Splitting security and other updates

[Jeff Layman]

Has any consideration been given to splitting updates into "security"
and "other"? I am quite happy to add as many security updates as
Mozilla can supply for FF and TB. On the other hand, I find there are
far too many of the new "feechas" and improvements I just do not want.

--

Jeff

[WLS]

Yes, it is called Firefox ESR, and it can be found here.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/



--
Thunderbird (15.0a1) Daily | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Some people just have to pass on the right, when you are supposed to
pass on the left. Depending on the country.

[Jeff Layman]

On 29/04/2012 14:56, WLS wrote:
> On 04/29/2012 09:51 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> Has any consideration been given to splitting updates into "security"
>> and "other"? I am quite happy to add as many security updates as
>> Mozilla can supply for FF and TB. On the other hand, I find there are
>> far too many of the new "feechas" and improvements I just do not want.
>>
>
> Yes, it is called Firefox ESR, and it can be found here.
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

Yes, but within 9 months or so (at the usual replacement rate for FF and
TB new versions) that ESR will be superseded, and no more security
updates will be available. (from "What does the Mozilla Firefox ESR
life cycle look like?" at
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/). Then, in
effect, you will jump about 7 versions of "personal" FF and TB anyway.

Out of interest, why does Moz try to direct personal users away from the
ESR, and claim it is really for organisations?

--

Jeff

[WLS]

Because it really is for organizations. IT departments claim was they
just didn't have the time, or manpower available to deploy a new version
every six weeks. So I guess just getting security updates is easier for
them to deploy.

http://tinyurl.com/857zdkv

http://tinyurl.com/759x8jm

http://tinyurl.com/7zs4xwh

[Ron Hunter]

If you want a verion that will NEVER change, may I recommend finding a
copy of Netscape 4.7. I am quite sure that should you install it, you
will NEVER have to worry about updates, security, feature, or any other
kind.
Now wasn't that simple? Now, understand that most people WANT new
features, and security updates, BOTH. If you don't, you can STILL keep
FF from updating on your computer.

[PhillipJones]

No most people do not want new features. They want software they don't
have to relearn how to use every 5-10 days, They want software with
features they have gotten use to not using suddenly not work or removed
all together.

Just because Chrome thinks its great doesn't mean its so. I might be
the minority on this list. But I speak for the legions of users that
uses Mozilla and have no knowledge of this list. Are constantly
frustrated by all these changes we don't want.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com

[David]

Then why don't you and your group use the ESR version Phillip? It is
'unchanged' until Firefox 17 IIRC. Security updates and bug fixes only.

--

David

[Ron Hunter]

Well, I am sure that the developers will ask you from now on if you want
a new feature, or a change, and not include it because YOU don't want
it. Do you know how arrogant and self-centered that sounds? There are
several features in Firefox that I have no use for, but OTHERS do. If
you want, the source is available, and you are free to strip out
anything you don't want, and add anything you DO want, and compile your
own version, and use it, without change, forever, if you wish. Frankly,
it has been a LONG time since I had to relearn anything to continue
using Firefox.

[PhillipJones]

because its time dated and after the time is out you jump 8 or 10
versions at one time.
So we end up delaying the inevitable for a few months. It’s a lose
either way.

[PhillipJones]

Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what PhillipJones graced us with on
> 4/29/2012 2:46 PM:

>
>> No most people do not want new features. They want software they don't
>> have to relearn how to use every 5-10 days, They want software with
>> features they have gotten use to not using suddenly not work or
>> removed all together.
>>
>> Just because Chrome thinks its great doesn't mean its so. I might be
>> the minority on this list. But I speak for the legions of users that
>> uses Mozilla and have no knowledge of this list. Are constantly
>> frustrated by all these changes we don't want.
>>

> Too bad these legions you speak of aren't willing to, you know, pay for
> it. Mozilla is Open Source. Given a proper financial incentive, I would
> think any number of enterprising folks out there would be pleased as
> Punch to provide it.
>
> As the saying goes, "Talk's cheap"
>

I started out paying $39.95 for Netscape Navigator 3.0.1.a. I would not
be adverse to paying for a an equivelent Product (SeaMonkey) There is a
lot of sharewre I have and I pay for it all There is even one Web
Browser That's for pay I use (to test my website).

Maybe if we all (browsers) went back to a for pay system They would be
written for what the customers want not what developers want.

[PhillipJones]

No they won't. They're interested in one ups-man-ship who can come out
the greatest new whiz bang idea, that fixes something no one wants fixed.

Its useless , its tilting at windmills.

If there was something equivelent I might switch.

[David]

A point. However:

The Firefox ESR changes with security updates.

The other 'options' are IE witch sometimes changes with Windows
version/security changes.

Or Chrome which changes often without user action or permission.

Or Opera which you have to buy and changes whenever it changes.

Which one do you prefer?

Really not trying to be a harda$$ here friend but think about this.

--

David

[Ron Hunter]

The answer is obvious, stop updating! Easy, simple, effective, and
dangerous, but that's your choice.
It is plain you don't want ANY updates, as any update may break
something. Even fixing one problem may create several more, so, by that
criteria, nothing should ever be changed, right? If so, you would
probably be sending smoke signals using leaves, rather than a blanket,
as THAT was a change from the original method.
Now go feed your horse so you can get to the market.

[Ron Hunter]

You MUST be kidding! You think users want all the features in something
like Word, or PhotoShop? Nope, it's a matter of competition, and trying
to look like there is something new in each new release. At least with
the current rapid release schedule, the changes are usually rather
minor, rather than earth-shattering, and confusing. I have found more
'why is this feature in this program' conditions with for pay software
than with free software.

[Jeff Layman]

No, I don't think that most people want new features every 5 minutes.
Maybe technogeeks who want to see what the latest available thing to
play with be will want those. As to keeping FF from updating, well, so
far I can. I know that it took a lot of work by the developers to get
round UAC to allow a silent update. But at least we know about the
silent update, and it can be turned off (see, /not/ everybody wants
updates, and Moz recognises that - so far...). As I said in my OP, I'll
happily have the security updates. Hell, I might even accept those
silently! But as for new features, no.

Other than introducing a completely new engine which cannot take
security updates designed for earlier versions, I can't see why the ESR
life can't be continued for much longer than it is at present. The very
fact that it is consistently limited to every 7 versions suggests that
this is by design rather than necessity. Anyway, I see that from WLS's
final link that continuance of an ESR past two versions by Moz isn't a
certainty.

But nobody has answered my original second point. Why is Mozilla
directing personal users away from the ESR? Yes, I /know/ Moz intends
the ESR for organisations, as it is easier for them to update many
users, but why are they actively dissuading a personal user from
installing it, by directing them away from the ESR to the personal version?

--

Jeff

[Ron Hunter]

This is only supposition from reading discussions on .dev groups, but I
think it is because while they can reasonably expect companies to do the
security updates, they can't/don't expect all USERS to do the updates in
absence of the automatic update. They are concerned about security
issues that might distribute a serious malware infection through
computers using old versions of Mozilla software. I can understand
their concern.