Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.mozilla.org!news.mozilla.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:32:56 -0500
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:32:57 -0500
From: Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.usability
Subject: Re: Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu
References: <56ad8796-2c61-4e18-b4ba-7c710b2838a0@j30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>	<wd2dnSnVUsxWMgrRnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@mozilla.org>	<mailman.3944.1285011193.19132.dev-usability@lists.mozilla.org>	<2f4b8c6d-ac91-484f-8a72-cc51081c9387@n3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <mailman.4490.1285596220.19132.dev-usability@lists.mozilla.org> <AqOdnRK-AbnrMT3RnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@mozilla.org> <B5-dnT4POM9MRz3RnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@mozilla.org> <LYednT-HZZSesjzRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@mozilla.org> <1sednUpcSIEKrjzRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
In-Reply-To: <1sednUpcSIEKrjzRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <huSdnTMZN-MlqjzRnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.91.168.7
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-QyZf7Z1ic6j4wWZBJa1Iv0+q7RcPusM89iVq0jml2OVpHoVZKvXFwKiXW3LhRngiETdDBrxzAgmUu4s!DsS1JQDPTS5YxCth4xkbQIALseUfuOwppZDFF6F0TbwwvgF+OBnfcgVpEIVMiZ2WE8NV9cNJR9KT!nqdXg4Bc+Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mozilla.org
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@mozilla.org
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3383

Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 9/27/2010 4:55 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2010 7:38 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>>>>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on
>>>>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more
>>>>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there.
>>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without
>>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be
>>>> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security
>>>> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only,
>>>> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
>>>
>>> Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already
>>> thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and
>>> user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this
>>> project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update
>>> system has said that users will have "no control of the update process."
>>>
>>> - A
>>>
>> Reading the original post, it sure sounds that way to me.
>>
>> ====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen 
>> without
>>  >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
> 
> I'm confused. Where in that statement do you find the words "and users 
> will have no control over the setting"  ?
> 
> - A
> 

 >>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen 
without
 >>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.

What does that say?