AntiX 19.2, Updating FireFox Browser

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

Hi,

I have a Dell 64 bit laptop with AntiX 19.2. Fire Fox esr version 68.x.
I have not been able to update FF to a newer version via Package Manager
because a newer version is never shown (bold print).

Perhaps I need to update Package Manager in order to get a new list?

How do I update/refresh Package Manager?

Thank You in advance, John

[J.O. Aho]

I would recommend you to use the command line this time, as it tend to
give better indication what may go wrong.

Open a xterm och other terminal program that may be installed on your antix.

run the following to update the remote files "database":
sudo apt-get update

if no error messages, then run the following to upgrade packages:
sudo apt-get upgrade

If you get any errors, then post them here.


Keep in ind that FireFox ESR don't have as frequent updates as other
versions of FireFox.

--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>> I have a Dell 64 bit laptop with AntiX 19.2. Fire Fox esr version 68.x.
>> I have not been able to update FF to a newer version via Package Manager
>> because a newer version is never shown (bold print).
>>
>> Perhaps I need to update Package Manager in order to get a new list?
>>
>> How do I update/refresh Package Manager?
>
>I would recommend you to use the command line this time, as it tend to
>give better indication what may go wrong.
>
>Open a xterm och other terminal program that may be installed on your antix.
>
>run the following to update the remote files "database":
>sudo apt-get update
>
>if no error messages, then run the following to upgrade packages:
>sudo apt-get upgrade
>
>If you get any errors, then post them here.
>

Hi, I did what you suggested (has ROXTerm). After I entered my password, a
large list (not first line), "Get:113 http://debian.org/debian ..........."

Below all the "Gets" are lines of information and one line says:

"W: An error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is
not updated and previous index files will be used. GPG error....... The
following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20
antiX (antix repo) <re...@antixlinux.com>"

I tried to copy & paste all the lines beyond the "Get...." lines to
post them here, but was unable.

Again Thanks, John

[J.O. Aho]

That ain't important, the important part is the one you did post

"The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20"

I guess the key used to sign packages has been changed for one reason or
another, so before you can update as before, you need to manually update
the trusted key, AntiX has a short howto, which allows you to do it in
two different ways:

https://antixlinux.com/expkeysig-error-and-fix/

I think I would go with the second method if I was you.

--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

<SNIP>

>> Hi, I did what you suggested (has ROXTerm). After I entered my password, a
>> large list (not first line), "Get:113 http://debian.org/debian ..........."
>>
>> Below all the "Gets" are lines of information and one line says:
>>
>> "W: An error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is
>> not updated and previous index files will be used. GPG error....... The
>> following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20
>> antiX (antix repo) <re...@antixlinux.com>"
>>
>> I tried to copy & paste all the lines beyond the "Get...." lines to
>> post them here, but was unable.
>
>That ain't important, the important part is the one you did post
>
>"The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20"
>
>I guess the key used to sign packages has been changed for one reason or
>another, so before you can update as before, you need to manually update
>the trusted key, AntiX has a short howto, which allows you to do it in
>two different ways:
>
>https://antixlinux.com/expkeysig-error-and-fix/
>
>I think I would go with the second method if I was you.

Hi J.O.

I used the second method instructions without any
errors.

Afterwards, I used the following command you posted earlier:

"run the following to update the remote files "database":
sudo apt-get update"

Among the responses I saw was:

"This must be accepted explicitly before updates for this repository can be
applied.
apt-secure(8) manpage for details."

I have NO clue where "apt-secure(8) manpage" is located??

Thanks again, John

[David W. Hodgins]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 10:11:28 -0400, <jaugu...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I have NO clue where "apt-secure(8) manpage" is located??

http://manpages.org/apt-secure/8

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change dwho...@nomail.afraid.org to davidw...@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

[J.O. Aho]

On 06/10/2021 16.11, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

> Afterwards, I used the following command you posted earlier:
>
> "run the following to update the remote files "database":
> sudo apt-get update"
>
> Among the responses I saw was:
>
> "This must be accepted explicitly before updates for this repository can be
> applied.
> apt-secure(8) manpage for details."
>
> I have NO clue where "apt-secure(8) manpage" is located??

David did point you the online version of the man page, but you may have
it also installed locally. Local man pages can be read with the "man"
command

man apt-secure

sometimes the documentation may be cut into different sections, then you
can specify which one you you want

man 8 apt-secure


most system commands has a manpage, so you can do a 'man ls' to get to
know more about ls-command, of course you need to have man-command
installed and also the man-pages, this not always the case, different
distributions have different names, but generally you need at least
man-db

But don't waste your time on this right now, read the page David gave.


--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>> Afterwards, I used the following command you posted earlier:
>>
>> "run the following to update the remote files "database":
>> sudo apt-get update"
>>
>> Among the responses I saw was:
>>
>> "This must be accepted explicitly before updates for this repository can be
>> applied.
>> apt-secure(8) manpage for details."
>>
>> I have NO clue where "apt-secure(8) manpage" is located??
>
>
>David did point you the online version of the man page, but you may have
>it also installed locally. Local man pages can be read with the "man"
>command
>
>man apt-secure
>
>sometimes the documentation may be cut into different sections, then you
>can specify which one you you want
>
>man 8 apt-secure
>

Hi,

I did find it locally. Thanks.

There is a lot of reading to do.

BTW: There is only ONE reason I use Linux. I prefer using it when
browsing the web since I feel it is a safer OS compared to MS Windows.
However, when it comes to updating the FireFox browser, it is SIMPLE.

What an ORDEAL it is to get a newer version of FireFox using this version
of Linux.

Thanks again for all your help, John

[J.O. Aho]

On 07/10/2021 14.32, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

> BTW: There is only ONE reason I use Linux. I prefer using it when
> browsing the web since I feel it is a safer OS compared to MS Windows.
> However, when it comes to updating the FireFox browser, it is SIMPLE.

It's all about using what fits your needs, mine are different from
yours, so I do use only Linux.

> What an ORDEAL it is to get a newer version of FireFox using this version
> of Linux.
>
> Thanks again for all your help, John

Good to see you managed to solve this. For security reason keys are
rotated from time to time to ensure that no one else than the
maintainers has they private key so they can sign the packages, sadly it
becomes a pita if you don't make frequent updates and they have disabled
the old keys before you have updated to the new public keys (which is
used to verify the packages).

--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

Hi,

FYI, I did NOT manage to Update the Package Manager in order to Update
FireFox.

I am FRUSTRATED with the CONFUSING steps required to "VERIFY".

Would Linux Ubantu or Mint be better for updating FireFox?

Thanks in advance, John

[J.O. Aho]

On 08/10/2021 15.41, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

> FYI, I did NOT manage to Update the Package Manager in order to Update
> FireFox.
> I am FRUSTRATED with the CONFUSING steps required to "VERIFY".

Took a hasty look at the man page (the online version, as I don't use a
distribution with apt) and it seems like it's not really helping in this
case, but I found the following command recommended in a blog post:

apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update

> Would Linux Ubantu or Mint be better for updating FireFox?

As both Ubuntu and Mint uses apt, they are trouble prone for the exact
same issue if they change the key they use to sign repositories/packages
and you haven't done an update before the old key has expired.

This ain't a problem of apt, it's more about the possibility to provide
packages that hasn't been tampered with, so RedHat based systems will
also have this even if they use yum.

The only way to avoid the issue with change of signing keys would be
using a "LiveCD" (nowadays they use usb memory-sticks instead), but the
download size would be larger as you would download a whole new version
of the distribution.

There is also possibility to use the Firefox compiled by Mozilla and not
update the system, but then your rest of the system wouldn't be up to
date and could lead to that you could be hacked anyway.


I hope the "apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update" solves
your problem.


--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>On 08/10/2021 15.41, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> FYI, I did NOT manage to Update the Package Manager in order to Update
>> FireFox.
>> I am FRUSTRATED with the CONFUSING steps required to "VERIFY".
>
>Took a hasty look at the man page (the online version, as I don't use a
>distribution with apt) and it seems like it's not really helping in this
>case, but I found the following command recommended in a blog post:
>
>apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>

Hi J. O.

I'll give that a try later today.

I am currently using a WinXP laptop (I don't use for browsing the web)
with Agent 1.92 for NGs.

Thanks, John

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 07:37:28 -0400, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

>>On 08/10/2021 15.41, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, I did NOT manage to Update the Package Manager in order to Update
>>> FireFox.
>>> I am FRUSTRATED with the CONFUSING steps required to "VERIFY".
>>
>>Took a hasty look at the man page (the online version, as I don't use a
>>distribution with apt) and it seems like it's not really helping in this
>>case, but I found the following command recommended in a blog post:
>>
>>apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>>
Hi J. O.

UPDATE:

Using RoxTerm, I typed the above command and this is the
response I got:

"bash: apt-get--allow-release......command not found".

I see you have 2 dashes after "get" so I tried it again with 1 dash.
The result was the same.

John

PS, I did read what you said below.

Since I installed AntiX 19.2 on HD, I did some customizing and added
folders, etc. To boot via CD live, I would be without some of the functions
I had setup.

[J.O. Aho]

On 09/10/2021 20.46, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 07:37:28 -0400, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>>> On 08/10/2021 15.41, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI, I did NOT manage to Update the Package Manager in order to Update
>>>> FireFox.
>>>> I am FRUSTRATED with the CONFUSING steps required to "VERIFY".
>>>
>>> Took a hasty look at the man page (the online version, as I don't use a
>>> distribution with apt) and it seems like it's not really helping in this
>>> case, but I found the following command recommended in a blog post:
>>>
>>> apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>>>
> Hi J. O.
>
> UPDATE:
>
> Using RoxTerm, I typed the above command and this is the
> response I got:
>
> "bash: apt-get--allow-release......command not found".
>
> I see you have 2 dashes after "get" so I tried it again with 1 dash.
> The result was the same.

You should have a space before the two dashes. Also you may need to run
it with a sudo in front too:

sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update

explained kind of like (do not type this):
sudo<space>apt-get<space>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin<space>update


--

//Aho

[David W. Hodgins]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 16:08:10 -0400, J.O. Aho <us...@example.net> wrote:
> You should have a space before the two dashes. Also you may need to run
> it with a sudo in front too:
>
> sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update

Just to clarify. As per "man getopts", long options always start with a space
followed by two hyphens, then the long option. Short options start with a space
followed by a single hyphen, then the single letter short option.

Short options may be combined, so "apt-get -m -q" may also be written as
"apt-get -mq".

Long options often, but not always, have an equivalent short option, so
"apt-get --help" may also be written as "apt-get -h".

[J.O. Aho]

On 09/10/2021 22.53, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 16:08:10 -0400, J.O. Aho <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> You should have a space before the two dashes. Also you may need to run
>> it with a sudo in front too:
>>
>> sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>
> Just to clarify. As per "man getopts", long options always start with a
> space
> followed by two hyphens, then the long option. Short options start with
> a space
> followed by a single hyphen, then the single letter short option.
>
> Short options may be combined, so "apt-get -m -q" may also be written as
> "apt-get -mq".
>
> Long options often, but not always, have an equivalent short option, so
> "apt-get --help" may also be written as "apt-get -h".

--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin is one of those without a short option.

--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>>>> On 08/10/2021 15.41, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FYI, I did NOT manage to Update the Package Manager in order to Update
>>>>> FireFox.
>>>>> I am FRUSTRATED with the CONFUSING steps required to "VERIFY".
>>>>
>>>> Took a hasty look at the man page (the online version, as I don't use a
>>>> distribution with apt) and it seems like it's not really helping in this
>>>> case, but I found the following command recommended in a blog post:
>>>>
>>>> apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>>>>
>> Hi J. O.
>>
>> UPDATE:
>>
>> Using RoxTerm, I typed the above command and this is the
>> response I got:
>>
>> "bash: apt-get--allow-release......command not found".
>>
>> I see you have 2 dashes after "get" so I tried it again with 1 dash.
>> The result was the same.
>
>You should have a space before the two dashes. Also you may need to run
>it with a sudo in front too:
>
>sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>
>explained kind of like (do not type this):
>sudo<space>apt-get<space>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin<space>update

Hi J. O.

I will try what you suggested again later today.

IDEA:

Since Package Manager uses a List of Categories, eg.
"Browsers", is it possible to EDIT (text editor) the list
of Browsers that include "FireFox"?

I assume that a character(s) in that list represents FireFox was updated,
because "FireFox" is no longer in bold print (faint gray).

If I can edit that and remove/change the character(s) to "flag" that
FireFox was not updated? Would that work?

If you think that might work, I have NO clue about the location and
name of the Browsers list.

Thanks again, John

[J.O. Aho]

On 10/10/2021 14.03, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

>> sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update

> I will try what you suggested again later today.
>
> IDEA:
>
> Since Package Manager uses a List of Categories, eg.
> "Browsers", is it possible to EDIT (text editor) the list
> of Browsers that include "FireFox"?

The category is originally stored in the package, the package manager
stores a local "database" of information it has collected while
installing the package as name, category and version.

> I assume that a character(s) in that list represents FireFox was updated,
> because "FireFox" is no longer in bold print (faint gray).

I don't know about the colors, I don't use an deb based distribution.
The "database" will have stored the version number which is the latest
installed and compared that to the latest available in the repository,
not flag needed for this.

If you want to reinstall a package, you can do it with
sudo apt-get --reinstall install firefox

> If I can edit that and remove/change the character(s) to "flag" that
> FireFox was not updated? Would that work?

Sound unessential complicated, as you need to understand the logic of
the "database" have the right tools to edit it, just so much easier to
just use the tools you have which allows you to reinstall any package
you already have installed.


--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>> Just to clarify. As per "man getopts", long options always start with a
>> space
>> followed by two hyphens, then the long option. Short options start with
>> a space
>> followed by a single hyphen, then the single letter short option.
>>
>> Short options may be combined, so "apt-get -m -q" may also be written as
>> "apt-get -mq".
>>
>> Long options often, but not always, have an equivalent short option, so
>> "apt-get --help" may also be written as "apt-get -h".
>
>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin is one of those without a short option.

Hi J. O.

I did what you suggested. This time there was no command error.

THE ORDEAL IS NOT OVER:

Now I have to respond to this:

"N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates........ See apt-secure(8)
manpage for details"

POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS ORDEAL?

Since Package Manager uses a List of Categories, eg.
"Browsers", is it possible to EDIT (text editor) the list
of Browsers that include "FireFox"?

I assume that a character(s) in that list represents FireFox was updated,
because "FireFox" is no longer in bold print (faint gray).

If I can edit that and remove/change the character(s) to "flag" that
FireFox was not updated? Would that work?

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>>> sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>> I will try what you suggested again later today.
>>
>> IDEA:
>>
>> Since Package Manager uses a List of Categories, eg.
>> "Browsers", is it possible to EDIT (text editor) the list
>> of Browsers that include "FireFox"?
>
>
>The category is originally stored in the package, the package manager
>stores a local "database" of information it has collected while
>installing the package as name, category and version.
>
>
>> I assume that a character(s) in that list represents FireFox was updated,
>> because "FireFox" is no longer in bold print (faint gray).
>
>I don't know about the colors, I don't use an deb based distribution.
>The "database" will have stored the version number which is the latest
>installed and compared that to the latest available in the repository,
>not flag needed for this.
>
>If you want to reinstall a package, you can do it with
>sudo apt-get --reinstall install firefox
>

Hi J. O.

I did what you suggested above and there were NO errors.
However, I still have FireFox 68.6 esr.

A ham radio friend (I'm a ham too) told me he installed AntiX 19.4 (I have
19.2) and FireFox version 78.* is in his Linux.

I really don't want to install 19.4 (after downloading ISO) because I
would have a lot of customizing to do after installing on HD.

Thanks for info relating to my "Idea", John

[J.O. Aho]

On 10/10/2021 19.29, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

> I did what you suggested above and there were NO errors.
> However, I still have FireFox 68.6 esr.

did you run

sudo apt upgrade

afterwards?

The upgrade is the part that fetches and installs the packages, the
update is just to update the information about packages on the repository.

> A ham radio friend (I'm a ham too) told me he installed AntiX 19.4 (I have
> 19.2) and FireFox version 78.* is in his Linux.
>
> I really don't want to install 19.4 (after downloading ISO) because I
> would have a lot of customizing to do after installing on HD.

Lets first understand the version numbering in antiX, the first part is
the version and the second part is a patch level.

You installed 19.2 which means you have installed version 19 with a
patch level 2, the latest ISO you can download is version 19, patch
level 4. For you to get all the new stuff you will need to run

sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade

If you would want to upgrade in the future to version 21, then you would
need to run

sudo apt update && sudo apt full-upgrade

but then you want to make a backup before you do that.


--

//Aho

[J.O. Aho]

On 10/10/2021 19.02, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>>> Just to clarify. As per "man getopts", long options always start with a
>>> space
>>> followed by two hyphens, then the long option. Short options start with
>>> a space
>>> followed by a single hyphen, then the single letter short option.
>>>
>>> Short options may be combined, so "apt-get -m -q" may also be written as
>>> "apt-get -mq".
>>>
>>> Long options often, but not always, have an equivalent short option, so
>>> "apt-get --help" may also be written as "apt-get -h".
>>
>> --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin is one of those without a short option.
>
> Hi J. O.
>
> I did what you suggested. This time there was no command error.
>
> THE ORDEAL IS NOT OVER:
>
> Now I have to respond to this:
>
> "N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates........ See apt-secure(8)
> manpage for details"
>
> POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS ORDEAL?

Did you run

sudo apt-get upgrade

after the update?

--

//Aho

[J.O. Aho]

better yet to run:

sudo apt upgrade


--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>>> Hi  J. O.
>>>
>>>     I did what you suggested.  This time there was no command error.
>>>
>>>     THE ORDEAL IS NOT OVER:
>>>
>>>     Now I have to respond to this:
>>>
>>> "N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates........  See
>>> apt-secure(8)
>>> manpage for details"
>>>
>>>       POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS ORDEAL?
>>
>> Did you run
>>
>> sudo apt-get upgrade
>>
>> after the update?
>
>better yet to run:
>
>sudo apt upgrade

Hi J. O.

After this ("<space>" not typed):

"sudo<space>apt-get<space>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin<space>update"

Then I should type:
"sudo apt upgrade"

Is that right?

Thanks, John

PS,
If it wasn't for safer web browsing via Linux compared to MS Windows,
I would NOT have anything to do with Linux.

[J.O. Aho]

On 11/10/2021 13.40, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> Hi  J. O.
>>>>
>>>>     I did what you suggested.  This time there was no command error.
>>>>
>>>>     THE ORDEAL IS NOT OVER:
>>>>
>>>>     Now I have to respond to this:
>>>>
>>>> "N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates........  See
>>>> apt-secure(8)
>>>> manpage for details"
>>>>
>>>>       POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS ORDEAL?
>>>
>>> Did you run
>>>
>>> sudo apt-get upgrade
>>>
>>> after the update?
>>
>> better yet to run:
>>
>> sudo apt upgrade
>
> Hi J. O.
>
> After this ("<space>" not typed):
> "sudo<space>apt-get<space>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin<space>update"
>
> Then I should type:
> "sudo apt upgrade"
>
> Is that right?

Yes, first:
sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update

and then:

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>>>>>
>>>>>       POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS ORDEAL?
>>>>
>>>> Did you run
>>>>
>>>> sudo apt-get upgrade
>>>>
>>>> after the update?
>>>
>>> better yet to run:
>>>
>>> sudo apt upgrade
>>
>> Hi J. O.
>>
>> After this ("<space>" not typed):
>> "sudo<space>apt-get<space>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin<space>update"
>>
>> Then I should type:
>> "sudo apt upgrade"
>>
>> Is that right?
>
>Yes, first:
>sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>
>and then:
>sudo apt upgrade

Hi J. O.

I did not try above yet (I will).

CORRECTION:

I have been using "Package Manager" as a reference, but the ACTUAL
title is "Package Installer".

First I click on "AntiX Control Centre" in the menu (right click).
Then I click on "System" in the next menu.
Among the listings is "Manage Packages" and "Package Installer".
When I click on "Package Installer", the next display title is:
"Manage Popular Packages" followed by a list of categories eg "Browsers".

I don't know if my blunder, "Package Manager" has caused a lot of
problems?

John

[J.O. Aho]

The change of keys do not happen often, so this is a special event,
normally it will go smoothly, but if you miss to update before the old
keys expire/removed from use, then it tend to become a bit more
difficult as you noticed and you will need to do things manually.

The graphical package managers do manage to do most things, it's just
during these special circumstances that it can't do everything.
The graphical package manages usually do "apt-get update" for you, so
that you get the latest version of packages listed (now you see those
that was latest when you last managed to get the package list updated).

I guess that the "Manage Packages" and "Package Installer" are just
about which view you will see as default in the package manager, in the
same manner as "Apps & features" and "Date & time" in microsoft windows
are both starting the "windows settings" program.


Keep in mind to update your system at least once a week to avoid
problems like this in the future and it will also keep your surfing a
lot more safe too.


--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

>> Hi J. O.
>>
>> After this ("<space>" not typed):
>> "sudo<space>apt-get<space>--allow-releaseinfo-change-origin<space>update"
>>
>> Then I should type:
>> "sudo apt upgrade"
>>
>> Is that right?
>
>Yes, first:
>sudo apt-get --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin update
>
>and then:
>sudo apt upgrade

Hi J. O.

I was able to run (no command errors) both lines.

After the first "sudo apt-get........" command was done, I
used the upgrade command.

There was a LOT of "getting". There was a group of
"failure....". I did not write down (a lot of writing) the failures.

I rebooted Linux (probably not necessary) and checked FireFox.
It is still 68.6 version. I tried "Package Installer", "Browsers", but
there was NO indication of a newer version available. I tried a "Reinstall"
after I selected FireFox esr. Still 68.6 version when I checked.

CONCLUSION:

I can still do a lot of web browsing, but a couple sites do not respond to
every part of a "log in" procedure. Even using Google Chrome (updated)
doesn't always work. Using another laptop with Windows 10 and FireFox 93
works.

I may download "Mint", "Ubantu", or other (which has newest FireFoxr?)
ISO and burn a DVD to boot "Live". Note: I have a LOT of blank DVDs.
I can use the "Live" DVD for the sites I have an issue.

Again Thanks, John

[J.O. Aho]

On 12/10/2021 19.44, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:

> After the first "sudo apt-get........" command was done, I
> used the upgrade command.
>
> There was a LOT of "getting". There was a group of
> "failure....". I did not write down (a lot of writing) the failures.

Without the errors it will be impossible to suggest other steps.
But it feels like there could be an issue with storage, in the command
line you can write

df -h

(there is a space between df and -h), this will show how much disk space
you have left on different devices that are in use of the Linux.

> I rebooted Linux (probably not necessary) and checked FireFox.
> It is still 68.6 version. I tried "Package Installer", "Browsers", but
> there was NO indication of a newer version available. I tried a "Reinstall"
> after I selected FireFox esr. Still 68.6 version when I checked.
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> I can still do a lot of web browsing, but a couple sites do not respond to
> every part of a "log in" procedure. Even using Google Chrome (updated)
> doesn't always work. Using another laptop with Windows 10 and FireFox 93
> works.

Feels like there are other issues than just the version of the browser,
maybe a plugin that causes issues.


> I may download "Mint", "Ubuntu", or other (which has newest FireFoxr?)

> ISO and burn a DVD to boot "Live". Note: I have a LOT of blank DVDs.
> I can use the "Live" DVD for the sites I have an issue.

If you use an USB, it tend to be easier to update to a new version and
easier to bring it with you.


--

//Aho

[jaugu...@verizon.net]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:39:43 +0200, "J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote:

>On 12/10/2021 19.44, jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> After the first "sudo apt-get........" command was done, I
>> used the upgrade command.
>>
>> There was a LOT of "getting". There was a group of
>> "failure....". I did not write down (a lot of writing) the failures.
>
>Without the errors it will be impossible to suggest other steps.
>But it feels like there could be an issue with storage, in the command
>line you can write
>
>df -h
>
>(there is a space between df and -h), this will show how much disk space
>you have left on different devices that are in use of the Linux.
>

Hi J. O.

This info at the main display (right side):

Total Disk space is 108G
Used 9.40G

>
>> I rebooted Linux (probably not necessary) and checked FireFox.
>> It is still 68.6 version. I tried "Package Installer", "Browsers", but
>> there was NO indication of a newer version available. I tried a "Reinstall"
>> after I selected FireFox esr. Still 68.6 version when I checked.
>>
>> CONCLUSION:
>>
>> I can still do a lot of web browsing, but a couple sites do not respond to
>> every part of a "log in" procedure. Even using Google Chrome (updated)
>> doesn't always work. Using another laptop with Windows 10 and FireFox 93
>> works.
>
>Feels like there are other issues than just the version of the browser,
>maybe a plugin that causes issues.
>

I never added any plugins to the browser (except what came with browser, if
any?).