Re: Urgent: New version seems to have lost the html edit function!
On 1/9/21 9:39 AM, Julia Bolton Holloway wrote: I can no longer access the line with 'File/Edit/View/ etc. , needed for accessing 'Edit' from 'File' to get to the composer for web pages, which I have always used from Netscape through Seamonkey. It's excellent and I hope not dead. Julia Bolton Holloway, Ph.D. Do you have the Back, Forward address bar other buttons showing,also the Bookmarks bar? Look to the far left and you will see a toggle. If the Menu bar is closed you will see a arrow facing > below those toolbars. Click it and the Menu bar should appear. -- OS: Ubuntu Linux 18.04LTS - Gnome Desktop https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Urgent: New version seems to have lost the html edit function!
On 09/01/2021 2:39 pm, Julia Bolton Holloway wrote: I can no longer access the line with 'File/Edit/View/ etc. , needed for accessing 'Edit' from 'File' to get to the composer for web pages, which I have always used from Netscape through Seamonkey. It's excellent and I hope not dead. Julia Bolton Holloway, Ph.D. What operating system are you using and what version of SeaMonkey are you referring to? Regards, Ian ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Urgent: New version seems to have lost the html edit function!
I can no longer access the line with 'File/Edit/View/ etc. , needed for accessing 'Edit' from 'File' to get to the composer for web pages, which I have always used from Netscape through Seamonkey. It's excellent and I hope not dead. Julia Bolton Holloway, Ph.D. -- Julia Bolton Holloway, Mediatheca 'Fioretta Mazzei', 'English' Cemetery, Piazzale Donatello, 38, I-50132 Firenze, Italy http://www.florin.ms http://www.umilta.net http://piazzaledonatello.blogspot.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
When I try to download new version of SeaMonkey I get a 4040 Not Found Notice.
Can You correct the URL, please. -- Julia Bolton Holloway, Mediatheca 'Fioretta Mazzei', 'English' Cemetery, Piazzale Donatello, 38, I-50132 Firenze, Italy http://www.umilta.net http://www.florin.ms http://www.ringofgold.eu http://piazzaledonatello.blogspot.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
URGENT: New Version gives only a 404 Not Found
Can you correct the URL so we can download the latest version, please. Julia Holloway With you from Netscape! -- Julia Bolton Holloway, Mediatheca 'Fioretta Mazzei', 'English' Cemetery, Piazzale Donatello, 38, I-50132 Firenze, Italy http://www.umilta.net http://www.florin.ms http://www.ringofgold.eu http://piazzaledonatello.blogspot.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
new version pretty sweet for us
LXLE users have been commenting positively on the latest version of SM. Many are glad to see active development continuing. Fast and does what I want is often said. Great work everyone. ~Ronnie ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Daniel wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! I chose to look past Ray's superficial curiosity and seek his underlying purpose, his reason for visiting that page. And he stated that clearly: So my home page did not tell me anymore that I should upgrade. If he wants to know whether to upgrade, he can visit the page I initially linked, http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/, and draw his own conclusion by comparing the latest version number there to his own version number. Or he can simply have the program check for him at regular intervals and alert him when it detects a discrepancy. I personally find the latter option both easier and more reliable, humans being busy, forgetful creatures. YMMV. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 So my home page did not tell me anymore that i should upgrade. You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
WaltS wrote, On 26/05/2013 15:37: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Daniel wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! I chose to look past Ray's superficial curiosity and seek his underlying purpose, his reason for visiting that page. And he stated that clearly: So my home page did not tell me anymore that I should upgrade. His reason for visiting that page is it is set as his Home Page each time SeaMonkey opens, and the latest version number is no longer displayed on that page. His home page shows, Congratulations! You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. , when it probably should show something like this, Hey! Your copy of SeaMonkey is more than four weeks old. Unless you are using the latest release or nightly build, bug reports get rapidly less useful the older your copy is., which I see with the Nightly build I use. SeaMonkey 2.17 was released on 02-04-2013, and SeaMonkey 2.17.1 was released on 14-04-2013. His UA String shows he is using, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 My UA is, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 The page should tell him his version is outdated. He is saying it showed the latest version before, but now it doesn't, and wants to know why. I want to know why it isn't telling him it is outdated. This is exactly what i asked Why this page did not tell me that i have not the latest stable version. What i had before is a very smooth indication of my version status. I prefer that way of being informed that the constant repeatedly ALERT that a new version is available (by using the [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly option) I hate alerts !!! ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: WaltS wrote, On 26/05/2013 15:37: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Daniel wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! I chose to look past Ray's superficial curiosity and seek his underlying purpose, his reason for visiting that page. And he stated that clearly: So my home page did not tell me anymore that I should upgrade. His reason for visiting that page is it is set as his Home Page each time SeaMonkey opens, and the latest version number is no longer displayed on that page. His home page shows, Congratulations! You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. , when it probably should show something like this, Hey! Your copy of SeaMonkey is more than four weeks old. Unless you are using the latest release or nightly build, bug reports get rapidly less useful the older your copy is., which I see with the Nightly build I use. SeaMonkey 2.17 was released on 02-04-2013, and SeaMonkey 2.17.1 was released on 14-04-2013. His UA String shows he is using, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 My UA is, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 The page should tell him his version is outdated. He is saying it showed the latest version before, but now it doesn't, and wants to know why. I want to know why it isn't telling him it is outdated. This is exactly what i asked Why this page did not tell me that i have not the latest stable version. What i had before is a very smooth indication of my version status. I prefer that way of being informed that the constant repeatedly ALERT that a new version is available (by using the [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly option) I hate alerts !!! In that case, use the home page I offered above. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 So my home page did not tell me anymore that i should upgrade. You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. I prefer greatly what as working in the past. http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ telled me when i am ok or not. Why is this action not working anymore ? Nobody will cure the situation ? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
WaltS wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Daniel wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! I chose to look past Ray's superficial curiosity and seek his underlying purpose, his reason for visiting that page. And he stated that clearly: So my home page did not tell me anymore that I should upgrade. His reason for visiting that page is it is set as his Home Page each time SeaMonkey opens, and the latest version number is no longer displayed on that page. Once again, you focus on the superficial and ignore the underlying purpose. Why would he set that as his home page? Because he wants to know if his software is outdated. So his real question is, how can I learn promptly if my software is outdated? The page should tell him his version is outdated. He is saying it showed the latest version before, but now it doesn't, and wants to know why. I want to know why it isn't telling him it is outdated. Fair enough. I hope one of the devs will answer that. But for his real-world purpose, the options I offered will achieve that end with no waiting. He can do it today and have accurate info today, and no one has to make a decision or implement a solution for him. Otherwise it's like going to a gas station, and on learning that one pump is out of gas, standing around waiting for a truck to replenish it instead of pulling up to the next pump or driving across the street to a competitor. Yes, the pump should have gas, but no, you don't have to wait. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Jens Hatlak wrote, On 26/05/2013 23:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens THAT'S a very good news Jens. However i did not see a difference, perhaps the website must be updated with the correction. I will wait some days before complaining again :-) ... or telling you that all is perfect. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 27/05/2013 00:06: Ray_Net wrote: WaltS wrote, On 26/05/2013 15:37: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Daniel wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! I chose to look past Ray's superficial curiosity and seek his underlying purpose, his reason for visiting that page. And he stated that clearly: So my home page did not tell me anymore that I should upgrade. His reason for visiting that page is it is set as his Home Page each time SeaMonkey opens, and the latest version number is no longer displayed on that page. His home page shows, Congratulations! You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. , when it probably should show something like this, Hey! Your copy of SeaMonkey is more than four weeks old. Unless you are using the latest release or nightly build, bug reports get rapidly less useful the older your copy is., which I see with the Nightly build I use. SeaMonkey 2.17 was released on 02-04-2013, and SeaMonkey 2.17.1 was released on 14-04-2013. His UA String shows he is using, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 My UA is, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 The page should tell him his version is outdated. He is saying it showed the latest version before, but now it doesn't, and wants to know why. I want to know why it isn't telling him it is outdated. This is exactly what i asked Why this page did not tell me that i have not the latest stable version. What i had before is a very smooth indication of my version status. I prefer that way of being informed that the constant repeatedly ALERT that a new version is available (by using the [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly option) I hate alerts !!! In that case, use the home page I offered above. Your home page did not give the same result. What are you trying to do ? Convince me to not ask to have what i had before ? Your page just tell the new version. My home page say: You are up-to-date. OR You are not up-to-date, the latest version you should use is x.yy.z This is NOT the same because most of the time, i see You are up-to-date and i am informed immediately that i need to update. Your page did not tell me that i should update. Because i did not put my version in my brain/memory. It looks, like, Yes, this is a bug, but we will not correct it !!! Same as: A well accepted bug like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=776096 IS NOT RESOLVED - because the duplicated one https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674247 will stay forever ... until perhaps the year 2035 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 So my home page did not tell me anymore that i should upgrade. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Daniel wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? No, Ray's initial statement was:- http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. So, it seems to me, Ray is wondering why the function of that particular page has changed!! I chose to look past Ray's superficial curiosity and seek his underlying purpose, his reason for visiting that page. And he stated that clearly: So my home page did not tell me anymore that I should upgrade. His reason for visiting that page is it is set as his Home Page each time SeaMonkey opens, and the latest version number is no longer displayed on that page. His home page shows, Congratulations! You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. , when it probably should show something like this, Hey! Your copy of SeaMonkey is more than four weeks old. Unless you are using the latest release or nightly build, bug reports get rapidly less useful the older your copy is., which I see with the Nightly build I use. SeaMonkey 2.17 was released on 02-04-2013, and SeaMonkey 2.17.1 was released on 14-04-2013. His UA String shows he is using, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 My UA is, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 The page should tell him his version is outdated. He is saying it showed the latest version before, but now it doesn't, and wants to know why. I want to know why it isn't telling him it is outdated. -- openSUSE 12.3 (64-bit) KDE 4.10.2 SeaMonkey Release ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens -- Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/ SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote, On 27/05/2013 17:03: Jens Hatlak wrote, On 26/05/2013 23:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens THAT'S a very good news Jens. However i did not see a difference, perhaps the website must be updated with the correction. I will wait some days before complaining again :-) ... or telling you that all is perfect. THANKS !!! It's corrected. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 26/05/2013 00:42: You can use this page: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ Or you can set this pref: Edit | Preferences | Software Installation ... SeaMonkey [x] Automatically check for updates (o) daily (•) weekly [ ] Automatically download and install the update ... These settings will notify you when an update is available but won't download or install it until you give the go-ahead. If you do want updates installed automatically, the option is there. I never go ahead, i prefer de-installing my SM version, then install the new one. That's fine, you can leave the second box disabled and still be notified. Your request was for notification, wasn't it? -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: Daniel wrote, On 31/05/2013 12:40: Ray_Net wrote: Daniel wrote, On 30/05/2013 11:52: Ray_Net wrote: Snip All things being equal, Ray, when SM 2.19 comes out, I might have gone to 2.20B1, but I might hang back a bit to see if this page does change. Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) Ray, as MCBastos suggests, I'm just trying to do my little bit extra to help the devs with their greatly appreciated work. Daniel, as i said to MCBastos, it was a joke. But, if you use the lastest version you will never seen this page like me as you can see here: http://home.scarlet.be/~rs268454/SM-Home-Page.jpg As I've previously stated, Ray, I'll hang onto this 2.18B until a 2.19 release version comes out and see what that page shows!! -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: Ray_Net wrote, On 27/05/2013 17:03: Jens Hatlak wrote, On 26/05/2013 23:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens THAT'S a very good news Jens. However i did not see a difference, perhaps the website must be updated with the correction. I will wait some days before complaining again :-) ... or telling you that all is perfect. THANKS !!! It's corrected. Hey, Ray, I'm still seeing *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Are you seeing different?? -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: Daniel wrote, On 29/05/2013 13:05: Ray_Net wrote: Ray_Net wrote, On 27/05/2013 17:03: Jens Hatlak wrote, On 26/05/2013 23:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens THAT'S a very good news Jens. However i did not see a difference, perhaps the website must be updated with the correction. I will wait some days before complaining again :-) ... or telling you that all is perfect. THANKS !!! It's corrected. Hey, Ray, I'm still seeing *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Are you seeing different?? YES !!! I am under 2.17 and the page tell me that i should upgrade to 2.17.1 BUT You are under 2.18 - so 2.17.1 is not greater than what you have :-) I have readed somewhere that 2.18 will be skipped in favor of 2.19 - So, when the Stable release is 2.19 you will see on that page that you should upgrade. However, if you are always under the lastest not-stable release, you will never see that page telling you to upgrade :-) All things being equal, Ray, when SM 2.19 comes out, I might have gone to 2.20B1, but I might hang back a bit to see if this page does change. -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: MCBastos wrote, On 31/05/2013 05:02: Interviewed by CNN on 30/05/2013 12:14, Ray_Net told the world: Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) *Someone* has to use the beta versions so it gets tested. That's the entire point of having a beta release. It was a joke (i added 2 smiley to explain that :-) ) Smiley's were after your comment about changing wives, so applied to that. No?? -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Daniel wrote, On 29/05/2013 13:05: Ray_Net wrote: Ray_Net wrote, On 27/05/2013 17:03: Jens Hatlak wrote, On 26/05/2013 23:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens THAT'S a very good news Jens. However i did not see a difference, perhaps the website must be updated with the correction. I will wait some days before complaining again :-) ... or telling you that all is perfect. THANKS !!! It's corrected. Hey, Ray, I'm still seeing *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Are you seeing different?? YES !!! I am under 2.17 and the page tell me that i should upgrade to 2.17.1 BUT You are under 2.18 - so 2.17.1 is not greater than what you have :-) I have readed somewhere that 2.18 will be skipped in favor of 2.19 - So, when the Stable release is 2.19 you will see on that page that you should upgrade. However, if you are always under the lastest not-stable release, you will never see that page telling you to upgrade :-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Interviewed by CNN on 30/05/2013 12:14, Ray_Net told the world: Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) *Someone* has to use the beta versions so it gets tested. That's the entire point of having a beta release. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Sinclair ZX81. * Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.17 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Ray_Net wrote: Daniel wrote, On 30/05/2013 11:52: Ray_Net wrote: Snip All things being equal, Ray, when SM 2.19 comes out, I might have gone to 2.20B1, but I might hang back a bit to see if this page does change. Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) Ray, as MCBastos suggests, I'm just trying to do my little bit extra to help the devs with their greatly appreciated work. -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Daniel wrote, On 31/05/2013 12:40: Ray_Net wrote: Daniel wrote, On 30/05/2013 11:52: Ray_Net wrote: Snip All things being equal, Ray, when SM 2.19 comes out, I might have gone to 2.20B1, but I might hang back a bit to see if this page does change. Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) Ray, as MCBastos suggests, I'm just trying to do my little bit extra to help the devs with their greatly appreciated work. Daniel, as i said to MCBastos, it was a joke. But, if you use the lastest version you will never seen this page like me as you can see here: http://home.scarlet.be/~rs268454/SM-Home-Page.jpg ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
Daniel wrote, On 30/05/2013 11:52: Ray_Net wrote: Daniel wrote, On 29/05/2013 13:05: Ray_Net wrote: Ray_Net wrote, On 27/05/2013 17:03: Jens Hatlak wrote, On 26/05/2013 23:42: Ray_Net wrote: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ is my SM home page - where i can read the latest released version number of SM. This was working well in the past. Now with my SM version 2.17 this situation is gone, i just read on that page: *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Instead of in the past telling me that the lastest new released version of SM is: 2.17.1 Actually that was a bug, fixed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=876289 Thanks for letting us know. HTH Jens THAT'S a very good news Jens. However i did not see a difference, perhaps the website must be updated with the correction. I will wait some days before complaining again :-) ... or telling you that all is perfect. THANKS !!! It's corrected. Hey, Ray, I'm still seeing *Congratulations!* You've downloaded (or compiled) a stable version of SeaMonkey. Are you seeing different?? YES !!! I am under 2.17 and the page tell me that i should upgrade to 2.17.1 BUT You are under 2.18 - so 2.17.1 is not greater than what you have :-) I have readed somewhere that 2.18 will be skipped in favor of 2.19 - So, when the Stable release is 2.19 you will see on that page that you should upgrade. However, if you are always under the lastest not-stable release, you will never see that page telling you to upgrade :-) All things being equal, Ray, when SM 2.19 comes out, I might have gone to 2.20B1, but I might hang back a bit to see if this page does change. Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/start/ did not show the new version
MCBastos wrote, On 31/05/2013 05:02: Interviewed by CNN on 30/05/2013 12:14, Ray_Net told the world: Why did you always need to have the lastest beta version ? You do the same about your wife ? Always changing to have the lastest beta version ? :-) :-) *Someone* has to use the beta versions so it gets tested. That's the entire point of having a beta release. It was a joke (i added 2 smiley to explain that :-) ) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Preventing new version checking
NoOp wrote: On 04/11/2012 05:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Is there a switch I can set in config to prevent checking for new versions of SM? I don't want the pop-up, easiest way to prevent that is not to check. Test environment, 1st rule, when chasing problems change only one thing at a time. In reply to a message I got via email and haven't seen here, yes, I did. app.update.auto;false app.update.enabled;false Or you could try the standard way: Edit|Preferences|Advance|Software Installation uncheck 'Automatically check for updates Isn't doing that what set the preferences? Or does that do something else as well? In any case I'll check that, thanks. -- Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com Running in a test environment ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Preventing new version checking
On 04/12/2012 06:53 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote: NoOp wrote: On 04/11/2012 05:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Is there a switch I can set in config to prevent checking for new versions of SM? I don't want the pop-up, easiest way to prevent that is not to check. Test environment, 1st rule, when chasing problems change only one thing at a time. In reply to a message I got via email and haven't seen here, yes, I did. app.update.auto;false app.update.enabled;false Or you could try the standard way: Edit|Preferences|Advance|Software Installation uncheck 'Automatically check for updates Isn't doing that what set the preferences? Or does that do something else as well? It is what set's those. In any case I'll check that, thanks. Easiest way to check is to open about.config, search on app.update and notice the state of those two settings. Now open Edit|Preferences|Advance|Software Installation and with that on the about:config page, you'll be able to see those settings change in about:config when to tick/untick them. app.update.auto = 'Automatically download and install the update' app.update.enabled = 'Automatically check for updates' Gary ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Preventing new version checking
Is there a switch I can set in config to prevent checking for new versions of SM? I don't want the pop-up, easiest way to prevent that is not to check. Test environment, 1st rule, when chasing problems change only one thing at a time. -- Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com Running in a test environment ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Preventing new version checking
Bill Davidsen wrote: Is there a switch I can set in config to prevent checking for new versions of SM? I don't want the pop-up, easiest way to prevent that is not to check. Test environment, 1st rule, when chasing problems change only one thing at a time. In reply to a message I got via email and haven't seen here, yes, I did. app.update.auto;false app.update.enabled;false -- Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com Running in a test environment ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Preventing new version checking
On 04/11/2012 05:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Is there a switch I can set in config to prevent checking for new versions of SM? I don't want the pop-up, easiest way to prevent that is not to check. Test environment, 1st rule, when chasing problems change only one thing at a time. In reply to a message I got via email and haven't seen here, yes, I did. app.update.auto;false app.update.enabled;false Or you could try the standard way: Edit|Preferences|Advance|Software Installation uncheck 'Automatically check for updates ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Why can one not copy from the Software Update window (was : Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version)
NoOp wrote: On 10/02/2011 10:38 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: My Seamonkey 2.3.3, in invoking Check for updates says ... nothing that can be copied and then pasted W H Y can I not copy text from the Software Update window, Actually I think this is an excellent question. File a bug report as this is most likely the only way it will probably be answered. I thought that, in general, it was better to try to establish by informed discussion whether or not a bug really existed than to report a putative bug and then risk wasting the developers's time investigating if it turns out not to be a bug at all. and is the text therein accessible to screen readers ? Install Orca check for yourself? I meant by design, not pragmatically. Testing, as everyone knows, can demonstrate only the presence of bugs, not the absence of them. Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version
Otto Wyss wrote: AUS:SVC gCanApplyUpdates - testing write access C:\Program Files\SeaMonkey\update.test AUS:SVC gCanApplyUpdates - unable to apply updates. Exception: [Exception... Component returned failure code: 0x80520015 (NS_ERROR_FILE_ACCESS_DENIED) [nsILocalFile.create] nsresult: 0x80520015 (NS_ERROR_FILE_ACCESS_DENIED) location: JS frame :: jar:file:///C:/Program%20Files/SeaMonkey/omni.jar!/components/nsUpdateService.js :: aus_gCanApplyUpdates :: line 202 data: no] This sounds like your windows account has no write access to the install-location. And is most likely your reason for having the error. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version
I'm using SeaMonkey 2.3.3 since I thought this was the newest version. Checking for updates doesn't show any new version, not even a hint. Yet there's already 2.4.1 out. What's wrong? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version
Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:24:50 +0200, /Otto Wyss/: I'm using SeaMonkey 2.3.3 since I thought this was the newest version. Checking for updates doesn't show any new version, not even a hint. Yet there's already 2.4.1 out. What's wrong? Open about:config, what does your app.update.channel (w/o the quotes) say? (this information should be included with upcoming releases on the Help - About and Help - Troubleshooting Information pages) -- Stanimir ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Why can one not copy from the Software Update window (was : Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version)
Otto Wyss wrote: I'm using SeaMonkey 2.3.3 since I thought this was the newest version. Checking for updates doesn't show any new version, not even a hint. Yet there's already 2.4.1 out. What's wrong? My Seamonkey 2.3.3, in invoking Check for updates says ... nothing that can be copied and then pasted W H Y can I not copy text from the Software Update window, and is the text therein accessible to screen readers ? Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote: Openabout:config, what does your app.update.channel (w/o the quotes) say? It says release. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version
Otto Wyss wrote: I'm using SeaMonkey 2.3.3 since I thought this was the newest version. Checking for updates doesn't show any new version, not even a hint. Yet there's already 2.4.1 out. What's wrong? Ok, few things to try: First and Most Likely. * Help-Check For Updates. If that does not return an update available: * navigate your browser to about:config * enter: app.update.log in the filter-box * double click or right-click to Toggle setting the value to true. * restart SeaMonkey (was needed for me) * Do Help-Check for Updates again * Open the Error Console (Tools-Web Developer-Error Console) * Look for what UpdateURL SeaMonkey is using, and report back here (for example my own right now follows): AUS:SVC Checker:getUpdateURL - update URL: https://aus2-community.mozilla.org/update/3/SeaMonkey/2.5/20110929211419/WINNT_x86-msvc/en-US/beta/Windows_NT%206.1/default/default/update.xml?force=1 Thank You, -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Why can one not copy from the Software Update window (was : Why doesn't check for update tell me there's a new version)
On 10/02/2011 10:38 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Otto Wyss wrote: I'm using SeaMonkey 2.3.3 since I thought this was the newest version. Checking for updates doesn't show any new version, not even a hint. Yet there's already 2.4.1 out. What's wrong? My Seamonkey 2.3.3, in invoking Check for updates says ... nothing that can be copied and then pasted W H Y can I not copy text from the Software Update window, Actually I think this is an excellent question. File a bug report as this is most likely the only way it will probably be answered. and is the text therein accessible to screen readers ? Install Orca check for yourself? Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [mozilla.support.seamonkey,mozilla.support.firefox reinserted] A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this newsgroup. Has been deemed? You should listen to yourself. The current let's replace version numbers with 'up to date' or 'not up to date' and sod add-ons idiocy is so stunningly crass and so rightly controversial that it's going to get discussed *everywhere* whether you like it or not... and no amount of off topic here there and everywhere else apart from the Free Speech Zone we set up well away from the building is going to stop it. -- Regards, Peter Boulding pjbne...@unspampboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove UNSPAM) Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240content=music ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunter rphun...@charter.net wrote in xnudnaqn_4exr9htnz2dnuvz_rydn...@mozilla.org: On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [mozilla.support.seamonkey,mozilla.support.firefox reinserted] A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this newsgroup. Has been deemed? You should listen to yourself. The current let's replace version numbers with 'up to date' or 'not up to date' and sod add-ons idiocy is so stunningly crass and so rightly controversial that it's going to get discussed *everywhere* whether you like it or not... and no amount of off topic here there and everywhere else apart from the Free Speech Zone we set up well away from the building is going to stop it. It is such an earth-shatteringly important thing, right? Look where it's going: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 Money quote: It is part of the phasing out of version numbers in Firefox that's already well under way (though still incomplete.) -- Regards, Peter Boulding pjbne...@unspampboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove UNSPAM) Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240content=music ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G Michael, back a bit I reported that I was having a problem so, after upgrading, when I clicked on the Browser Icon (I normally just start in Mail News), I was being taken to a SeaMonkey-Project page which advised of the problems/improvements made in the upgrade rather than my Home Group. This was a desired situation (by the developers) which, I think, could be switched off in prefs.js Has this function been changed?? In an upgrade it may have changed some basic preferences. When you write the Browser Icon are you referring to the SeaMonkey icon on your desktop? As I typed above, I normally just start in Mail News, so when I typed Browser Icon, I mean the one in the bottom left of the Mail News screen. You can change how SM opens in the Edit/Preferences/Appearance by selecting
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Daniel wrote: Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G Michael, back a bit I reported that I was having a problem so, after upgrading, when I clicked on the Browser Icon (I normally just start in Mail News), I was being taken to a SeaMonkey-Project page which advised of the problems/improvements made in the upgrade rather than my Home Group. This was a desired situation (by the developers) which, I think, could be switched off in prefs.js Has this function been changed?? In an upgrade it may have changed some basic preferences. When you write the Browser Icon are you referring to the SeaMonkey icon on your desktop? You can change how SM opens in the Edit/Preferences/Appearance by selecting the options to open mail and browser. By selecting both mail and browser your mail will open on top of the web browser. The only way I know of to open just the mail using
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G Michael, back a bit I reported that I was having a problem so, after upgrading, when I clicked on the Browser Icon (I normally just start in Mail News), I was being taken to a SeaMonkey-Project page which advised of the problems/improvements made in the upgrade rather than my Home Group. This was a desired situation (by the developers) which, I think, could be switched off in prefs.js Has this function been changed?? -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
The next version of Firefox (version 7.0) is scheduled for 27th September 2011. Please make a note in your diary! Good luck. John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. snipped ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 19/08/11 11:54, David Wilkinson wrote: Philip Chee wrote: It is not true that none of those working with Mozilla cannot see the problems. Triple negative here. As written this says that it is not true that everybody working at Mozilla can see the problems. As evidenced by his second paragraph, Philip meant it is false that nobody working at Mozilla can see the problems. Neither he nor I are paid employees of Mozilla AFAIK, but we are both putting some work into Mozilla-family products (SeaMonkey and sometimes Gecko or Toolkit), and I can tell you that we are deeply concerned. I think that on several key points (version numbering one of them) SeaMonkey made wiser decisions than Firefox in the past, and I hope that it is going to go on that way, but I don't have an infallible crystal ball: I'll know what my future is when it becomes my present, and by the time I realize what it means, it'll already be my past. About the discoverability of version numbers, bug 678775 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 has been mentioned (perhaps without the bug number) in this thread. I'm added the link so that anybody can go and see (but this is somewhat off-topic in the _SeaMonkey_ newsgroup since it is a Firefox bug and AFAIK Seamonkey isn't going that way). The bug has been RESOLVED INVALID a few hours ago, and I believe that that resolution (or maybe WONTFIX) is the right one, but I'm taking no bets on how long it will be before Asa Dotzler-Schmotzler (the guy with a big mouth and his foot in it: this phrase wasn't coined by me but I like it) or someone on his side in this controversy, REOPENs it. Best regards, Tony. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 159. You get excited whenever discussing your hard drive. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 08/19/2011 03:12 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: ... About the discoverability of version numbers, bug 678775 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 has been mentioned (perhaps without the bug number) in this thread. I'm added the link so that anybody can go and see (but this is somewhat off-topic in the _SeaMonkey_ newsgroup since it is a Firefox bug and AFAIK Seamonkey isn't going that way). The bug has been RESOLVED INVALID a few hours ago, and I believe that that resolution (or maybe WONTFIX) is the right one, but I'm taking no bets on how long it will be before Asa Dotzler-Schmotzler (the guy with a big mouth and his foot in it: this phrase wasn't coined by me but I like it) or someone on his side in this controversy, REOPENs it. ... Priceless... thanks Tony. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [mozilla.support.seamonkey,mozilla.support.firefox reinserted] A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this newsgroup. Has been deemed? You should listen to yourself. The current let's replace version numbers with 'up to date' or 'not up to date' and sod add-ons idiocy is so stunningly crass and so rightly controversial that it's going to get discussed *everywhere* whether you like it or not... and no amount of off topic here there and everywhere else apart from the Free Speech Zone we set up well away from the building is going to stop it. It is such an earth-shatteringly important thing, right? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/18/2011 5:35 AM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunterrphun...@charter.net wrote inxnudnaqn_4exr9htnz2dnuvz_rydn...@mozilla.org: On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [mozilla.support.seamonkey,mozilla.support.firefox reinserted] A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this newsgroup. Has been deemed? You should listen to yourself. The current let's replace version numbers with 'up to date' or 'not up to date' and sod add-ons idiocy is so stunningly crass and so rightly controversial that it's going to get discussed *everywhere* whether you like it or not... and no amount of off topic here there and everywhere else apart from the Free Speech Zone we set up well away from the building is going to stop it. It is such an earth-shatteringly important thing, right? Look where it's going: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 Money quote: It is part of the phasing out of version numbers in Firefox that's already well under way (though still incomplete.) I believe the intent is to just give you a 'latest version', or 'You need an update' and just display 'Firefox', without a version number. I can't see why this is vitally important as long as the actual version/build is available somewhere for troubleshooting purposes, and even then, it isn't always important. Personally, I can't see why it hurts to have the version and build ID listed, but the devs seem to think this isn't useful. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/18/2011 10:59 AM, Ryan P. wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:24 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/18/2011 5:35 AM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunterrphun...@charter.net wrote inxnudnaqn_4exr9htnz2dnuvz_rydn...@mozilla.org: On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [mozilla.support.seamonkey,mozilla.support.firefox reinserted] A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this newsgroup. Has been deemed? You should listen to yourself. The current let's replace version numbers with 'up to date' or 'not up to date' and sod add-ons idiocy is so stunningly crass and so rightly controversial that it's going to get discussed *everywhere* whether you like it or not... and no amount of off topic here there and everywhere else apart from the Free Speech Zone we set up well away from the building is going to stop it. It is such an earth-shatteringly important thing, right? Look where it's going: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 Money quote: It is part of the phasing out of version numbers in Firefox that's already well under way (though still incomplete.) I believe the intent is to just give you a 'latest version', or 'You need an update' and just display 'Firefox', without a version number. I can't see why this is vitally important as long as the actual version/build is available somewhere for troubleshooting purposes, and even then, it isn't always important. Personally, I can't see why it hurts to have the version and build ID listed, but the devs seem to think this isn't useful. I can just see the bug reports now... xxx is broken. It worked a few weeks ago. I had an old version that just updated itself to Latest Version, so I don't know what version I was running before. How much time would a developer have to waste trying to track THAT bug down? I think its idiocy not having version numbers in software. Of course, I think its idiocy to bump a version number a whole number just because you fixed a spelling error in a drop down menu, but at least its a version number... So, you think the difference between FF5 and FF6 is that trivial? Go here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0beta/releasenotes/buglist.html Spelling changes? Sure. but a couple of other minor fixes, wouldn't you say? Last I checked, they already had 740 or so listed changes between FF6 and FF7, which should move to the beta channel any minute now. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Ryan P. wrote: On 8/17/2011 4:53 PM, Ran Garoo wrote: On 8/17/2011 14:26, John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Ditto. Plus, the extension system is broken. Why in the world would an update done for mostly stylistic reasons break the functionality of one of the major features that distinguishes Firefox? Go with the latest upgrade and lose more extensions. I wish they would stop designing around the ideas of somebody who arbitralily decides that the world doen't need some function; i.e., the java console. Or designing sround someone's fervent (apparently) desire to emultate MicroSoft's horrible ribbon menus. Having worked with many different products conceived, designed and tested by engineers, I can tell you that the Mozilla team is exhibiting all the signs of not caring about how something works in the real world. They care about adding bells and whistles simply because they can, and they can brag about having 3 more bells than the other team of computer geeks has on their software. Nevermind that its making the end-user (generally NOT a computer geek) jump through more and more hoops to simply use the software. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Firefox... Its just that change for the sake of change, as opposed to change to add functionality, is silly. Second. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/18/2011 1:07 PM, Rufus wrote: Ryan P. wrote: On 8/17/2011 4:53 PM, Ran Garoo wrote: On 8/17/2011 14:26, John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Ditto. Plus, the extension system is broken. Why in the world would an update done for mostly stylistic reasons break the functionality of one of the major features that distinguishes Firefox? Go with the latest upgrade and lose more extensions. I wish they would stop designing around the ideas of somebody who arbitralily decides that the world doen't need some function; i.e., the java console. Or designing sround someone's fervent (apparently) desire to emultate MicroSoft's horrible ribbon menus. Having worked with many different products conceived, designed and tested by engineers, I can tell you that the Mozilla team is exhibiting all the signs of not caring about how something works in the real world. They care about adding bells and whistles simply because they can, and they can brag about having 3 more bells than the other team of computer geeks has on their software. Nevermind that its making the end-user (generally NOT a computer geek) jump through more and more hoops to simply use the software. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Firefox... Its just that change for the sake of change, as opposed to change to add functionality, is silly. Second. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0beta/releasenotes/buglist.html Not change for the sake of change. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/18/2011 1:07 PM, Rufus wrote: Ryan P. wrote: On 8/17/2011 4:53 PM, Ran Garoo wrote: On 8/17/2011 14:26, John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Ditto. Plus, the extension system is broken. Why in the world would an update done for mostly stylistic reasons break the functionality of one of the major features that distinguishes Firefox? Go with the latest upgrade and lose more extensions. I wish they would stop designing around the ideas of somebody who arbitralily decides that the world doen't need some function; i.e., the java console. Or designing sround someone's fervent (apparently) desire to emultate MicroSoft's horrible ribbon menus. Having worked with many different products conceived, designed and tested by engineers, I can tell you that the Mozilla team is exhibiting all the signs of not caring about how something works in the real world. They care about adding bells and whistles simply because they can, and they can brag about having 3 more bells than the other team of computer geeks has on their software. Nevermind that its making the end-user (generally NOT a computer geek) jump through more and more hoops to simply use the software. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Firefox... Its just that change for the sake of change, as opposed to change to add functionality, is silly. Second. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0beta/releasenotes/buglist.html Not change for the sake of change. Frankly the release schedule/timing doesn't bother me nearly as much (if at all) as the content/functionality/interface/quality issues going on with Seamonkey at present. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
My bloviated meandering follows what John graced us with on 8/17/2011 2:26 PM: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this newsgroup. mozilla.feedback is the best venue for this concern if you prefer to have it directed to the Mozilla Team, mozilla.general (which I've set a follow-up to) is best if you wish to discuss it in more depth with other Mozilla users. -- Sailfish - Netscape Champion Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/ Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/17/2011 4:26 PM, John wrote: Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? I don't plan on upgrading until they reach 99.0 so the faster they get there the happier I'll be. :-) Bruce. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/17/11 3:26 PM, John wrote: There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over That doesn't just apply to electronics and software, I suspect it's prevalent everywhere. I used to work as a aircraft mechanic, and worked at a shop where we repaired wrecks. I had to reassemble an aircraft after repairs due to a landing gear failure. The airplane had only 2.45 hours of flight time from the last belly landing. Even though the insurance company was willing to cover our higher priced bid for repairs, the owners decided that time was more important than quality. Needless to say, there was no pressure from the owners for getting the second repair out the door ASAP! :D -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 5.0 Thunderbird 5.0 LibreOffice 3.3.3 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
NoOp a écrit : On 06/30/2011 01:30 PM, sean nathan bean wrote: cyberzen sent me the following:: PhillipJones a écrit : Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? use seamonkey's Mail client ? pop.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 995) smtp.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 465 avec authentification) imap.mail.yahoo.com (SSL, port 993) 'cisely... why torture oneself with webmail interfaces... sean Because you still need to check the webmail interface occasionally to see if a valid email may have been caught up in the Yahoo! spam filters. not at all, I can check the bulk mail folder (as yahoo says) in IMAP yahoo account (SM 2.0.14) -- cyberzen ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Cecil Bankston wrote: MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 27/06/2011 11:43, Cecil Bankston told the world: Where in SeaMonkey does one find the advertise Firefox compatibility option? Edit/Preferences/Advanced/HTTP Networking. It's a new option with Seamonkey 2.1. It's enabled by default. I should note that yours is already enabled, too. Thanks. I would not have thought to look under that category. I don't usually use the Message Source view for my own messages, but I see that it does show Firefox included in the User Agent. Cecil, another way to check out what your identifing yourself as is to go Help-About Seamonkey which gives you a Build Identifier line. -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
JAS wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I received the same mail. It mentioned I had been using Yahoo! mail for 4 years! I use GMail, not Yahoo Mail. Does the fact that I get a number of special interest list messages by way of Yahoo matter? If they ignore SeaMonkey, I'll return the favor and ignore them. keith whaley if you go to about:config then choose User Agent double-click on the line that says Seamonkey/2.0.14 and change it to Firefox/4.0 (or 5.0) Then go to yahoo, and then to email you will be able set up just fine. I go to my 4 yahoo accounts just fine with: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Lightning/1.0b2 NOT Firefox 4.0b8pre SeaMonkey/2.0.14 - Build ID: 20110420224920 Hey, JAS, that identifier mentions Firefox, which is what Phillip suggested you do, so no wonder your Yahoo accounts work. -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
cyberzen sent me the following:: PhillipJones a écrit : Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? use seamonkey's Mail client ? pop.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 995) smtp.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 465 avec authentification) imap.mail.yahoo.com (SSL, port 993) 'cisely... why torture oneself with webmail interfaces... sean -- ... The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. ~ George Washington all taglines brought to you by TagZilla 0.066.2 http://tagzilla.mozdev.org ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
On 06/30/2011 01:30 PM, sean nathan bean wrote: cyberzen sent me the following:: PhillipJones a écrit : Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? use seamonkey's Mail client ? pop.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 995) smtp.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 465 avec authentification) imap.mail.yahoo.com (SSL, port 993) 'cisely... why torture oneself with webmail interfaces... sean Because you still need to check the webmail interface occasionally to see if a valid email may have been caught up in the Yahoo! spam filters. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 27/06/2011 11:43, Cecil Bankston told the world: Where in SeaMonkey does one find the advertise Firefox compatibility option? Edit/Preferences/Advanced/HTTP Networking. It's a new option with Seamonkey 2.1. It's enabled by default. I should note that yours is already enabled, too. Thanks. I would not have thought to look under that category. I don't usually use the Message Source view for my own messages, but I see that it does show Firefox included in the User Agent. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
On 6/26/2011 12:59 PM PT, Stanimir Stamenkov typed: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? Long term solution is complain to owners of idiotic sites. Point them to http://geckoisgecko.org/ to help them understand their sites are broken. In the case of Yahoo, I've already done it number of times (the last time was at the end of the last year, if I remember correctly) and received no answer or observed activity on that front. And most of them don't care. :( Does it work in SM2.1? -- Have I told you how much I like ants, huh? Especially fried in a subtle blend of mech fluid and grated gears? --Rampage to Inferno, Transmutate in Transformers (Beast Wars) /\___/\ Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ /If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones wrote: Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I received the same mail. It mentioned I had been using Yahoo! mail for 4 years! I use GMail, not Yahoo Mail. Does the fact that I get a number of special interest list messages by way of Yahoo matter? If they ignore SeaMonkey, I'll return the favor and ignore them. keith whaley if you go to about:config then choose User Agent double-click on the line that says Seamonkey/2.0.14 and change it to Firefox/4.0 (or 5.0) Then go to yahoo, and then to email you will be able set up just fine. Thank you sir! Small item, my Firefox is 3.6.8. If I replace SeaMonkey with Firefox 3.6.8 instead, will that matter in the User Agent line, since I'm lying anyhow? keith ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 26/06/2011 11:37, PhillipJones told the world: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I see your User-agent string reads like this: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14/not FireFox/5 So you are using SM 2.0.14, right? My guess is that the way you set up the spoofing is not being recognized by Yahoo. I'm using SM 2.1 with advertise Firefox compatibility on and Yahoo accepted it. It gives the following user-agent: Where in SeaMonkey does one find the advertise Firefox compatibility option? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Cecil Bankston wrote: MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 26/06/2011 11:37, PhillipJones told the world: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I see your User-agent string reads like this: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14/not FireFox/5 So you are using SM 2.0.14, right? My guess is that the way you set up the spoofing is not being recognized by Yahoo. I'm using SM 2.1 with advertise Firefox compatibility on and Yahoo accepted it. It gives the following user-agent: Where in SeaMonkey does one find the advertise Firefox compatibility option? See my reply to TMitchell in the SM Spoof of IE or Firefox thread. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Interviewed by CNN on 27/06/2011 11:43, Cecil Bankston told the world: Where in SeaMonkey does one find the advertise Firefox compatibility option? Edit/Preferences/Advanced/HTTP Networking. It's a new option with Seamonkey 2.1. It's enabled by default. I should note that yours is already enabled, too. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Tamagotchi. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I received the same mail. It mentioned I had been using Yahoo! mail for 4 years! I use GMail, not Yahoo Mail. Does the fact that I get a number of special interest list messages by way of Yahoo matter? If they ignore SeaMonkey, I'll return the favor and ignore them. keith whaley if you go to about:config then choose User Agent double-click on the line that says Seamonkey/2.0.14 and change it to Firefox/4.0 (or 5.0) Then go to yahoo, and then to email you will be able set up just fine. Thank you sir! Small item, my Firefox is 3.6.8. If I replace SeaMonkey with Firefox 3.6.8 instead, will that matter in the User Agent line, since I'm lying anyhow? keith According to Yahoo FF 3.5 is lower limit. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I received the same mail. It mentioned I had been using Yahoo! mail for 4 years! I use GMail, not Yahoo Mail. Does the fact that I get a number of special interest list messages by way of Yahoo matter? If they ignore SeaMonkey, I'll return the favor and ignore them. keith whaley I have had good experience with the new Yahoo mail by using IEtab, just for that site. The advantage of that is that for other sites I use the real user agent and I can use Noscript, adblock, and a ton of other add ons. Margo Guda. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones a écrit : Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? use seamonkey's Mail client ? pop.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 995) smtp.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 465 avec authentification) imap.mail.yahoo.com (SSL, port 993) -- cyberzen ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? Must be a Mac thing. I just updated with UA Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0a1) Gecko/20110625 Firefox/7.0a1 SeaMonkey/2.4a1 -- -Rinaldi- I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? Works for me using SM 2.0.14 user agent spoof: Firefox/3.6 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Interviewed by CNN on 26/06/2011 11:37, PhillipJones told the world: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I see your User-agent string reads like this: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14/not FireFox/5 So you are using SM 2.0.14, right? My guess is that the way you set up the spoofing is not being recognized by Yahoo. I'm using SM 2.1 with advertise Firefox compatibility on and Yahoo accepted it. It gives the following user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110608 Firefox/4.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.1 Just for comparison, disabling Firefox compatibility gives this one: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110608 SeaMonkey/2.1 So I see two possible problems: 1. Your CamelCase naming of FireFox (sic). The official product name is Firefox. If the script Yahoo is using is case-sensitive, it will not recognize CamelCase FireFox. 2. Perhaps, just PERHAPS, they don't recognize Firefox 5 yet. I find this unlikely, since Firefox 5 has already hit the streets. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Apple Pippin. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
On 2011/06/26 10:37 (GMT-0400) PhillipJones composed: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? Long term solution is complain to owners of idiotic sites. Point them to http://geckoisgecko.org/ to help them understand their sites are broken. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 26/06/2011 11:37, PhillipJones told the world: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I see your User-agent string reads like this: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14/not FireFox/5 So you are using SM 2.0.14, right? My guess is that the way you set up the spoofing is not being recognized by Yahoo. I'm using SM 2.1 with advertise Firefox compatibility on and Yahoo accepted it. It gives the following user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110608 Firefox/4.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.1 Just for comparison, disabling Firefox compatibility gives this one: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110608 SeaMonkey/2.1 So I see two possible problems: 1. Your CamelCase naming of FireFox (sic). The official product name is Firefox. If the script Yahoo is using is case-sensitive, it will not recognize CamelCase FireFox. 2. Perhaps, just PERHAPS, they don't recognize Firefox 5 yet. I find this unlikely, since Firefox 5 has already hit the streets. I fixed it by completely removing the word SeaMonkey out of the UA. I will simply recognize he Word Seamonkey in the US String. I hope it doesn't affect any updates. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Sun, 26 Jun 2011 13:55:09 -0400, /Felix Miata/: On 2011/06/26 10:37 (GMT-0400) PhillipJones composed: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? Long term solution is complain to owners of idiotic sites. Point them to http://geckoisgecko.org/ to help them understand their sites are broken. In the case of Yahoo, I've already done it number of times (the last time was at the end of the last year, if I remember correctly) and received no answer or observed activity on that front. -- Stanimir ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones wrote: MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 26/06/2011 11:37, PhillipJones told the world: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I see your User-agent string reads like this: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14/not FireFox/5 So you are using SM 2.0.14, right? My guess is that the way you set up the spoofing is not being recognized by Yahoo. I'm using SM 2.1 with advertise Firefox compatibility on and Yahoo accepted it. It gives the following user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110608 Firefox/4.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.1 Just for comparison, disabling Firefox compatibility gives this one: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110608 SeaMonkey/2.1 So I see two possible problems: 1. Your CamelCase naming of FireFox (sic). The official product name is Firefox. If the script Yahoo is using is case-sensitive, it will not recognize CamelCase FireFox. 2. Perhaps, just PERHAPS, they don't recognize Firefox 5 yet. I find this unlikely, since Firefox 5 has already hit the streets. I fixed it by completely removing the word SeaMonkey out of the UA. I will simply recognize he Word Seamonkey in the US String. I hope it doesn't affect any updates. Let's try again. I fixed mine by completely removing Seamonkey from the UA String. I hope it doesn't affect any updates to SeaMonkey. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
cyberzen wrote: PhillipJones a écrit : Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? cyberzen, it seems your mail sender cuts off the first few words of your sentences. What should have appeared before your partial sentence below, use seamonkey's Mail client ? keith whaley use seamonkey's Mail client ? pop.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 995) smtp.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 465 avec authentification) imap.mail.yahoo.com (SSL, port 993) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones wrote: MCBastos wrote: So I see two possible problems: 1. Your CamelCase naming of FireFox (sic). The official product name is Firefox. If the script Yahoo is using is case-sensitive, it will not recognize CamelCase FireFox. 2. Perhaps, just PERHAPS, they don't recognize Firefox 5 yet. I find this unlikely, since Firefox 5 has already hit the streets. I fixed it by completely removing the word SeaMonkey out of the UA. I will simply recognize he Word Seamonkey in the US String. I hope it doesn't affect any updates. Another solution is to find a mail host/ISP that isn't stupid. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Le 26/06/2011 22:23, Keith Whaley a écrit : cyberzen wrote: PhillipJones a écrit : Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? cyberzen, it seems your mail sender cuts off the first few words of your sentences. What should have appeared before your partial sentence below, use seamonkey's Mail client ? keith whaley use seamonkey's Mail client ? pop.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 995) smtp.mail.yahoo.fr (SSL, port 465 avec authentification) imap.mail.yahoo.com (SSL, port 993) I mean drop yahoo's web mail use instead SM mail client -- cyberzen ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I received the same mail. It mentioned I had been using Yahoo! mail for 4 years! I use GMail, not Yahoo Mail. Does the fact that I get a number of special interest list messages by way of Yahoo matter? If they ignore SeaMonkey, I'll return the favor and ignore them. keith whaley if you go to about:config then choose User Agent double-click on the line that says Seamonkey/2.0.14 and change it to Firefox/4.0 (or 5.0) Then go to yahoo, and then to email you will be able set up just fine. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Yahoo REfuses to allow the new version of their Yahoo mail on SeaMonkey
PhillipJones wrote: Keith Whaley wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Received a message from Yahoo this morning to update my Yahoo Mail. I go to do it. First thing doesn't accept SeaMonkey at all. So I have the UA set to show FireFox 4. still doesn't accept What's with that? I received the same mail. It mentioned I had been using Yahoo! mail for 4 years! I use GMail, not Yahoo Mail. Does the fact that I get a number of special interest list messages by way of Yahoo matter? If they ignore SeaMonkey, I'll return the favor and ignore them. keith whaley if you go to about:config then choose User Agent double-click on the line that says Seamonkey/2.0.14 and change it to Firefox/4.0 (or 5.0) Then go to yahoo, and then to email you will be able set up just fine. I go to my 4 yahoo accounts just fine with: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Lightning/1.0b2 NOT Firefox 4.0b8pre SeaMonkey/2.0.14 - Build ID: 20110420224920 -- You either teach people to treat you with dignity and respect, or you don't. This means you are partly responsible for the mistreatment that you get at the hands of someone else. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Paul B. Gallagher schrieb: Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? We require SSL-encryption for delivery of updates (both for the info that updates are available and for the update download itself), verify the checksums of the downloaded files with strong hashes, and we require the certificate used for SSL there to be both valid and from the CAs used by Mozilla. The only current way to compromise this is to compromise (one of) those two CAs - and no, the only CA that we know had hacker certificates issued is not among them, we wouldn't dare to use it for our own stuff. Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
PhillipJones schrieb: Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. That's why we are putting a substantial amount of testing into every release or beta version before we turn on updates. On the testing channels where we do daily updates (nightly, aurora) we still do some automated testing so we know the builds run at least on our test systems, but we suppose people know how manually get themselves to install a new version if the old one doesn't run, or else they would not run testing versions but at least beta or better release versions. Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 06.06.2011 08:44, Robert Kaiser wrote: --- Original Message --- PhillipJones schrieb: Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. That's why we are putting a substantial amount of testing into every release or beta version before we turn on updates. On the testing channels where we do daily updates (nightly, aurora) we still do some automated testing so we know the builds run at least on our test systems, but we suppose people know how manually get themselves to install a new version if the old one doesn't run, or else they would not run testing versions but at least beta or better release versions. Robert Kaiser Good replies to both Phillip and Paul. My question is more a suggestion than a question (may already be answered), will there be a checkbox in the UI to Allow silent updates? If not then I suggest it. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Robert Kaiser wrote: Paul B. Gallagher schrieb: Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? We require SSL-encryption for delivery of updates (both for the info that updates are available and for the update download itself), verify the checksums of the downloaded files with strong hashes, and we require the certificate used for SSL there to be both valid and from the CAs used by Mozilla. The only current way to compromise this is to compromise (one of) those two CAs - and no, the only CA that we know had hacker certificates issued is not among them, we wouldn't dare to use it for our own stuff. Thanks, this helps me both to understand the process and to feel secure. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: On 06.06.2011 08:44, Robert Kaiser wrote: --- Original Message --- PhillipJones schrieb: Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. That's why we are putting a substantial amount of testing into every release or beta version before we turn on updates. On the testing channels where we do daily updates (nightly, aurora) we still do some automated testing so we know the builds run at least on our test systems, but we suppose people know how manually get themselves to install a new version if the old one doesn't run, or else they would not run testing versions but at least beta or better release versions. Robert Kaiser Good replies to both Phillip and Paul. My question is more a suggestion than a question (may already be answered), will there be a checkbox in the UI to Allow silent updates? If not then I suggest it. And I advise allow silent updates to be turned off as default. That way each individual if they allow it and the install screws up their system the onus is on them not Mozilla. If on by default the responsibility is squarely Mozilla's not the user. In this litigious society today if on by default could bring on possibility of lawsuits by user if the got together as a class and prove the software Damaged software /files on computer. would easily Mozilla under. Mozilla is not omnipotent like MS and Apple where they have almost as much money as the US government. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
MCBastos wrote: Things are slightly better on the Mozilla front -- but I still find LOTS of users using FF 3.6.x (and not always the latest update), a fair number using FF 3.5, a few using FF 3.0, and now and then one using FF 2. So, there's quite a bunch of old Mozilla around. Not as much or as old as IE, but still a lot. I am using FF 3.6.17. I do get updated regularly, but I have never had any message about moving to FF 4. In fact I thought that new version was still not yet ready. And again, as my version of FF works just fine for me why change? Neil ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 03.06.2011 23:45, MCBastos wrote: --- Original Message --- Interviewed by CNN on 04/06/2011 00:14, Jay Garcia told the world: On 03.06.2011 20:49, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I can only go by example since Mozilla hasn't enabled this feature yet so there isn't any history yet. However, as long as Microsoft hasn't had any problems with their auto-updates I would have to assume that MS would be a prime target for malware authors to invade. AFAIK there hasn't been any malware attached to MS updates. Actually, Firefox 4 by default auto-updates: when online, it checks periodically with the Mozilla servers if there's a new minor version or a patch. If there is one, it will download it and install on next Firefox restart. It's a complicated equation. Google auto-updates even major versions of Chrome. The downside of it is that yes, you are giving them the privilege to install stuff on your machine. And new major versions might break compatibility with stuff you need -- for instance, I ran into an odd problem with Flash ads that only appeared in IE9 (downgrading to IE8 solved the issue), and Firefox 4 is incompatible with the current version of a (required) plugin used by several Brazilian banks. The upside? Well... Some 10-20% of IE users are still using IE6 -- which is *three* major versions old, and has been superseded by IE7 almost *five years* ago. That's a very long lingering tail of old versions. Even Microsoft is concerned. Things are slightly better on the Mozilla front -- but I still find LOTS of users using FF 3.6.x (and not always the latest update), a fair number using FF 3.5, a few using FF 3.0, and now and then one using FF 2. So, there's quite a bunch of old Mozilla around. Not as much or as old as IE, but still a lot. Meanwhile, most Chrome users are already using Chrome 11. You will still find some with Chrome 10, a few with Chrome 9 but hardly anyone with Chrome 8 -- which was superseded just *four months ago*.(*) So, auto-update does have its points: it turns over users very quickly to the latest version. (*)There's exceptions, of course. The main ones are people who deliberately turned off auto-updates, and people who installed via MSI package instead of using the default Google Update installer. Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. Currently, I have to click a button to approve a proposed update -- you're thinking of doing away with this option, or making its absence the default? The former is pretty scary, even if you are a trusted friend. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 04.06.2011 11:08, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. Currently, I have to click a button to approve a proposed update -- you're thinking of doing away with this option, or making its absence the default? The former is pretty scary, even if you are a trusted friend. I am not thinking anything, not one of the programmers. But yes, the programmers are mulling that over ( silent updates ). -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
