Firefox gone crazy

In message ,
writes:
[]
Never used Sea Monkey, but ANY software that continues to annoy me
with constant upgrades gets deleted. I can understand an occasional
upgrade if it's actually doing something, maybe twice a year at most.

I know what you mean. But there are a _few_ softwares that update a
little more often than that, with _minor_ upgrades which _do_ _just_
either fix genuine bugs or add features actual users have been asking
for: two immediately come to mind for me, being Brother's Keeper the
genealogical software I use (the author explains all the changes at
http://www.bkwin.org/changes6.htm; also, it _doesn't_ auto-upgrade. And
the version is 6.5.3 - it's been at version 6 for years now!), and
IrfanView the free image viewer (and now a lot more), which is at 4.28
(has also been at 4 for years).

But if they keep doing it every few weeks, it's time to dump it in the
garbage. FF was annoying me on my laptop (which I seldom use, and is

FF does seem to be upgrading rather faster than is comfortable (for me)
- and the last two or three major version changes don't really seem to
be that different. (Interesting if v7 really is smaller, though, as
someone in this thread said.) I can't help wondering if they _are_
trying to reach version number parity with IE, which would be sad, and
happened (or seemed to me to) with their predecessor Netscape (with the
unfortunate result [?] that one version - Netscape 6 I think - was
released with all the debug code still in place, which made it so slow
it was uncompetitive, and more or less killed it off [7 was fine, but by
then most people had gone back to the dark side]).

pretty much just XP with FF right "off the shelf". I dont tweak it or
tamper with it. I dont like XP for starters, and this laptop is only
for WIFI use when I travel. I much prefer my desktop with Win98 and a
REAL mouse, large monitor, and full size keyboard.

So you're not comparing like with like. (Have you tried 7 at all, I mean
had an opportunity to play with it at home, not just briefly in shops
and at friends'? I recently set up a 7 machine for a friend, resulting
in my having it to play with for about a month. I thought I'd hate it,
but - though I don't like some of the things it does [I loaded "classic
shell" for example] - I can actually see the point of other aspects, and
found I didn't hate it. I'm still on XP for this my main machine [a
netbook] though, and '98lite for an older couple - a notebook that
wouldn't run XP [128M RAM], and a desktop I just haven't got round to
trying to load dual-boot yet. But I now read the 7 newsgroup, and find
the folk there/here are fine, and not necessarily superior in attitude.)

But I had to change the setting in FF to stop annoying me with
upgrades, every fu**ing time I turned it on. Worse yet are the FORCED
upgrades, such as adobe flash. My attitude on that is this. This is
MY COMPUTER. Dont fu**ing tell me what to do with it. And what really
gets me, is that I rarely see any improvements from these upgrades.
It's mostly just more security ****, which is not a concern of mine
either.

True, the security stuff probably is of less and less relevance with
'9x. As for Flash, I don't usually perceive any _improvement_, but some
websites just stop working. (In some cases, I suspect _they_ don't
actually need the latest version of Flash either, they just think they
do, and I can't be bothered to keep spoofing the newer version they want
[if indeed that's possible].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
), 1998

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

writes:

ANY software that continues to annoy me
with constant upgrades gets deleted. I can understand an occasional
upgrade if it's actually doing something, maybe twice a year at most.

Sadly, any web browser that only upgrades twice a year is going to be
full of exploitable security holes.

FF does seem to be upgrading rather faster than is comfortable (for me)
- and the last two or three major version changes don't really seem to
be that different.

While the numbering scheme (a full 1.0 bump each release) is plain silly
and just to catch-up with Chrome, in practice the rapid release scheme
seems to be working better than I feared it might, of course if they're
pushing versions out every 6 weeks, there will be fewer noticable
changes, but it does get some new features into users hands quicker than
otherwise.

wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:34:40 +0100, "Cash"
wrote:

By the way, if you intend to start talking about security, start
your own thread, I could care less about that over emphasized topic,
especially when Win98 is more secure in and of itself than the
latest MS garbage OSs.

Pop over to http://oldversion.com/Mozilla-Firefox.html and pick your
download of Firefox

Cash


Hey, is this Johnny Cash????

Thanks for the link. I'm downloading it now.
This confirmed what I thought, they just jumped right up to ver 7. I
guess they're trying to keep up with MS and Windows 7.

If it was, it really would have been a "rave from the grave" - but I must
admit to having a fairly large number of his songs, and even went to a few
of his shows when he performed in the UK.

Cash

| I can't help wondering if they _are_
| trying to reach version number parity with IE,

I don't think so. I think that Mozilla (and Google with
Chrome) have just jumped on the cloud bandwagon.
Their rate of versioning is quickly serving to make
versioning irrelevant. I saw a quote from some
spokesperson to that effect, in fact: They were
considering dropping versions altogether, with auto-
update assumed, so that everyonme using Firefox would
then be using the latest version and the number would be
only a technical detail for debuggers to be concerned with.
Google's EULA for Chrome already says that by using it
you agree to allow them to update/change the installed
software at will.

There are some obvious advantages to that, like getting
bug fixes quick. There are also disadvantages: It's very
unstable to have a PC full of software that's all in a
constant state of semi-beta, with drip-feed updates.
I would never allow anything to update itself. And I'd
have to question the quality control of any company that
wants to do that.

Unfortunately, there's also a more insidious motive going
on: The cloud fad is partly about convenience for people
who want mobile access to specific software, but it's also
about finding a way to make more money from software.
Auto-updating has become a backdoor method to acclimate
people to the idea that their software is a rented service
and not a purchased product. If all of your software calls
home and updates itself then what you've got is closer to
interactive TV than it is to a computer.... which is exactly
where many of the big tech. companies want things to go.
If Microsoft can sell you software AND rent it to you... If
Apple can turn their products into shopping and service
devices, where they charge you for the "app" as well as for
the sale... If Google can hook you on a browser that's really
a remote controlled tracking device, redefining the Internet
as a dynamic billboard... then they can all make a lot more
money. But first they have to get you used to the idea that
it's not really your PC and that you don't really have a right
to do what you want with the software you install.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:56:35 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Unfortunately, there's also a more insidious motive going
on: The cloud fad is partly about convenience for people
who want mobile access to specific software, but it's also
about finding a way to make more money from software.
Auto-updating has become a backdoor method to acclimate
people to the idea that their software is a rented service
and not a purchased product.

Was there ever a time when software was a purchased product? I only
entered the world of computers in 1982 so I don't know the history
before that. For me, it has always been the case that "purchasing"
software only gives you certain limited rights to use it. Ownership
stays with the organization that created it and does not transfer to
the end user. You're essentially just buying a license.

If Microsoft can sell you software AND rent it to you... If
Apple can turn their products into shopping and service
devices, where they charge you for the "app" as well as for
the sale... If Google can hook you on a browser that's really
a remote controlled tracking device, redefining the Internet
as a dynamic billboard... then they can all make a lot more
money. But first they have to get you used to the idea that
it's not really your PC and that you don't really have a right
to do what you want with the software you install.

It's your hardware, but it's their software. They just let you use it.

--

Char Jackson

"Mayayana" wrote in news:j8joiv$mao$1@dont-
email.me:

There are some obvious advantages to that, like getting
bug fixes quick. There are also disadvantages: It's very
unstable to have a PC full of software that's all in a
constant state of semi-beta, with drip-feed updates.
I would never allow anything to update itself. And I'd
have to question the quality control of any company that
wants to do that.


I wouldn't tolerate it. Running a computer is like running a ship. Refits,
stowing new food, all things things have to happen at times, but a person
can't prepare to sail if they are never allowed to leave port! A ship should
be fitted with stuff that will last till the next time things have to be
changed. it has to ba adaptable, and it has to be within proper reach and
control of the people sailing it.

I remember learning ona ship, having tied off a line about 12 feet up, from
the starboard rigging. It held a small crane boom safely out of the way. The
skipper berated me, made it totally clear that all controls of a ship must
ALWAYS be safely in reach of ALL people at all times. If software coders
cannot learn from this, I want to give them some of the words I heard said to
me that day. On my machine, I am captain, I don't catre whjat they made. If
thwey won't let me have proper control, it doesn't come aboard.

Char Jackson wrote in
:

It's your hardware, but it's their software. They just let you use it.


Yes, but where incosnatcy threatens the state of your hardware and ability to
control it, they cross the line. If they blether about their 'rights' it
doesn't matter. I can choose to let them in, or not, and if they behave as if
my control of my machine is less important than their control of my machine,
then I don't let them in. A very large number of coders agree with this, can
you imagine how hard it is to code for a consistent base if this is not so?
For every corde that forces their will on us, there will be many with far
more respect, and a better grasp of reality.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:34:47 -0000, "Cash"
wrote:


If it was, it really would have been a "rave from the grave" - but I must
admit to having a fairly large number of his songs, and even went to a few
of his shows when he performed in the UK.

Cash


Cool, I like Johnny Cash....

wrote in
:

snip

I do still have a good working version of K-Meleon though.
Works MUCH better than FF and Operaaaauggccchhh.gag.vomit
combined. But I need FF because I need to use that
"Download Helper" addon to save videos from youtube. For
normal browsing, I use K-Meleon. (best browser around).

No, it's not. Opera is. Well, actually OB1 and Lynx are, but
snip

;-)

And it saves all your flv files in its cache - all you have to
do is give them a name with the flv extension, and then they
won't get deleted when the cache clears automatically at Opera
shutdown. (You WOULD have that set, wouldn't you?)

But go ahead, lizard around. Whatever turns you on.


--
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at
it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named
Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found
out that you had already stolen it."
Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, around 1983

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
Was there ever a time when software was a purchased product? I only
entered the world of computers in 1982 so I don't know the history
before that. For me, it has always been the case that "purchasing"
software only gives you certain limited rights to use it. Ownership
stays with the organization that created it and does not transfer to
the end user. You're essentially just buying a license.

Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a licence to _use_ it
indefinitely. There is now a movement towards the limitation of duration
of right to use.
[]
It's your hardware, but it's their software. They just let you use it.

But for how long?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
), 1998