Wow.
WebDawg
box is crazy. You goal has been accomplished, 95 percent of users do
not check the boxes or see this information.
Now, if your talking about delivering updates better that sounds
great. If your talking about telling a user how much they need the
newest update, that is wonderful.
I get that you want to align the version number with your rapid
release structure. Great.
Somehow this just seems like you are removing something that someone
like me might look for every once in a while. So now. Instead of
going to help about. I have to google search the place to get my
version number.
about:whatever.
I have been an avid user of Firefox. Chrome is kinda lame. As always
you have to follow the browser market to make a competitive product
but never follow other browsers into the blackhole of stupidness.
If you really want to remove version numbers...at least give me a
timebased hash that I can decode so I know where I am at. You guys
may be thinking of a module based update system or something too.
Where you just download parts and it updates.
I dunno.
Web...
Asa Dotzler
WebDawg wrote:
> Somehow this just seems like you are removing something that someone
> like me might look for every once in a while. So now. Instead of
> going to help about. I have to google search the place to get my
> version number.
>
> about:whatever.
Help->Troubleshooting. Same number of clicks as before. (About's
location isn't even consistent across Chrome, IE, and Opera.)
Ron Hunter
version/build info, though.
Asa Dotzler
Version info and build ID are both well above the fold on even rather
small windows.
- A
Ron Hunter
They are below the extensions list, so if a user has a lot of
extensions, it will be on the second page, at least. any chance of it
being moved to the top section?
Asa Dotzler
They are not below the extensions list. They are above the extensions
list. The name and the version are the first two items on the page.
- A
Ron Hunter
Since the version tells only a part of the story, we need the build id
in order to be sure just what is going on for a support issue. It is
essential that we know, for support, exactly what the user is working with.
Asa Dotzler
And that's the third item on the page, right after the name and the
version. I really don't get where you're coming from here. Are you even
using Firefox or are you trolling me?
- A
al...@yahoo.com
news:UNGdnYEH_cRuhtfT...@mozilla.org...
He is probably talking about the browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID
pref.
Fx misrepresents the version and the UA for beta builds even in
about:support
https://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/browse_thread/thread/5e5a05b35b50de79
they are identical to the release in all beta builds
So one is forced to look for other clues, to be sure.
al...@yahoo.com
news:TrKdnRmDmanwsNfT...@mozilla.org...
>
> Fx misrepresents the version and the UA for beta builds even in
> about:support
To clarify, the UA is not at issue, but the user should be able count on
getting an accurate version (one that is unique to the release) at least
from about:support, never mind about. Now that you've made it clear that
even about:support can't be trusted, to guarantee an accurate version you
have to open about:buildconfig, open the changeset uri on a remote site, and
note the most recent (among several) release tag (e.g. FIREFOX_6_0_RELEASE).
Crazy, considering that a simple and universal help->about used to suffice.
Ron Hunter
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/6.0
So, where is the build id?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
In the URL window type about:support
Scroll down to:
browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID 20110811165603
The value is the buildID
--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Ron Hunter
appear in my UA.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Best I can remember the buildID is different from the version numbers in
the UA string and always has been - I think.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
There is also something here, if you can separate the wheat from the chaff.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2278751
Robert Kaiser
> I know, that's what Asa seems to be missing. The build id does NOT
> appear in my UA.
And it should not. For one, sniffing for it on websites is very, very
bad and must be discouraged. For the other, it's easier to fingerprint
users when it's there, and Mozilla cares about user privacy and
therefore works to reduce fingerprinting possibilities.
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! :)
Robert Kaiser
> Okay. The fact that you think the average user even checks the about
> box is crazy. You goal has been accomplished, 95 percent of users do
> not check the boxes or see this information.
I agree and that's why I don't see why Limi and Asa on one side and a
lot of voiced advanced users on the other side make such a big fuzz out
of it.
didi_X8
> I agree and that's why I don't see why Limi and Asa on one side and a
> lot of voiced advanced users on the other side make such a big fuzz out
> of it.
Obviously Asa was not able to convince the users about the purpose of
the wanted change which involves breaking a widespread convention. You
can't just break conventions without very good reason.
At the same time he seems not to be ready to reconsider this.
I think this isn't only about the about dialog anymore, but about how
decision making in a community should work.
Asa Dotzler
I think you should go back and re-thing this. Your argument here is
absurd and a misrepresentation of what I said. The first item in the
About->Troubleshooting window is the *Name* of the product. The second
item is the *Version* of the product. The third item is the *User Agent
String* for the product. If that's all you need, that's all you get.
These three pieces of information cover the most basic of
troubleshooting needs.
f you want to dig deeper, because you've got a difficult issue to
troubleshoot, you can scroll down the page and get even more useful
information for troubleshooting.
This page was designed by the people who do more Firefox support than
anyone in the world, the Firefox support team. They know what they're
doing. If this proposed change was going to cause the support headache
that you're pretending it will, then surely the Firefox user support
team would be complaining first and most loudly.
- A
Asa Dotzler
The buildID does appear in the UA for nightly and aurora but not beta
and release. It appears just a bit down the page though for beta and
release.
But the about dialog doesn't have the build ID anywhere, ever, under any
circumstances short of an extension that ads it there so this whole
thread is mostly meaningless. You started off by claiming the version
wasn't there and I showed you that it was. Then you claimed that wasn't
enough and you needed the build ID to which I responded again that it
was there. Now you're complaining about the location of the build ID
when this discussion is about the about dialog which doesn't even have
the build ID. I'm done here.
- A
- A
>
al...@yahoo.com
>
>
> al...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> <al...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:TrKdnRmDmanwsNfT...@mozilla.org...
>>> Fx misrepresents the version and the UA for beta builds even in
>>> about:support
>>
>> To clarify, the UA is not at issue, but the user should be able count on
>> getting an accurate version (one that is unique to the release) at least
>> from about:support, never mind about. Now that you've made it clear that
>> even about:support can't be trusted, to guarantee an accurate version you
>> have to open about:buildconfig, open the changeset uri on a remote site,
>> and
>> note the most recent (among several) release tag (e.g.
>> FIREFOX_6_0_RELEASE).
>> Crazy, considering that a simple and universal help->about used to
>> suffice.
>
>
> I think you should go back and re-thing this. Your argument here is absurd
> and a misrepresentation of what I said.
I misrepresented nothing. Every beta release shows the same version
(equivalent to the release). To get the accurate human readable beta
version (e.g. 6.0b5), you have to take the steps I outlined. 3.6 used to
show the beta version in help->about. So the point stands, a trivial and
universal help->about, has been replaced with an arcane, multi-step
procedure requiring an external navigation.
Asa Dotzler
> I misrepresented nothing. Every beta release shows the same version
> (equivalent to the release). To get the accurate human readable beta
> version (e.g. 6.0b5), you have to take the steps I outlined. 3.6 used to
> show the beta version in help->about. So the point stands, a trivial and
> universal help->about, has been replaced with an arcane, multi-step
> procedure requiring an external navigation.
Oh. Sorry. I misread that. I had no idea you were talking about channel
information and not version information given that this whole thread has
been about version information.
Yes, we should add the channel to the Troubleshooting page and I think
that's already a known bug. The Troubleshooting page should give the
Name, the Channel, the Version, etc.
- A
Robert Kaiser
> To get the accurate human readable beta
> version (e.g. 6.0b5), you have to take the steps I outlined.
As the differences between the betas are superficial (only stability and
other small fixes), the only thing you need to know is if you're on the
current beta or not, IMHO.
al...@yahoo.com
news:37OdnQoZisSJdtbT...@mozilla.org...
> al...@yahoo.com schrieb:
>> To get the accurate human readable beta
>> version (e.g. 6.0b5), you have to take the steps I outlined.
>
> As the differences between the betas are superficial (only stability and
> other small fixes), the only thing you need to know is if you're on the
> current beta or not, IMHO.
>
Yeah, real humble. If that's all you need know, feel free to disregard the
version, but don't tell me what I need know.
Incidentally, the difference between point releases is also superficial and
sometimes non-existent (5.0.1), I guess that means you'll start lying about
those version as well.