SillyDog701

[James]

I should add that I'm not assigning any "right" or "wrong" to this direction. I can appreciate that there will always be folks who want to tinker with their computers and make adjustments and so forth. According to everything I've read, that is not the general consensus. Most folks simply don't care. It's sort of like driving. Most folks have no clue what goes on under the hood of their cars and could care less. They have them serviced and when they're too much trouble, they trade them in for new models. There are, however, some who enjoy making their own repairs (I'm not among them). And so it is with computers and programs.

At my place of employment, everyone has a computer and all except for one uses IE by default. I know since I've spoken to them about it. The manager has fried two computers in the last year and a half (heaven only knows how) and finally had a repairman clean it out and install an antivirus. He had no clue and still has no desire to learn about it. This is the attitude of most folks.

And I have to admit to being drawn in that direction myself. I want the browser to do its thing "in the background" without bothering me. I don't want to scan for viruses so I set it to do so automatically at night when I won't be bothered. I want it to update itself during my down times. What version I have is of no interest to me. Just keep me up to date. Sure... there are developers for whom this is important but I'm not one of them nor is the vast majority of people.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[James]

btw... here's the report of MS's plans. You'll notice that folks can opt out if they wish (I won't be among them):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16214912

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0; BOIE9;ENUSMSE)

[Fulvio]

Google Chrome does it in the background.

. Sure, but I got around that. Then, I restored the function.
Personally, I want to be protected, and, I, probably, do not care if I am up-to-date or not (a number of updates are not for protection), but I want to be able to control the updates. As long as Seamonkey is around, I think that I will be able to have my way. I feel very differently than Antony, on this matter.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[Antony]

Most folks could care less what is under the hood of their computers, so to speak. They don't want to be bothered updating anything (browser, email program, antivirus) BUT they want to be up-to-date and protected.

That's the common belief. And many people believe that newer version must have security issue addressed.

As for Mozilla, too bad, jumping versions may address one or two minor security issues. However, it is not difficult to sense that Mozilla is more interested in injecting new so-called “awesome” (new) features into its users.

They even lied to Mozilla users by claiming the new updated version addresses security issues, but that particular update does not security improvement except removing features.

A while back, there was a whine (in another forum), that Microsoft Windows Vista forces the computer to reboot, without warning, without the ability to postpone... Think about unsaved documents.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[Fulvio]

They even lied to Mozilla users by claiming the new updated version addresses security issues

Example, please?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[Antony]

They even lied to Mozilla users by claiming the new updated version addresses security issues

Example, please?

Here
For those who stayed at Firefox 3.6.x, back in July 2011, this was the window pop-up to user's face:


Except when concerned user decided to further examine the detail,

Firefox 3.6.19 fixes the following issues found in previous versions of Firefox 3.6:

* Turned off downloadable font support for users running Mac OS X 10.7 due to an underlying platform bug. We hope to enable them again in the future

The concerned user can immediately picked up the fact that the said update did not provide any claimed security update at all. Mozilla used security update as an excuse lying to end users.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[Fulvio]

Anyone who cares, should examine the "details". To avoid the possible confusion, I gave up on 3.6.x. In fact, if I remember correctly, when I tried to update a 3.6.x, I was told that a v.7, 8, or something was the latest update.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[richard mitnick]

OMG!!
I have been letting Firefox run its updates now for a while, because generally if I wait until they do, then everything that I want works.

I have been doing the same ting with SeaMonkey.

If I do not see what I want, I will just go elsewhere.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

[ncd]

OMG!!
I have been letting Firefox run its updates now for a while, because generally if I wait until they do, then everything that I want works.

Richard,

So have I, in the past.... however, I am old school in this and so want to have the option to choose in the future, particularly if I have (for example) advance warning that a particular update is buggy.

So the idea that app.update.silent is there and can be put into user.js makes me feel warm and fuzzy. IF, perchance, they remove that option for Fx 13, I will not be happy... And the kludge then would be to stop Fx from completing updates through my firewall or similar. Not a kludge I look forward to having to employ.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[James]

This, in my opinion, is a complete over-reaction.... almost to the point of hysterics. Updates may be buggy. But I can honestly say that in the time that I have been getting updates (since day 1), I have never received a buggy update that caused me extreme issues. I let the Mozilla folks look after me and it works out well. I let Microsoft make their updates and that works well. And yet I see here people who insist that they are in a better position to determine whether or not these updates are worthwhile. And the irony is... some of them report more issues with their computers than I ever dreamed of having. It makes me wonder... if they simply stopped their infernal diddling with their computer's software and let their programs do their thing... perhaps they wouldn't report half the issues they evidently have.

BUT I suspect this will not be the case. We represent a very, very small percentage of folks online. And we also represent a group who love to diddle with our computers and I don't see that changing anytime soon. So... by all means. Look to block updates until you can determine they're good for you. I, on the other hand, welcome them.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0

[Fulvio]

It takes time to determine causes of computer problems. I have had problems since August 2010, and I suspected that my new Firewall was playing games. Two weeks ago, I confirmed my suspicions. And, it is not only the Firewall, because, yesterday, for the first time in two weeks, I got a blue screen, right after an update which required a restart.
As for the Mozilla products, and Windows updates, I don't care if they are silent, as long as I don't have to intervene, and, especially, like yesterday, fix problems caused by the update. But, the update was neither Mozilla nor Microsoft.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20111221 Firefox/9.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.6.1

[James]

I don't know what to say, Fulvio. You're one of the good guys who has tried to help people over the years by offering advice and sharing your own experiences and I appreciate that. I have strong opinions and you should take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm sincere when I say that updates have seldom (if ever) caused me an issue. Usually my problems have resulted in the past when I deleted files or programs without thinking about the repercussions. As far as Mozilla and MS are concerned, their updates have never given me any problems (knock wood). Maybe I've just been lucky but in my heart I think it's because both companies have taken great pains to ensure that their updates are correct as well as painless.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3

[Fulvio]

I don't know what to say, Fulvio.

There is nothing to say. I think, that both of us agree on the same thing. The difference is that you let the programs do their thing, while I wish to see what is happening. Then, I can find out what is causing me problems.
For instance, I, just, updated Another Seamonkey(another thread), in three steps, from 2.0.11 to 2.9b4. Everything worked fine up to now. I could, safely, say that the new Seamonkey update was the troublemaker, if there was any issue.
Others told to reload the OS, to eliminate my problems. There may be some corruption of my settings, which would be eliminated, if I started from scratch, but, I am very conservative dealing with such situations.
Now, on to test SM2.9b4, which will be removed as SM2.9 is released.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120418 Firefox/12.0 SeaMonkey/2.9

[Antony]

This, in my opinion, is a complete over-reaction.... almost to the point of hysterics.

Reading certain Mozilla guys' comments on many non-Mozilla things, a huge amount of their voices are complete over-reaction.

I really don't understand need to chase the latest software version, especially by those open-source extremists.

I don't rush for latest software, not even OS X Lion. It took me more than 4 months since the release of OS X Lion.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.14 Firefox/3.6.28

[DJGM]

I really don't understand need to chase the latest software version,
especially by those open-source extremists.

There you go yet again with the "extremist" line. It's like pot calling the kettle black. Give it a rest please.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120604 Firefox/13.0 SeaMonkey/2.10 Lightning/1.5b2