
come off to think it doesn't need to?

The only vendor and product I let do this is Google Chrome browser,
which even acts in a very unobtrusive manner when updating,
because they've proved they are profoundly intelligent,
profoundly responsible, and never screw up anything,
whereas Mozilla has proved, again and again,
that it is at the other extreme end of the entire spectrum.

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

WaltS-3
On 04/25/2012 08:24 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
> But currently Thunderbird downloads first, then asks as an afterthought,
> and sits there with the "check for updates" button
> permanently changed to "Install update"
> (and not even an identification of what update).

I don't know about Windows installations, but in my manually installed
Thunderbird versions on Linux, under the Update tab in Advanced
preferences, I have "Automatically check for updates to:" Thunderbird
and Installed Add-ons checked.

Under When updates to Thunderbird are found I have "Ask me what I want
to do" checked. It always notifies me that an update is available, and I
have the option to Update or be reminded later.

In Add-ons Manager I have "Update Add-ons Automatically" checked under
the little gear deal.

Checked your settings lately?
--
Thunderbird (15.0a1) Daily | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Some people just have to pass on the right, when you are supposed to
pass on the left. Depending on the country.


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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

clay-14
On 04/25/2012 5:49 PM, WLS wrote:

> On 04/25/2012 08:24 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
>>  But currently Thunderbird downloads first, then asks as an afterthought,
>>  and sits there with the "check for updates" button
>>  permanently changed to "Install update"
>>  (and not even an identification of what update).
>
> I don't know about Windows installations, but in my manually installed
> Thunderbird versions on Linux, under the Update tab in Advanced
> preferences, I have "Automatically check for updates to:" Thunderbird
> and Installed Add-ons checked.
>
> Under When updates to Thunderbird are found I have "Ask me what I want
> to do" checked. It always notifies me that an update is available, and I
> have the option to Update or be reminded later...

That's just the other edge of the sword.
Either be nagged every time there is a update available, or have it
forced on us if we check manually.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

clay-14
In reply to this post by John H Meyers-2
On 04/25/2012 5:24 PM, John H Meyers wrote:

> On 4/25/2012 10:13 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> I tend to agree with your position, although not as strongly as you
>> state it.
>
> I'm taking the "bad cop" role today -- "somebody had to do it" ;-)
>
>> I think they should just automatically check to see if there is an
>> update,
>> and then ASK if you want to install it. If you click 'yes', THEN
>> download and install.
>
> Of course!
>
> But currently Thunderbird downloads first, then asks as an afterthought,
> and sits there with the "check for updates" button
> permanently changed to "Install update"
> (and not even an identification of what update).
>
>> The developers seem to think that just asking if there IS an update is
>> permission.
>> That tends to get the current version installed more often, which is
>> the intent.
>
> Here such deceit and entrapment will get your product banned instead.
>
> Barging into my neighbor's house to "update" his plumbing
> without asking him might also get you shot.
>
> Although Microsoft has been suspected of sneaking a few things
> into Windows Updates without asking, I am asked every single time,
> just as I requested in my settings, at TWO points during each update --
> first whether I want to download, then whether I want to install,
> and every offered update comes with a box to un-check to decline it,
> plus a verbose explanation,
> even though half of the explanations are the same
> (to stop someone from taking control of my computer,
> which I think ought to include a defense against Mozilla :)
>
> If even the most formerly arrogant of all dominant vendors
> has finally learned its lesson, where does bit player Mozilla
> come off to think it doesn't need to?

Your answer is in your next paragraph. Mozilla want to be just like
Mike, er... Chrome.
>
> The only vendor and product I let do this is Google Chrome browser,
> which even acts in a very unobtrusive manner when updating,
> because they've proved they are profoundly intelligent,
> profoundly responsible, and never screw up anything,
> whereas Mozilla has proved, again and again,
> that it is at the other extreme end of the entire spectrum.
>

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

WaltS-3
In reply to this post by clay-14
On 04/25/2012 09:50 PM, clay wrote:
> That's just the other edge of the sword.
> Either be nagged every time there is a update available, or have it
> forced on us if we check manually.

If you don't want an update, don't check manually, let the application
do it.

For releases you only get nagged every six weeks. Not at all if I
understand how the new silent update feature I see posters whining about
works. So which do you want?

I get nagged daily for the Nightly builds, and weekly for the Beta builds.

--
Thunderbird Beta | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Humans aren't a color of skin, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation,
or a flag. We are human beings and that is how we need to see and treat
each other. - Justin Sane
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 4/25/2012 5:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.

Of course they do.  Please don't spread FUD.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> John H Meyers wrote:
>>> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
>>> but when I manually "check for updates,"
>>> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
>>> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>>>
>>> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
>>> to force the download upon the user
>>> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.
>>>
>>> Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
>>> "undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite sequence,
>>> one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of
>>> actions.
>>>
>>> Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
>>> "Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update"
>>> button,
>>> no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
>>> to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even
>>> show me
>>> the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!
>>>
>>> A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called
>>> "Polish joke"
>>> might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
>>> that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
>>> to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"
>>>
>>> How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
>>> with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev channel,"
>>> without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?
>>>
>>> As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible
>>> judgment,
>>> I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
>>> to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
>>> the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
>>> as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own
>>> career.
>>>
>>
>> John, although I accept SeaMonkey update when they become available, I,
>> too, would like to have the option of rejecting an update, if I wanted
>> to, *AND TO BE ABLE TO DO IT _BEFORE_ THE UPDATE FILE HAS BEEN
>> DOWNLOADED*, SO i COULD GIVE A VERSION SOME TIME (on someone else's
>> computer) *before* I then download the update file!
>>
>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
>> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>>
> So, you don't want to take YOUR turn in the barrel? Why do you think you
> don't have to take an arrow now and then? Grin.
>

Why??? Because I'm not really a Power User, Ron, so those that are Power
Users are much more likely to test a program out than I am!

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by John H Meyers-2
John H Meyers wrote:

> On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>
> [about Thunderbird automatically downloading updates,
> even before asking whether you'd want to install them,
> and then you can't get rid of the "check for updates" button
> having changed to "install update" (not even identifying
> what specific version is demanding to be installed)]
>
>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight),
>> I don't think MicroSoft really made it optional
>> to not install any MS updates, either.
>
> They didn't?
>
> Well, I once had a murderer living in an apartment next door to me,
> so that's why no one should complain if I merely beat up a few of you :)
>

??

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
Tarkus wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 5:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
>> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>
> Of course they do. Please don't spread FUD.

How do Microsoft notify me that updates are ready to download or
install, Tarkus?? Usually, the first thing I know about it is when I
turn-off my computer and *it* tells me it's installing updates and I
shouldn't switch off the computer.

Not ask me if I want to install, just install!!

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 4/26/2012 5:07 AM, Daniel wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> John H Meyers wrote:
>>>> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
>>>> but when I manually "check for updates,"
>>>> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
>>>> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>>>>
>>>> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
>>>> to force the download upon the user
>>>> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.
>>>>
>>>> Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
>>>> "undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite sequence,
>>>> one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of
>>>> actions.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
>>>> "Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update"
>>>> button,
>>>> no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
>>>> to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even
>>>> show me
>>>> the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!
>>>>
>>>> A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called
>>>> "Polish joke"
>>>> might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
>>>> that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
>>>> to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"
>>>>
>>>> How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
>>>> with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev channel,"
>>>> without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?
>>>>
>>>> As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible
>>>> judgment,
>>>> I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
>>>> to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
>>>> the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
>>>> as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own
>>>> career.
>>>>
>>>
>>> John, although I accept SeaMonkey update when they become available, I,
>>> too, would like to have the option of rejecting an update, if I wanted
>>> to, *AND TO BE ABLE TO DO IT _BEFORE_ THE UPDATE FILE HAS BEEN
>>> DOWNLOADED*, SO i COULD GIVE A VERSION SOME TIME (on someone else's
>>> computer) *before* I then download the update file!
>>>
>>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
>>> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>>>
>> So, you don't want to take YOUR turn in the barrel? Why do you think you
>> don't have to take an arrow now and then? Grin.
>>
>
> Why??? Because I'm not really a Power User, Ron, so those that are Power
> Users are much more likely to test a program out than I am!
>
First, if you are not a power user, it might be wise to just let FF and
TB do their silent updates, and if you have a problem ask for help in
the support group.
As for MS, you can set Windows Update to notify you of updates, and not
download them.  That's what I do because I don't want it just loading
them, and rebooting the computer when I have left work open on the
computer.  This is quite different from what Firefox/Thunderbird do with
the update process.  Silent update installs the changed, but they don't
get moved to 'active' until you end the program, and start it up again.

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Ed Mullen-6
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
Daniel wrote:

> Tarkus wrote:
>> On 4/25/2012 5:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
>>> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>>
>> Of course they do. Please don't spread FUD.
>
> How do Microsoft notify me that updates are ready to download or
> install, Tarkus?? Usually, the first thing I know about it is when I
> turn-off my computer and *it* tells me it's installing updates and I
> shouldn't switch off the computer.
>
> Not ask me if I want to install, just install!!
>

Control Panel - Windows Update - Top left area, click Change Settings.
Select what you like in the drop-down menu. I use "Download ... let me
choose ..."

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Why is a man who invests all your money called a broker?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

F1Com
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 4/25/2012 5:47 AM On a whim, Daniel pounded out on the keyboard

> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>

Sure they do, easily.


Terry
--
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: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 4/26/2012 3:13 AM, Daniel wrote:

> Tarkus wrote:
>> On 4/25/2012 5:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
>>> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates, either.
>>
>> Of course they do. Please don't spread FUD.
>
> How do Microsoft notify me that updates are ready to download or
> install, Tarkus?? Usually, the first thing I know about it is when I
> turn-off my computer and *it* tells me it's installing updates and I
> shouldn't switch off the computer.
>
> Not ask me if I want to install, just install!!

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

Re: Automatic downloading while checking for update is a bad concept

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 4/26/2012 5:07 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> John H Meyers wrote:
>>>>> My TB options are to "ask me" and NOT "automatically download"
>>>>> but when I manually "check for updates,"
>>>>> the download _automatically_ occurs and only _after downloading_
>>>>> does it pause to ask me whether I want to install the download.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO it is some combination of stupidity and arrogance
>>>>> to force the download upon the user
>>>>> _before even asking_ whether the user would want to install it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the least critical opinion ought to recognize that between
>>>>> "undress and then step into shower" vs. doing in the opposite
>>>>> sequence,
>>>>> one of the two is clearly dumb, just as is the above sequence of
>>>>> actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that I'm at the point where download has already occurred,
>>>>> "Help" > "About" offers me no other choice than an "Install Update"
>>>>> button,
>>>>> no way to say "get rid of this update, I want to check again next week
>>>>> to see what version it's up to then," etc. -- it also doesn't even
>>>>> show me
>>>>> the version number that's already chomping at the bit to be installed!
>>>>>
>>>>> A good (although of course very "politically incorrect") so-called
>>>>> "Polish joke"
>>>>> might be to ask "How many updates does it take for any sudden change
>>>>> that looks as if made by a DDFH (Drunken Developer from ...)
>>>>> to finally get revised into anything resembling sobriety?"
>>>>>
>>>>> How can this stuff even make it through any testing phase,
>>>>> with some real users actually also subscribing to such a "dev
>>>>> channel,"
>>>>> without being recognized as a ghastly mistake in the making?
>>>>>
>>>>> As a business-oriented person who is supposed to have responsible
>>>>> judgment,
>>>>> I cringe at any thought I even fleetingly entertain
>>>>> to ever adopt any such untamed "free range software" for official use,
>>>>> the very thought of which puts me in doubt of my own sanity,
>>>>> as well as summoning the specter of a possible abrupt end to my own
>>>>> career.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John, although I accept SeaMonkey update when they become available, I,
>>>> too, would like to have the option of rejecting an update, if I wanted
>>>> to, *AND TO BE ABLE TO DO IT _BEFORE_ THE UPDATE FILE HAS BEEN
>>>> DOWNLOADED*, SO i COULD GIVE A VERSION SOME TIME (on someone else's
>>>> computer) *before* I then download the update file!
>>>>
>>>> But, then again (as I'm on my Win7 installation tonight), I don't think
>>>> MicroSoft really make it optional to not install any MS updates,
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>> So, you don't want to take YOUR turn in the barrel? Why do you think you
>>> don't have to take an arrow now and then? Grin.
>>>
>>
>> Why??? Because I'm not really a Power User, Ron, so those that are Power
>> Users are much more likely to test a program out than I am!
>>
> First, if you are not a power user, it might be wise to just let FF and
> TB do their silent updates, and if you have a problem ask for help in
> the support group.
> As for MS, you can set Windows Update to notify you of updates, and not
> download them. That's what I do because I don't want it just loading
> them, and rebooting the computer when I have left work open on the
> computer. This is quite different from what Firefox/Thunderbird do with
> the update process. Silent update installs the changed, but they don't
> get moved to 'active' until you end the program, and start it up again.
>

So, if you are to be believed, Ron, Windows gives me the option of
accepting updates or not, where as FF and TB (if I used them) or SM give
you no option at all!!

And people think MS are devious!!!!

--
Daniel
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12