Re: Aut-updates (again!!!)

[John H Meyers]

On 5/5/2012 7:53 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:

> Why check manually for updates if none are available

For the same reason as:
"Why check for new mail if none is available?"

For the sake of the one reader just getting out of bed and not yet awake:

It's because you don't know the answer until _after_ you've done the check!


> You should know the answer if you follow the news[group]

You should also already know whether you have new mail, if you:

o First log into "webmail" and look for it there.

o Or first log into Gmail and use it to fetch your other POP mail,
then see whether there was any new mail.

o Or first phone the person from you are expecting an urgent attachment,
and ask her whether she's sent it yet.

Has everyone got the gist of this yet?

Thunderbird is supposed to be a _self-sufficient_ mail application,
so it includes a function, like so many other software products,
for you to inquire and learn about any potential update,
but of course you want to get some information about any update first,
before you decide to make any changes.

In some cases, you even have to get a tech person or administrator
(or parent!) to update it for you, and you don't want to go to
that trouble if the update is of little significance to you.

In other cases, you've learned from past experience with this vendor
that some updates are as likely to break something that you
critically depend on, as it is to do you any good,
and after you learn that a new version has become available,
the next thing you want to do is go check the blog
of a software reviewer whom you trust,
so you need the built-in "check for" function
to just do what it says and then STOP,
which you thought you had already told it,
via setting absolutely clear options that say so.


> And if one is available then why check
> if you don't intend to download and install the update?

Is it time for me to just say "sigh" and log off?


> Since this discussion has been trampled ad nauseum, I think it best to
> set the followup to .general for further discussion. If the followup
> isn't honored then I will not participate any further.

Your wife, the retired attorney, should know that when you present a case,
you watch the jury (if any) and look for signs that every one has absorbed
the case fully and can not possibly doubt that they should find in your favor.

"Preparation and thoroughness" are the keys -- to be sure of winning,
you need to have overwhelming logic covering everything, and the reason you
line up several different experts and other witnesses is to cover everything
from all angles, answer all questions (like yours) until no more can remain,
until no one can possibly be in doubt as to the proper verdict
(including vendor's own staff, the ultimate actual jury).

Every post I've made has added another angle, insight,
or specific answer to what I was asked
("if you didn't want to download my answer, then why did you ask?" :)
particularly for the benefit of people employed inside the factory,
who need to develop habits of wider perspective, deeper thought,
and evidently some usability training -- come on, Mozilla,
schedule a course or send key people to take one; you'll all profit from it.

"Jay the juror" is my litmus test -- when he resigns himself
to the inevitability of what is right and necessary to do,
or simply stops asking any more questions,
I'll think that I have taken responsibility, followed through,
and done my job properly, to the standards which I expect of myself.

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/4/2012 8:29 AM, WLS kindly supplied:

> So I did a "Check for Updates" on Earlybird.
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/338/checkforupdate.png/
>
> After checking I get the "Apply Update" button.
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/applyupdate.png/

Thank you for the lovely images, of what appears to be another
Mozilla product acting exactly the same.

Note that what you learn about the update before it installs itself
is absolutely nothing -- not even its version number,
no less a change log, "corrected bugs" list,
security advisory list, etc. -- nope,
this bird doesn't make a peep,
just catches you completely unaware and unloads a poop,
much like whatever has been overflying my car recently :)

> Sorry I don't have 8x10's with circles and arrows.

For Arlo fans:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyYfXc0K_7U> [1967 movie trailer]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_7C0QGkiVo> [2005 full song]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8DtpdXZi0M> [2005 slightly different]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjKF7aQthcQ> [199? full song]
<http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml>
<http://www.arlo.net/obie.shtml>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice's_Restaurant>

--

[WLS]

On 05/05/2012 10:45 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
> On 5/5/2012 7:53 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> Why check manually for updates if none are available
>
> For the same reason as:
> "Why check for new mail if none is available?"

A new release comes every six weeks. What is the need to check for
updates if you are on the current release?

If you have the "Automatically check for updates to:" and "When updates
to Thunderbird are found, Ask me what I want to do" settings checked you
will be notified. Every six weeks or when there is a chemspill update.

Then you can click on the "View more information about this update"
link, and decide whether or not to "Ask Later" or "Apply Update" at this
time.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/updatenotification.png/

If you select "Ask Later" you will be nagged until you apply the update.
I would then change my "Automatically check for updates to:" settings,
so it does not check.

Then remember to change it back in six weeks.

I think you were blindsided by the chemspill update, and expected
Thunderbird to work in a way the application is not coded to work.

<snip>

> Has everyone got the gist of this yet?

Long ago.

>
> Thunderbird is supposed to be a _self-sufficient_ mail application,
> so it includes a function, like so many other software products,
> for you to inquire and learn about any potential update,
> but of course you want to get some information about any update first,
> before you decide to make any changes.

See above screenshot, or if you really, really have to use Help > About
"Check for Updates", go here first,

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/features/

and look for the release notes under the Thunderbird heading.

I will agree that keeping users notified of changes is one of Mozilla's
weak points. They (no Firefox, Thunderbird, and SeaMonkey) have blogs,
wikis, a whole planet http://planet.mozilla.org/ with other planets, and
except for Planet Mozilla I see little of it being kept up to date.

Maybe they should consider a consolidation.

Oh, wait! There is that automatic checking function.

<snip>

> In other cases, you've learned from past experience with this vendor
> that some updates are as likely to break something that you
> critically depend on, as it is to do you any good,
> and after you learn that a new version has become available,
> the next thing you want to do is go check the blog
> of a software reviewer whom you trust,
> so you need the built-in "check for" function
> to just do what it says and then STOP,
> which you thought you had already told it,
> via setting absolutely clear options that say so.

You just think you set clear options. The if-then statement in the
coding bypasses them.

At least that is the way I see the applications work on Linux. Windows
users may have a Windows UAC that comes into play.

I can't even update my release version to 12.0.1, because it doesn't
contain any security fixes, and won't be made available in my software
management application.

--
Thunderbird (14.0a2) Earlybird | 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.

[WLS]

On 05/05/2012 11:44 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 8:29 AM, WLS kindly supplied:
>
>> So I did a "Check for Updates" on Earlybird.
>>
>> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/338/checkforupdate.png/
>>
>> After checking I get the "Apply Update" button.
>>
>> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/applyupdate.png/
>
> Thank you for the lovely images, of what appears to be another
> Mozilla product acting exactly the same.
>
> Note that what you learn about the update before it installs itself
> is absolutely nothing -- not even its version number,

Um, look harder, the version number is under the name Earlybird, and
will remain the same until the current Daily is merged on June 5th.

> no less a change log, "corrected bugs" list,
> security advisory list, etc. -- nope,
> this bird doesn't make a peep,
> just catches you completely unaware and unloads a poop,
> much like whatever has been overflying my car recently :)

Much like the Daily version did yesterday, updated, then crashed on
startup, reported the crash, somebody filed a bug report, it was fixed,
and all is well.

That is why they are testing releases, not for general consumption. Jump
in, and help make the product better.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/channel/

[Jay Garcia]

On 05.05.2012 09:45, John H Meyers wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 5/5/2012 7:53 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> Why check manually for updates if none are available
>
> For the same reason as:
> "Why check for new mail if none is available?"

Not a valid analogy. If I am doing a mail check for testing purposes I
sometimes do a manual check. Setting for auto-checking for email is
sufficient.

> For the sake of the one reader just getting out of bed and not yet awake:
>
> It's because you don't know the answer until _after_ you've done the check!

If there isn't an update available then the auto-check will not find one
either. If an update is available, the news is broadcast all over the
internet, like here for instance.

>
>> You should know the answer if you follow the news[group]
>
> You should also already know whether you have new mail, if you:
>
> o First log into "webmail" and look for it there.
>
> o Or first log into Gmail and use it to fetch your other POP mail,
> then see whether there was any new mail.
>
> o Or first phone the person from you are expecting an urgent attachment,
> and ask her whether she's sent it yet.
>
> Has everyone got the gist of this yet?

Mail has nothing to do with Mozilla updates. If you know that Mozilla
updates it's apps every xxx number of days/weeks/months, then why do you
do a manual check in between those known update periods. Apparently you
don't get the "gist" of this.

> Thunderbird is supposed to be a _self-sufficient_ mail application,
> so it includes a function, like so many other software products,
> for you to inquire and learn about any potential update,
> but of course you want to get some information about any update first,
> before you decide to make any changes.

Of course, but this has nothing to do with the auto-manual update
function/feature.

> In some cases, you even have to get a tech person or administrator
> (or parent!) to update it for you, and you don't want to go to
> that trouble if the update is of little significance to you.

Again, of course. In that case, disable the auto-update function and IF
you are advised to do an update and you WANT to do the update then
proceed with the manual update as the decision has already been made to
update.

> In other cases, you've learned from past experience with this vendor
> that some updates are as likely to break something that you
> critically depend on, as it is to do you any good,
> and after you learn that a new version has become available,
> the next thing you want to do is go check the blog
> of a software reviewer whom you trust,
> so you need the built-in "check for" function
> to just do what it says and then STOP,
> which you thought you had already told it,
> via setting absolutely clear options that say so.

Again .. of course and if that is the case don't update. YOU have to
PUSH the button so to speak in order to do an update. YOU are in TOTAL
control, not the application. Do we need to explain how that works AGAIN?

>
>> And if one is available then why check
>> if you don't intend to download and install the update?
>
> Is it time for me to just say "sigh" and log off?

Apparently yes. Somehow you are confused by manual vs auto updates. In
the manual mode YOU have to have already made the decision to update or
else you wouldn't push the button, right?

>
>> Since this discussion has been trampled ad nauseum, I think it best to
>> set the followup to .general for further discussion. If the followup
>> isn't honored then I will not participate any further.
>
> Your wife, the retired attorney, should know that when you present a case,
> you watch the jury (if any) and look for signs that every one has absorbed
> the case fully and can not possibly doubt that they should find in your
> favor.

A good attorney knows the answer before asking.

> "Preparation and thoroughness" are the keys -- to be sure of winning,
> you need to have overwhelming logic covering everything, and the reason you
> line up several different experts and other witnesses is to cover
> everything
> from all angles, answer all questions (like yours) until no more can
> remain,
> until no one can possibly be in doubt as to the proper verdict
> (including vendor's own staff, the ultimate actual jury).

My wife is a former federal prosecutor with the corporate collections
department for the IRS. 99% of the cases were cut and dry prior to the
formality of a court proceeding of which she very rarely had to go that far.

> Every post I've made has added another angle, insight,
> or specific answer to what I was asked
> ("if you didn't want to download my answer, then why did you ask?" :)
> particularly for the benefit of people employed inside the factory,
> who need to develop habits of wider perspective, deeper thought,
> and evidently some usability training -- come on, Mozilla,
> schedule a course or send key people to take one; you'll all profit from
> it.
>
> "Jay the juror" is my litmus test -- when he resigns himself
> to the inevitability of what is right and necessary to do,
> or simply stops asking any more questions,
> I'll think that I have taken responsibility, followed through,
> and done my job properly, to the standards which I expect of myself.
>


--

Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/

[Jay Garcia]

On 05.05.2012 10:44, John H Meyers wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 5/4/2012 8:29 AM, WLS kindly supplied:
>
>> So I did a "Check for Updates" on Earlybird.
>>
>> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/338/checkforupdate.png/
>>
>> After checking I get the "Apply Update" button.
>>
>> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/applyupdate.png/
>
> Thank you for the lovely images, of what appears to be another
> Mozilla product acting exactly the same.
>
> Note that what you learn about the update before it installs itself
> is absolutely nothing -- not even its version number,

If you learn nothing from advance inquiry then why do you proceed to do
an update to begin with, eg., manually checking for updates. Seems to me
that the best course is to make inquiries and THEN make the decision to
update.

> For Arlo fans:

Sigh!!

[John H Meyers]

On 5/5/2012 10:50 AM, WLS wrote:

> A new release comes every six weeks. What is the need to check
> for updates if you are on the current release?

No release after a zero-day malware attack?

A forced release even if nothing worth doing is in it?

You seem not to be of this _user_ world,
but instead locked up in an Ivory Tower
where none reside but developers
and folks for whom closely following
Mozilla activities must be a lifetime (and daily) devotion
(perhaps their only hobby) -- you've never even heard of
people who are still on release 2 because of the shock
of seeing what happened in early release 3,
nor of people who want to skip releases and wait
for the next one after, or until something of compelling value
motivates them to want to take the chance and possible consequences
of sudden changes for which their aptitudes or psychology
do not suit them to make, of computers which are almost out of room
or memory and will not support any more bloating of apps,
of office managers who do not want updates to be made
until they have prepared their employees
(and support staff, and themselves),
or anything outside of an environment just like your own,
and the way that you, and only you, can think of acting and of feeling.

If you don't want to respect user autonomy
and let a "CHECK FOR updates" button do only what it says,
and what the entire rest of the world knows and expects it to,
then why not completely remove the damn button already,
so that no real-life person need be entrapped and zonked any more,
by a now entirely obsoleted "manual" button
("automatic" being sufficient for everyone,
according to what you and Jay say).

Or change the wording on the button,
whose new behavior is so radical a departure from the past,
to a more truthful "Install Latest Update Now"

Perhaps a "(No Undo)" is called for as well,
or an obscure entry in "about:config" which must be adjusted
to allow this button to become un-grayed,
just as you must now do
before you can even "delete" any newsgroup item,
that being so dangerous, by comparison,
that it had to default to being grayed :)

If there isn't any newer version, then it can respond
"You are using the latest version," or even "next version
will be ready on May 17" if you are so sure about the 6 week schedule,
so that if you even leave a button in place, it would at least
comply with common sense and "truth in labeling."

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/5/2012 11:08 AM, WLS:

> Jump in, and help make the product better.

That's what I try to do by engaging in discussion with other
real users, managers, support people, etc. right here,
rather than by retreating into an isolated tower
where none of those people are represented at all.

Even though I'm only using a news account on this thing,
I also don't want to wind up knee deep in bird droppings,
thanks all the same ;-)

"Cleaning up the bird cage"

(every TB update displays that cute message while installing,
which is the only thing I really look forward to when it updates :)

--

[John H Meyers]

Earth did not seem populated,
only an answering machine with the same old recording,
unable to absorb what I was saying.

Moving on to next galaxy to look for signs of life.

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/5/2012 11:26 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:

> Seems to me that the best course is to make inquiries
> and THEN make the decision to update.

I'm so glad you finally agree!

The thing is, of course, that "check for updates"
is the generally accepted phrase whose precise meaning
IS to "make inquiries," after which it should, of course,
as you just concurred, STOP and ASK for a decision
as to whether to proceed any further.

Otherwise it is not a "check for updates" function,
it is a mis-labeled "Install Latest Update Now (no undo)" button!

Over and Out.

--

[WLS]

On 05/05/2012 01:47 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
> On 5/5/2012 10:50 AM, WLS wrote:
>
>> A new release comes every six weeks. What is the need to check
>> for updates if you are on the current release?
>
> No release after a zero-day malware attack?

Huh?

>
> A forced release even if nothing worth doing is in it?

There wouldn't be a release if there was nothing worth doing for the
users the release fixes. Like false email notifications being fixed in
the 12.0.1 release.

>
> You seem not to be of this _user_ world,
> but instead locked up in an Ivory Tower
> where none reside but developers
> and folks for whom closely following
> Mozilla activities must be a lifetime (and daily) devotion
> (perhaps their only hobby) -- you've never even heard of
> people who are still on release 2 because of the shock
> of seeing what happened in early release 3,
> nor of people who want to skip releases and wait
> for the next one after, or until something of compelling value
> motivates them to want to take the chance and possible consequences
> of sudden changes for which their aptitudes or psychology
> do not suit them to make, of computers which are almost out of room
> or memory and will not support any more bloating of apps,
> of office managers who do not want updates to be made
> until they have prepared their employees
> (and support staff, and themselves),
> or anything outside of an environment just like your own,
> and the way that you, and only you, can think of acting and of feeling.
>

Heard of them all, and there is the Thunderbird Extended Support Release
for the organizations that want a more stable application. You must not
have heard of it.

> If you don't want to respect user autonomy
> and let a "CHECK FOR updates" button do only what it says,
> and what the entire rest of the world knows and expects it to,
> then why not completely remove the damn button already,
> so that no real-life person need be entrapped and zonked any more,
> by a now entirely obsoleted "manual" button
> ("automatic" being sufficient for everyone,
> according to what you and Jay say).

If installed through the package management system, that button, and the
ability to Automatically check for updates are removed from Linux
release versions.

If there are no security fixes Mozilla could have a 12.0.1, 12.0.2,
12.0.3 release until the 13.0 version is released, and I will never get
them.

It is one reason why I install the Beta, Daily, and Earlybird versions
manually to my Home directory, just so I can update them.

>
> Or change the wording on the button,
> whose new behavior is so radical a departure from the past,
> to a more truthful "Install Latest Update Now"
>
> Perhaps a "(No Undo)" is called for as well,
> or an obscure entry in "about:config" which must be adjusted
> to allow this button to become un-grayed,
> just as you must now do
> before you can even "delete" any newsgroup item,
> that being so dangerous, by comparison,
> that it had to default to being grayed :)
>
> If there isn't any newer version, then it can respond
> "You are using the latest version," or even "next version
> will be ready on May 17" if you are so sure about the 6 week schedule,
> so that if you even leave a button in place, it would at least
> comply with common sense and "truth in labeling."
>

File a Request for Enhancement bug.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Bug_writing_guidelines

--
Thunderbird (15.0a1) Daily | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2

[Jay Garcia]

On 05.05.2012 13:10, John H Meyers wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 5/5/2012 11:26 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that the best course is to make inquiries
>> and THEN make the decision to update.
>
> I'm so glad you finally agree!

You mean YOU finally agree.

> The thing is, of course, that "check for updates"
> is the generally accepted phrase whose precise meaning
> IS to "make inquiries," after which it should, of course,
> as you just concurred, STOP and ASK for a decision
> as to whether to proceed any further.
>
> Otherwise it is not a "check for updates" function,
> it is a mis-labeled "Install Latest Update Now (no undo)" button!
>
> Over and Out.
>

No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc., and THEN you
decide to update or not. If you decide NOT to update then do NOT click
on the "Check for updates" button. If you have opted to auto-check for
updates then you will be presented with a notice/alert that there is an
update available and IF you have decided to update then when asked (by
checking the option), THEN you opt to update.

I have hopes that one day you will understand these options.

Cheers, over but not out by a long shot.

[Greywolf]

On 05/05/2012 11:15 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
[...]

> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc., and THEN you
> decide to update or not. If you decide NOT to update then do NOT click
> on the "Check for updates" button. If you have opted to auto-check for
> updates then you will be presented with a notice/alert that there is an
> update available and IF you have decided to update then when asked (by
> checking the option), THEN you opt to update.
>
> I have hopes that one day you will understand these options.
>
> Cheers, over but not out by a long shot.

Oh, I/we understand the options all right. That's not the issue. Along
with many others, I disagree with them. (I'm somewhat astonished at
John's patience in trying to explain this, BTW.) I think Moz's Check for
Updates options design is stoopid. It violates industry-wide
conventions and user expectations.

But it seems that the moz devs aren't listening. If it weren't for
config editor settings that defeat this "feature" I'd have given up on
FF/TB a long time ago.

There's one good thing about this options design though: it's text-book
examples of how not to do it. If I were teaching a course on software
design, I'd use it an 'Orrible Example.

Best,
Wolf K.

[Jay Garcia]

On 06.05.2012 07:54, Greywolf wrote:

--- Original Message ---

If you read here for instance that an update is available and your
settings are such that auto check for updates is disabled, then you do
one of two things - 1) Download and install from the Mozilla site or 2)
Manually "Check for updates" in Help => About Thunderbird => Check for
updates, download and install. There is a third option now - silent
update, which you can opt out of.

Lets say that you do not want to update for whatever reason after
learning that one is available. In that case you then do NOT 1) download
and install from the Mozilla site and 2) Do NOT manually "Check for
updates".

I'm sorry that some users don't understand this. Perhaps it will be
dumbed down a bit in a future release. Good luck!

BTW: I am set to be notified that an update is available after which I
"Check for updates" let it download and install, simple as that. I have
NEVER had an update auto-install all by itself.

If someone else can explain this better, have at it.

[David]

I already knew and understood this and I think that you did a good job
of *trying* to explain this to a few who just won't accept this as 'the
way it is'.

Me? By now I would have told that they, Mozilla, does it that way just
because Mozilla knows that it annoys the crap out of 'you' and they
don't like 'you'. :-)

--

David

[Dennis]

Hey Jay,
I am pretty sure I completely understand what you are saying and how the
manual check for updates is working. And I am pretty sure I understand
what the other folks are saying too.

I personally do not think that a "Check for Updates" should install
updates IF any are available. I think it should check and let me know
that they are available THEN give me the option to install.

If a "check" and install are preformed with the click of a button then I
would like to see the button titled "Install Updates if Available".

I don't see that as being dumbed down.

If the "Check for Updates" button is doing what is intended then I
disagree with the label.

Dennis

[Jay Garcia]

<sigh> .. good thing for smileys. 8-)

[Jay Garcia]

Then don't click on "Check for updates" unless you have pre-determined
that you want to update. The auto-update feature/function is designed to
be used to automatically check for updates and when one is available, by
preference you are given the choice to update or refuse. It seems that a
lot of users don't understand the process for whatever reason.

In other software applications, users don't know when/if there is an
update available and therefore click on "check for updates", there is no
other way. The auto-update function takes all the guess work out of it.

> If a "check" and install are preformed with the click of a button then I
> would like to see the button titled "Install Updates if Available".

So what you're saying is to do away with the auto-check/ask me feature
and instead just let users manually check and install or not.

> I don't see that as being dumbed down.

Sure it is, it's taking all the guess work out of the equation by making
the process completely manual.

> If the "Check for Updates" button is doing what is intended then I
> disagree with the label.

I could somewhat agree with that but only IF the auto-check wasn't
available or disabled for whatever reason. My pref is set for
auto-update -ask- and when an update is available a popup alert appears
and I am then given the choice to proceed or not. I never use the "check
for updates", there is no reason for me to do that because I know when
updates are available because of Mozilla's rapid release schedule and
therefore no reason to manually check.

I guess from years of experience and teaching I don't understand why a
user would check for an update if they don't want/need to update. So,
the user checks for an update and it indicates that one is available and
the choice is yes/no to download and install, now what. If the answer is
no then why did the user check in the first place? Seems to me the best
course of action is to visit the vendor's web site, forums, blogs, etc.
to find out why there is an update and THEN make the choice. If, after
finding out then there is no reason to "check for updates" if you don't
want to update.

How about this, for those that are hell-bent on clicking on that Check
For Update button.

"An update is available" - "See The Release Notes (link)" - "Download
and install - Yes/No"

Seems a bit much to me ... but some users just don't want to take
advantage of more productive features

[Ron Hunter]

First, yes, it is inconsistent with what other programs do. You can get
your money back if you don't like it. Oh, wait, it's free....
Second, the way it works is intended to promote users to keep their
computer software up to date. It does.
Third, If you don't want to update, DON'T DO A MANUAL CHECK!
Fourth, A better place to discuss this is mozilla.dev.usability.

[Ron Hunter]

For what it is worth, I completely agree, and have argued the point in
the dev newsgroups, to what avail, you can observe. Just write this off
with multipart binary support. NOT going to happen.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/6/2012 7:47 AM On a whim, Dennis pounded out on the keyboard

> Hey Jay,
> I am pretty sure I completely understand what you are saying and how the
> manual check for updates is working. And I am pretty sure I understand
> what the other folks are saying too.
>
> I personally do not think that a "Check for Updates" should install
> updates IF any are available. I think it should check and let me know
> that they are available THEN give me the option to install.
>
> If a "check" and install are preformed with the click of a button then I
> would like to see the button titled "Install Updates if Available".
>
> I don't see that as being dumbed down.
>
> If the "Check for Updates" button is doing what is intended then I
> disagree with the label.
>
> Dennis
>

Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.


Terry
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[WLS]

On 05/07/2012 02:29 PM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 7:47 AM On a whim, Dennis pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> Hey Jay,
>> I am pretty sure I completely understand what you are saying and how the
>> manual check for updates is working. And I am pretty sure I understand
>> what the other folks are saying too.
>>
>> I personally do not think that a "Check for Updates" should install
>> updates IF any are available. I think it should check and let me know
>> that they are available THEN give me the option to install.
>>
>> If a "check" and install are preformed with the click of a button then I
>> would like to see the button titled "Install Updates if Available".
>>
>> I don't see that as being dumbed down.
>>
>> If the "Check for Updates" button is doing what is intended then I
>> disagree with the label.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>
> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>
>
> Terry

It Checks and downloads.

You have to click "Apply Update" to install, or restart, and it will
install from the updates folder, because the update.status.txt file says
the update is pending.

Anyone wants to change that behavior can participate.

http://blog.mozilla.org/thunderbird/2012/05/07/do-you-want-to-make-an-impact/

--
Thunderbird Beta | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Humans aren't a color of skin, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation,
or a flag. We are human beings and that is how we need to see and treat
each other. - Justin Sane

[Dr J R Stockton]

In mozilla.general message <DZ6dnWEOnZZycTjS...@mozilla.org
>, Sat, 5 May 2012 22:15:59, Jay Garcia <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>
posted:

>
>No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
>inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc., and THEN you
>decide to update or not. If you decide NOT to update then do NOT click
>on the "Check for updates" button. If you have opted to auto-check for
>updates then you will be presented with a notice/alert that there is an
>update available and IF you have decided to update then when asked (by
>checking the option), THEN you opt to update.
>
>I have hopes that one day you will understand these options.

It would be better if the button were to do exactly what its legend says
according to the rules of ordinary educated English. A check should be
a check, and should do no more than answer Yes or No, perhaps with
explanation.

The present effect calls for a button labelled "Attempt to update now!".

Update policy should NOT assume that a user is permanently connected by
cheap broadband. Many people will rightly resent an update occurring
when they are busily out-of-office and connected by slow wireless or
dial-up.


The correct, well-mannered way to do it is for the browser to check
occasionally with Mozilla to see whether there is an update, to report
it on-screen (occasionally drawing attention to itself); and for the
user to say when it is OK to fetch an update, and for the user to say
when it is OK to install the update.

And that should be the default setting.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

[Jay Garcia]

On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>
>
> Terry

I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
for grins and giggles?? :-)

[WLS]

That is what the Advanced > Update Tab setting does.

--
Thunderbird Release Version
Installed only for troubleshooting purposes
Unable to get updates
Still won't start my coffee maker

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/7/2012 3:55 PM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard

> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>
> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>
>

It doesn't matter. The point is "Check for updates" should NOT give
permission to download anything.

Firefox 3 had Check for updates. When click, a dialog box appeared with
3 buttons; Ask later, No thanks, Get the new version. THAT is how to
check for updates. Not the way it's done now.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/7/2012 11:40 AM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard

> On 05/07/2012 02:29 PM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>> On 5/6/2012 7:47 AM On a whim, Dennis pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> Hey Jay,
>>> I am pretty sure I completely understand what you are saying and how the
>>> manual check for updates is working. And I am pretty sure I understand
>>> what the other folks are saying too.
>>>
>>> I personally do not think that a "Check for Updates" should install
>>> updates IF any are available. I think it should check and let me know
>>> that they are available THEN give me the option to install.
>>>
>>> If a "check" and install are preformed with the click of a button then I
>>> would like to see the button titled "Install Updates if Available".
>>>
>>> I don't see that as being dumbed down.
>>>
>>> If the "Check for Updates" button is doing what is intended then I
>>> disagree with the label.
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>
> It Checks and downloads.
>
> You have to click "Apply Update" to install, or restart, and it will
> install from the updates folder, because the update.status.txt file says
> the update is pending.
>
> Anyone wants to change that behavior can participate.
>
> http://blog.mozilla.org/thunderbird/2012/05/07/do-you-want-to-make-an-impact/
>

Yes, I know. It SHOULD NOT download. The user only wants the program
to "check", not download!

See my response to Jay with the way v3 did it, which is how it still
should be.

[Jay Garcia]

On 07.05.2012 18:43, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 5/7/2012 3:55 PM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry
>>
>> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
>> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
>> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
>> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
>> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>>
>>
>
> It doesn't matter. The point is "Check for updates" should NOT give
> permission to download anything.
>
> Firefox 3 had Check for updates. When click, a dialog box appeared with
> 3 buttons; Ask later, No thanks, Get the new version. THAT is how to
> check for updates. Not the way it's done now.
>
>
> Terry

Yes, I know all the answers to my questions, just trying to rationalize
this really stupid function/feature. What I find amusing so to speak is
why check for an update just for the fun of it. You either do or don't
want to update. The determination to update should be based on
investigation of the new version features/functions, etc. after which
you download and install or not, not check for an update that you should
already know exists or not. Re FF 3 .. never had the feature to
auto-check and be asked that I can remember so that "Check for Updates"
function was valid. If it did, I don't remember. The multi-check
function should be narrowed down to only one way IMHO. I use the
auto-check/ask and been working to my satisfaction just fine and dandy.
I never use or have used the check-for-updates cuz I already know when
one is available. I just as soon the devs abandon that one.

[WLS]

That is your opinion. I disagree.

It SHOULD download when doing a MANUAL Help > About > Check for Updates.

It DOESN'T download without permission if you have your Advanced >
Update settings configured properly.

We are up to Firefox 12.0, things change.

Any version of Firefox prior to version 12.0, and Thunderbird prior to
version 12.0.1, should not be given any forum or newsgroup support. They
are no longer relevant. I don't care how the Model T did it.

[WLS]

The Linux packagers abandoned both.

[Ron Hunter]

Coulda shoulda woulda. For what it is worth, I agree, but the devs
don't seem to agree. Seems like a discussion that should be on
mozilla.dev.usability to me. Would be more likely to reach the right
eyes than here.

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/7/2012 5:55 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>
> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>
>

I agree that it is logical to assume that if a person checks for
updates, he wants to do the update, but people are often NOT logical, so
a 'bail out' button should be included. That is 'apply update' or
'abort updating'. Then everyone is happy.
Now the question is, how many people who 'unintentionally' update this
way are going to go to the trouble to restore the old version? Perhaps
that is the real reason for doing it this way.

[Ron Hunter]

I don't think you will get much support for that idea in the support groups.

[Dennis]

Jay Garcia wrote:

[...]

>
> Yes, I know all the answers to my questions, just trying to rationalize
> this really stupid function/feature. What I find amusing so to speak is
> why check for an update just for the fun of it. You either do or don't
> want to update. The determination to update should be based on
> investigation of the new version features/functions, etc. after which
> you download and install or not, not check for an update that you should
> already know exists or not. Re FF 3 .. never had the feature to
> auto-check and be asked that I can remember so that "Check for Updates"
> function was valid. If it did, I don't remember. The multi-check
> function should be narrowed down to only one way IMHO. I use the
> auto-check/ask and been working to my satisfaction just fine and dandy.
> I never use or have used the check-for-updates cuz I already know when
> one is available. I just as soon the devs abandon that one.
>

Different styles of use. The only reason I would click on "Check for
Updates" is to see if there is an update available of a new release.
Then I would want to read the change log, browsing to the website if
needed, to determine if I want to download and install.

Using the application to "Check for Updates" is a quick easy way to find
out if a new release is available without going to their website. No
release - no change log - no update, all done with one click. Now just
how dumb is that? Your concept of dumb seems to be anything that you do
not agree with, but I could be wrong in that assumption.

I almost never use auto update or auto check or auto anything. I used to
play in the sandbox with nightlies and compiling from source. I always
knew there was a new 'update' if the build trees were green and checked
the ftp sites. I have never had a need for auto check or auto update. I
no longer play in the sandbox by using nightlies or compiling from
mercurial source.

I let my linux distro of choice put the Firefox, Thunderbird and
Seamonkey releases in their repositories. Then when I manually check for
updates in my distro repositories I am handed a complete set of change
logs to review *before* I choose whether or not to download and install
any of the apps. You might say "one stop shopping". Hmm, just how dumb
is that?

I personally would rather see the devs abandon the auto update and auto
check processes. Let the 'dumb' ones flop like a fish out of water and
pay vendors for anti-virus, malware, and phishing protection. Now I am
not the sharpest tack in the box; but in my 30 years of computers I have
never paid for (or used pirated) anti-virus or malware protection. And,
I have never had a virus or been exploited in any way. So, I am guessing
that the push for everyone to use the 'most current update' is more hype
than reality. I would rather see people learn how to use a computer than
to spoon feed them with bs.

So not only different styles of computing, there has been different
learning processes, different teachers and different teachings. I am
happy with my way. I 'assume' you are happy with your way.

Dennis

[Dan B.]

Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 5:55 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry
>>
>> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
>> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
>> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
>> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
>> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>>
>>
> I agree that it is logical to assume that if a person checks for
> updates, he wants to do the update, but people are often NOT logical,

> ...

Both of you seem to be assuming that if he wants to update, then he
wants to update right away.

However, he might want to do something between finding out about it
and installing it, such as making a backup or taking a snapshot--or
scheduling installing it later.


And quit implying that people are illogical if they don't do things
only in the evidently limited set of ways you can imagine they would.


Daniel

[Jay Garcia]

The more I think about it, since Mozilla is pursuing the silent update
function, the "Check for updates" in the help/about pref should be
removed altogether and the Options/Advanced/Update should be the only
place to opt/opt-out of being notified of an update and a link should be
there in the UI for those that want to manually download/install the
latest. IOW, there are too many places in the UI to check, download,
install, alerted and so forth which I believe is leading to all the
confusion.

[Jay Garcia]

On 07.05.2012 21:11, Dennis wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> So not only different styles of computing, there has been different
> learning processes, different teachers and different teachings. I am
> happy with my way. I 'assume' you are happy with your way.

So be it.

[Jay Garcia]

On 07.05.2012 21:15, Dan B. wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 5:55 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>>>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Terry
>>>
>>> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
>>> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
>>> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
>>> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
>>> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>>>
>>>
>> I agree that it is logical to assume that if a person checks for
>> updates, he wants to do the update, but people are often NOT logical,
>> ...
>
> Both of you seem to be assuming that if he wants to update, then he
> wants to update right away.

That is of course one course of action after determining that the user
wants to update after investigating the release notes, asking questions
in the groups, forums, etc.

> However, he might want to do something between finding out about it
> and installing it, such as making a backup or taking a snapshot--or
> scheduling installing it later.

Right .. and after making the backup, snapshot, making an effort to see
what's new and so on, then visit the download site and manually install,
after which you have the download bits archived on your local system in
case something goes awry. Can't do that if downloading/installing from
within the application.

[Ron Hunter]

I am not 'implying' that people aren't logical, I am stating it as a
self-evident FACT. People are more ruled by hormones, fashion, peer
pressure, and other random practices than logical thinking. The MOST
you can expect from the majority is rationality, which still imposes
their preconceptions, and bias. YOU are the one trying to say that they
are doing things in unimaginable ways. Do you think that is logical?

[Ron Hunter]

Huh? Where else can you check for an update, or download it, other than
a website, of course?
I am still trying to figure out why it is anathema for Firefox to do
updates the way the favorite (go to from here) place users seem to say
they are going because Firefox is doing it the SAME WAY. The frying pan
is too hot, so I am going to jump right into the open flame. Does that
make sense?

[Daniel]

Jay Garcia wrote:

<Snip>

> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc., and THEN you
> decide to update or not.

Hey, Jay, what about the "millions" (o.k. thousands) of SeaMonkey users
that know nothing about "support forums/groups/website". Those that just
use the program, and, in using the program, may one day come across
"Check for Updates". Granted, they probably should have updated yonks
ago, but for some reason (lack of knowledge, maybe) have not updated.

Should they *HAVE* to update??

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

SeaMonkey does not have "Advanced > Update Tab" but does have Advanced >
Software Installation, and, for what it's worth, I tend to agree with
the Doctor, that SM should just advise, on screen, that there is an
update available and give me the option to "Install Upgrade" or "Remind
me later" (which, apparently FF used to allow) and the "Remind me" time
(day, days, weeks, whatever) would be set on the Software Installation
page of Preferences.

--
Daniel

[Jay Garcia]

On 08.05.2012 05:38, Daniel wrote:

--- Original Message ---

We'll get to Seamonkey after FF is settled. I don't use Seamonkey, so no
comments yet.

[Jay Garcia]

Where else? FTP or by checking for updates.

Make sense? none of this is making any sense. 8-)

[Jay Garcia]

On 08.05.2012 04:27, Sailfish wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> The only reason anyone would check for updates and then decide not to
> update is if Mozilla presented a list of items that are contained in the
> update and the user would then possibly decide not to bother since none
> of the changes were significant enough to warrant a, albeit slim,
> possibility of making their current installation unstable. However,
> since Mozilla doesn't provide that information when they click the check
> for update button then it stands to reason that they either want the
> update if one exists or they are just bored and want to click shiny
> buttons.

I think that's sorta what I've been trying to say.

[Jay Garcia]

On 08.05.2012 05:38, Daniel wrote:

--- Original Message ---

Just brought up my Seamonkey and ......

Help => Check for updates

Says: Looking for new versions
Says: 2.9.1 is available

Button at the bottom left says: Ask Later
Button at the bottom right says: Update Seamonkey

Wanna file a bug to have FF do the same thing? Have at it.

[Greywolf]

On 07/05/2012 7:43 PM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 3:55 PM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry
>>
>> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
>> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
>> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
>> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
>> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>>
>>
>
> It doesn't matter. The point is "Check for updates" should NOT give
> permission to download anything.
>
> Firefox 3 had Check for updates. When click, a dialog box appeared with
> 3 buttons; Ask later, No thanks, Get the new version. THAT is how to
> check for updates. Not the way it's done now.
>
>
> Terry

The horse is dead, Terry. Bury it.

Wolf K.

[Jay Garcia]

On 08.05.2012 08:10, Greywolf wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> The horse is dead, Terry. Bury it.
>
> Wolf K.

Not yet, Seamonkey does it right, just checked. If the same update
routine was to be implemented in Firefox, I would gladly accept it.

[Greywolf]

On 08/05/2012 4:00 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
[...]

> I am not 'implying' that people aren't logical, I am stating it as a
> self-evident FACT. People are more ruled by hormones, fashion, peer
> pressure, and other random practices than logical thinking.

[...]

Read Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", for an extensive and well
written summary of the current research on how people actually make
choices. General conclusion: 99%+ of your choices etc are made before
you become aware of them....

I've just posted my review on http://kirkwood40.blogspot.ca/

Best,
Wolf K.

PS: BTW, the latest FF truncates the URL. I'm used to seeing http://etc,
so this is another of those useless changes that annoys me. If the FF
devs want to do some _real_ work, let them concentrate on making FF able
to compensate for the errors that crappy web-page composing software
introduces. - WK

[WLS]

On 05/08/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 08.05.2012 08:10, Greywolf wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> The horse is dead, Terry. Bury it.
>>
>> Wolf K.
>
> Not yet, Seamonkey does it right, just checked. If the same update
> routine was to be implemented in Firefox, I would gladly accept it.
>

What if the silent update routine Firefox is implementing for Windows
users was to be implemented in SeaMonkey?

--
Thunderbird Release Version
Installed only for troubleshooting purposes

I want the hard rubber tires back on my car

[Ron Hunter]

Yup. At least that is the official Mozilla position as the latest
updates are 'safer for the other users of the web'. So, if you have an
extension that suddenly won't work, wellll, they didn't write the extension.

[Ron Hunter]

Nawww, it's way to much fun to flog it, since it can't fight back.

[David]

You been napping?

"Firefox Release Notes"

v.7.0, offered to release channel users on September 27th, 2011"

"What's new in Firefox"

(fourth line)

"The 'http://' URL prefix is now hidden by default"

<http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/7.0/releasenotes/>


--

David

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/7/2012 5:09 PM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard

> On 05/07/2012 07:45 PM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 11:40 AM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 05/07/2012 02:29 PM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2012 7:47 AM On a whim, Dennis pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Jay,
>>>>> I am pretty sure I completely understand what you are saying and how
>>>>> the
>>>>> manual check for updates is working. And I am pretty sure I understand
>>>>> what the other folks are saying too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally do not think that a "Check for Updates" should install
>>>>> updates IF any are available. I think it should check and let me know
>>>>> that they are available THEN give me the option to install.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a "check" and install are preformed with the click of a button
>>>>> then I
>>>>> would like to see the button titled "Install Updates if Available".
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see that as being dumbed down.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the "Check for Updates" button is doing what is intended then I
>>>>> disagree with the label.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis
>>>>>

>>>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>>>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Terry

>>> It Checks and downloads.
>>>
>>> You have to click "Apply Update" to install, or restart, and it will
>>> install from the updates folder, because the update.status.txt file says
>>> the update is pending.
>>>
>>> Anyone wants to change that behavior can participate.
>>>
>>> http://blog.mozilla.org/thunderbird/2012/05/07/do-you-want-to-make-an-impact/
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, I know. It SHOULD NOT download. The user only wants the program to
>> "check", not download!
>>
>> See my response to Jay with the way v3 did it, which is how it still
>> should be.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>
> That is your opinion. I disagree.
>

And that is YOUR opinion, which obviously you don't hear from Mozilla
users directly as I do about this issue.

> It SHOULD download when doing a MANUAL Help> About> Check for Updates.
>

Please explain why CHECK results in DOWNLOAD?

> It DOESN'T download without permission if you have your Advanced>
> Update settings configured properly.
>

The two shouldn't be in two different locations for one. And
regardless, from what I've seen, even if the Advanced settings are off,
checking results in a download if available. Those settings are for
auto-update.

> We are up to Firefox 12.0, things change.
>

Many times for the worse.

> Any version of Firefox prior to version 12.0, and Thunderbird prior to
> version 12.0.1, should not be given any forum or newsgroup support. They
> are no longer relevant. I don't care how the Model T did it.
>

Sometimes change for changes sake isn't good.


Terry
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[Greywolf]

On 07/05/2012 7:39 PM, WLS wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 12:16 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

[...]

>> The correct, well-mannered way to do it is for the browser to check
>> occasionally with Mozilla to see whether there is an update, to report
>> it on-screen (occasionally drawing attention to itself); and for the
>> user to say when it is OK to fetch an update, and for the user to say
>> when it is OK to install the update.
>>
>> And that should be the default setting.
>>
>
> That is what the Advanced > Update Tab setting does.

So F*****G What?

This "Oh, but you can do that if you want" attitude is precisely what's
wrong here. (It infects Linux even more than Mozilla, where it's
combined with "But you're an idiot for wanting to do it", which is why I
don't participate in any Linux NG any more.)

No user should ever have to go to an Advanced Settings pane to make a
program behave according industry-wide conventions. It's irrelevant that
some of these conventions aren't logical. They are reasonable, ie, they
are one of several more or less arbitrary solutions to an interface
problem, and people have become used to them.

You're a Linux user, so you are conditioned (or genetically predisposed,
I dunno ;-) ) to mess around with all possible settings. Ordinary users
don't do that. If they have some notion that they could do that, they
dare not do it. They ask geeks (like me) to do it for them.

How do I know this about Ordinary Users? I'm married to one.

HTH,
Wolf K.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/7/2012 5:08 PM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard

> On 07.05.2012 18:43, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 5/7/2012 3:55 PM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 07.05.2012 13:29, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>

>>>> Dennis, that is exactly right. "Check" does NOT mean INSTALL! The
>>>> response should be, "An update is available" and nothing more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Terry

>>> I say to myself, "do I want to upgrade?" followed by clicking on the
>>> button "Check for updates". The new button says "One is available".
>>> Followed by "ok, one is available". Followed by "Nah, don't wanna
>>> upgrade". How smart is that, why did you check in the first place, just
>>> for grins and giggles?? :-)
>>>
>>>
>> It doesn't matter. The point is "Check for updates" should NOT give
>> permission to download anything.
>>
>> Firefox 3 had Check for updates. When click, a dialog box appeared with
>> 3 buttons; Ask later, No thanks, Get the new version. THAT is how to
>> check for updates. Not the way it's done now.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>

> Yes, I know all the answers to my questions, just trying to rationalize
> this really stupid function/feature. What I find amusing so to speak is
> why check for an update just for the fun of it. You either do or don't
> want to update. The determination to update should be based on

Disagree. The user wants to check, which doesn't mean giving the
go-ahead to update.

> investigation of the new version features/functions, etc. after which
> you download and install or not, not check for an update that you should
> already know exists or not. Re FF 3 .. never had the feature to
> auto-check and be asked that I can remember so that "Check for Updates"
> function was valid. If it did, I don't remember. The multi-check
> function should be narrowed down to only one way IMHO. I use the
> auto-check/ask and been working to my satisfaction just fine and dandy.
> I never use or have used the check-for-updates cuz I already know when
> one is available. I just as soon the devs abandon that one.
>

I still have v3 on this workstation, and yes, it had the auto-date
feature and options.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/8/2012 1:05 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> Huh? Where else can you check for an update, or download it, other than
> a website, of course?
> I am still trying to figure out why it is anathema for Firefox to do
> updates the way the favorite (go to from here) place users seem to say
> they are going because Firefox is doing it the SAME WAY. The frying pan
> is too hot, so I am going to jump right into the open flame. Does that
> make sense?
>
>

Because Firefox has always been the only browser that allows users to
customize it any way they choose. For most I believe, that is why they
use FF. Removing any of that only then reduces FF to the "other
browser" level.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/7/2012 4:39 PM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard

> On 05/07/2012 12:16 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>> In mozilla.general message<DZ6dnWEOnZZycTjS...@mozilla.org
>>> , Sat, 5 May 2012 22:15:59, Jay Garcia<J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>
>> posted:
>>

>>> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
>>> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc., and THEN you

>>> decide to update or not. If you decide NOT to update then do NOT click
>>> on the "Check for updates" button. If you have opted to auto-check for
>>> updates then you will be presented with a notice/alert that there is an
>>> update available and IF you have decided to update then when asked (by
>>> checking the option), THEN you opt to update.
>>>
>>> I have hopes that one day you will understand these options.
>>
>> It would be better if the button were to do exactly what its legend says
>> according to the rules of ordinary educated English. A check should be
>> a check, and should do no more than answer Yes or No, perhaps with
>> explanation.
>>
>> The present effect calls for a button labelled "Attempt to update now!".
>>
>> Update policy should NOT assume that a user is permanently connected by
>> cheap broadband. Many people will rightly resent an update occurring
>> when they are busily out-of-office and connected by slow wireless or
>> dial-up.
>>
>>

>> The correct, well-mannered way to do it is for the browser to check
>> occasionally with Mozilla to see whether there is an update, to report
>> it on-screen (occasionally drawing attention to itself); and for the
>> user to say when it is OK to fetch an update, and for the user to say
>> when it is OK to install the update.
>>
>> And that should be the default setting.
>>
>
> That is what the Advanced> Update Tab setting does.
>

The two don't work in conjunction. Even if auto is off, checking
results in a download.

[GerardJan]

Windows is weird, always has been...

--
~Vink

[Greywolf]

On 08/05/2012 4:05 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
[...]

> Huh? Where else can you check for an update, or download it, other than
> a website, of course?

Um, every program I have on this Win7 box includes a "Check for Updates,
usually under Help or About. Not one ever download a found update
without explicit permission. Except FF and TB, of course.

Wolf K.

[Greywolf]

On 08/05/2012 9:44 AM, David wrote:

I wrote:
>> PS: BTW, the latest FF truncates the URL. I'm used to seeinghttp://etc,

>> > so this is another of those useless changes that annoys me. If the FF

>> > devs want to do some_real_ work, let them concentrate on making FF able

>> > to compensate for the errors that crappy web-page composing software
>> > introduces. - WK
>
> You been napping?

[...]

No, I went from 3.x to 11.x. I waited for posts here to indicate that
the bugs introduced in 4 through 10 were (more or less) fixed.

Wolf K.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/8/2012 6:48 AM On a whim, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com pounded out on the

As as put by a user complaint to the Mozilla email this morning,

"While I know that you guys strive to be a leader in the industry, I
wonder sometimes at the process you go through to make changes, indeed,
changes for change sake does not make things better."

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/8/2012 6:49 AM On a whim, Greywolf pounded out on the keyboard

> You're a Linux user, so you are conditioned (or genetically predisposed,
> I dunno ;-) ) to mess around with all possible settings. Ordinary users
> don't do that. If they have some notion that they could do that, they
> dare not do it. They ask geeks (like me) to do it for them.
>
> How do I know this about Ordinary Users? I'm married to one.
>

And I communicate with hundreds of Mozilla users a week directly. And
no, they don't do that.

[The Real Bev]

On 05/08/2012 09:38 AM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:

> On 5/8/2012 6:49 AM On a whim, Greywolf pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> You're a Linux user, so you are conditioned (or genetically predisposed,
>> I dunno ;-) ) to mess around with all possible settings. Ordinary users
>> don't do that. If they have some notion that they could do that, they
>> dare not do it. They ask geeks (like me) to do it for them.
>>
>> How do I know this about Ordinary Users? I'm married to one.

I'm one too. I tried programming and hated it. I ALWAYS tweak around
with options and don't understand why people don't.

> And I communicate with hundreds of Mozilla users a week directly. And
> no, they don't do that.

These are the people whose cupholders are broken, right?

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I
hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about."
-- FernandoP

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/8/2012 9:39 AM On a whim, Sailfish pounded out on the keyboard

> My bloviated meandering follows what Jay Garcia graced us with on
> 5/8/2012 6:05 AM:

>> On 08.05.2012 04:27, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> The only reason anyone would check for updates and then decide not to
>>> update is if Mozilla presented a list of items that are contained in the
>>> update and the user would then possibly decide not to bother since none
>>> of the changes were significant enough to warrant a, albeit slim,
>>> possibility of making their current installation unstable. However,
>>> since Mozilla doesn't provide that information when they click the check
>>> for update button then it stands to reason that they either want the
>>> update if one exists or they are just bored and want to click shiny
>>> buttons.
>> I think that's sorta what I've been trying to say.
>>

> Agreed.
>

You will never get people to agree that "check for updates" means "if
found, install the update". V3 had it right with the response, Later,

No thanks, Get the new version.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/8/2012 9:50 AM On a whim, The Real Bev pounded out on the keyboard

> On 05/08/2012 09:38 AM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2012 6:49 AM On a whim, Greywolf pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> You're a Linux user, so you are conditioned (or genetically predisposed,
>>> I dunno ;-) ) to mess around with all possible settings. Ordinary users
>>> don't do that. If they have some notion that they could do that, they
>>> dare not do it. They ask geeks (like me) to do it for them.
>>>
>>> How do I know this about Ordinary Users? I'm married to one.
>
> I'm one too. I tried programming and hated it. I ALWAYS tweak around
> with options and don't understand why people don't.
>
>> And I communicate with hundreds of Mozilla users a week directly. And
>> no, they don't do that.
>
> These are the people whose cupholders are broken, right?
>

From the sheer number of emails I've responded to in almost a year, I
have to deduct these are what "average/ordinary users" are.

[Ron Hunter]

Well, you can always send them a postage paid envelope and they will
refund your money....
Too many people want a program that 'just works'. But they want it to
work exactly like they want, look exactly like they want, and NEVER EVER
CHANGE, but to get better, faster, safer, and if it can do the dishes,
and walk the dog, all the better, and, of course, all this FREE.

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/8/2012 11:50 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 09:38 AM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2012 6:49 AM On a whim, Greywolf pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> You're a Linux user, so you are conditioned (or genetically
>>> predisposed,
>>> I dunno ;-) ) to mess around with all possible settings. Ordinary
>>> users
>>> don't do that. If they have some notion that they could do that, they
>>> dare not do it. They ask geeks (like me) to do it for them.
>>>
>>> How do I know this about Ordinary Users? I'm married to one.
>
> I'm one too. I tried programming and hated it. I ALWAYS tweak around
> with options and don't understand why people don't.
>
>> And I communicate with hundreds of Mozilla users a week directly. And
>> no, they don't do that.
>
> These are the people whose cupholders are broken, right?
>

Probably. Would you believe HP installed the cupholder the wrong way,
so I can't put a cup in it? Amazing!
Grin.

[Jay Garcia]

On 08.05.2012 08:30, WLS wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 05/08/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 08.05.2012 08:10, Greywolf wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> The horse is dead, Terry. Bury it.
>>>
>>> Wolf K.
>>
>> Not yet, Seamonkey does it right, just checked. If the same update
>> routine was to be implemented in Firefox, I would gladly accept it.
>>
>
> What if the silent update routine Firefox is implementing for Windows
> users was to be implemented in SeaMonkey?
>

Can't answer that one, I only run SM for supporting users purposes. But
I have no problem with silent update for FF so I would guess no problem
with SM either.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/8/2012 11:26 AM On a whim, Sailfish pounded out on the keyboard

> My bloviated meandering follows what F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com graced us
> with on 5/8/2012 11:04 AM:

>> On 5/8/2012 9:39 AM On a whim, Sailfish pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Jay Garcia graced us with on
>>> 5/8/2012 6:05 AM:
>>>> On 08.05.2012 04:27, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>> The only reason anyone would check for updates and then decide not to
>>>>> update is if Mozilla presented a list of items that are contained in
>>>>> the
>>>>> update and the user would then possibly decide not to bother since none
>>>>> of the changes were significant enough to warrant a, albeit slim,
>>>>> possibility of making their current installation unstable. However,
>>>>> since Mozilla doesn't provide that information when they click the
>>>>> check
>>>>> for update button then it stands to reason that they either want the
>>>>> update if one exists or they are just bored and want to click shiny
>>>>> buttons.
>>>> I think that's sorta what I've been trying to say.
>>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>> You will never get people to agree that "check for updates" means "if
>> found, install the update". V3 had it right with the response, Later,
>> No thanks, Get the new version.
>>

> One day, all will assimilate. It's futile to resist.
>
> Seriously, getting a group of 5+ Firefox users to agree on any UI is
> next to impossible anymore, imo.
>

I deal with over 200 users a week. I just show them how to change what
they are complaining about. Only about 1 out of 500 remains a PITA.
But when their points are valid, I support them.

Two biggest complaints after over 5,000 emails (not problems):
1. Why wasn't an option given for the new interface that allowed the old
look to display after the update (all toolbars selected).
2. Why does Firefox update even when I have it set to not update.

[Daniel]

Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:35 AM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:

<Snip>

>> As as put by a user complaint to the Mozilla email this morning,
>>
>> "While I know that you guys strive to be a leader in the industry, I
>> wonder sometimes at the process you go through to make changes, indeed,
>> changes for change sake does not make things better."
>>
>>
>> Terry
> Well, you can always send them a postage paid envelope and they will
> refund your money....
> Too many people want a program that 'just works'. But they want it to
> work exactly like they want, look exactly like they want, and NEVER EVER
> CHANGE, but to get better, faster, safer, and if it can do the dishes,
> and walk the dog, all the better, and, of course, all this FREE.
>
>

No, Ron, not all things to all men....I'll walk the dog!!

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Today, I'm on my Win7 box, Not long after I started SeaMonkey, Windows
let me know there were updates *available* (12 serious, 6 optional). I
de-selected the four .NET (serious) upgrades, checked the optionals,
then let Windows *go and get* the selected updates.

Then I got a screen saying there were updates ready to be installed and
*asking* did I want to re-start Windows to do the installation. I
selected "Ask me Later" and set the "Later" to four hours, by which time
I'll be finished and have shut Windows down, so the updates will be
installed the next time I start Windows, some time next week, maybe.

If Windows can do it, why not SeaMonkey and, I guess Ff & TB??

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Jay Garcia wrote:

<Snip>

> Just brought up my Seamonkey and ......
>
> Help => Check for updates
>
> Says: Looking for new versions
> Says: 2.9.1 is available
>
> Button at the bottom left says: Ask Later
> Button at the bottom right says: Update Seamonkey
>
> Wanna file a bug to have FF do the same thing? Have at it.
>

I'm on my Windows7 today with SM 2.8 so still need to do the update
through 2.9 to 2.9.1 (Another 29+ MB download, I suppose!!)

Just went to the Help drop-down and one of the options in the drop-down
is "Apply Downloaded Update Now"!!!

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0)
Gecko/20120312 SeaMonkey/2.8

So when did the Drop-down wording change?? Or does this mean that I have
already d/l'ed the 2.9.1 update (don't recall), and it's just sitting
there??

--
Daniel

[John H Meyers]

On 5/5/2012 10:15 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:

> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc.

The entire rest of the software industry
makes self-sufficient products that need you to go nowhere else.

At the current stage of evolution of software, any product
that needs you to first go anywhere else and spend time doing research
is a failure -- too archaic to be chosen by anyone who is up to date in real life.

Most of my software, including even Windows, goes first to a web site
where any available updates are first described, then you can decide
whether you want to download them and/or install them.

Even those which desire to have an integrated option for self-updating,
without needing to save the installer, universally (except for Mozilla)
go through the simple steps of first informing what's available,
then user can decide whether to apply it -- Windows Update goes
further still, in that you get a complete review and menu of many
minor updates from which you can pick and choose, once before
even downloading, then again before installing.

Users who wish to automatically say "accept all" can turn on such an option,
at each point in the overall procedure,
but hardly anyone dares to take away users' right to first be informed,
then make their choice, nor the right to say "Cancel" at any point
at which they, for whatever reason, wish to change their minds,
with no presumption that anyone has to get any information
from anywhere else before even invoking "check for updates,"
which everywhere else means to start from scratch
and inform the user first -- no prerequisites whatsoever.

As we teach children, it costs nothing to say "may I?" before
grabbing things, but it may cost a lot to presume wrongly
or to enter life untrained in social interaction --
whether the thing being grabbed is cookies,
or parts of a body being touched,
or a private computer being invaded,
the "she should have known better than to walk down the street in that dress"
defense just doesn't hold up in civilized society.

--

[Daniel]

And here I am, after a SM re-start

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0)
Gecko/20120429 SeaMonkey/2.9.1

so, I guess I had d/l'ed the 2.9.1 update, which caused the wording on
the "Help" drop-down screen to change!!

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 5/8/2012 5:38 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>

>>> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make

>>> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc., and THEN you
>>> decide to update or not.
>>

>> Hey, Jay, what about the "millions" (o.k. thousands) of SeaMonkey users
>> that know nothing about "support forums/groups/website". Those that just
>> use the program, and, in using the program, may one day come across
>> "Check for Updates". Granted, they probably should have updated yonks
>> ago, but for some reason (lack of knowledge, maybe) have not updated.
>>
>> Should they *HAVE* to update??
>>
> Yup. At least that is the official Mozilla position as the latest
> updates are 'safer for the other users of the web'. So, if you have an
> extension that suddenly won't work, wellll, they didn't write the
> extension.
>
>

Ron, you and I both know that, most likely, a later version is safer
than an older version, in most cases, but..........

--
Daniel

[John H Meyers]

On 5/6/2012 7:54 AM, Greywolf wrote:

> There's one good thing about this options design though: it's text-book examples of how not
> to do it. If I were teaching a course on software design, I'd use it as an 'Orrible Example.

I was just thinking along those same lines -- the Human Factors design consultants
and training company whose original foundation course I took many years ago
used many real examples from Microsoft and other major software brand names
to illustrate exactly what to avoid -- there was never any need
to make up anything, as real life bungling created
an abundant supply of genuine practice cases.

--

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 5/8/2012
10:34 PM:

1. Users pay for their software.

2. They are a multi-billion dollar company

So, put another way, would users be willing to pay an annual maintenance
fee to fund this activity? I rather doubt it since they are unwilling to
pay for the product to begin with.

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion

Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/

Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/

[Daniel]

Don't tar me with that brush, Sailfish!! I did pay for Netscape 3, way
back when, and I have donated to Mozilla!! Wanted to donate to
SeaMonkey, specifically, but was not able!

Cannot comment on other's, though.

--
Daniel

[Ron Hunter]

You should note that win7 does NOT do that by default. YOU had to go in
and tell it you weren't wanting automatic updates, complete with
reboots, in order to get that action. Ever give a try to keep Google
Chrome from updating?

[Ron Hunter]

Very likely. Yesterday, Apple released a new IOS release, and I checked
for the release on my phone, having read about it, and it downloaded to
my phone, and I installed it. Later, when I went to update my wife's
phone, I found that the new release had already downloaded, and needed
only to install. Sure glad it only does that if she is on wi-fi,
because it would have eaten 1/3 of her monthly data, or did it anyway?
Need to check that..

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/9/2012 2:30 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 5/9/2012
> 12:18 AM:

> I went the other way and and paid for SpyGlass Mosaic because I liked
> the UI better at the time. :)
>
> Also, I wasn't "tarring" anyone, merely stating the obvious, the only
> browser users have willingly paid for is Internet Explorer.
>

Nope, Opera used to be pay.

>> Cannot comment on other's, though.
>>

> No need, we all know :_)
>

[John H Meyers]

On 5/6/2012 10:36 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:

> In other software applications, users don't know when/if there is an
> update available and therefore click on "check for updates", there is no
> other way. The auto-update function takes all the guess work out of it.

Let's perform a reality check on that claim:

Eudora, FileZilla, GoodSync, Microsoft Windows,
Adobe Reader, Opera, EditPad, and Oracle's OpenOffice
are just a few examples of products which I currently use and have used,
all of which _automatically_ check for updates,
AND they all also have a manual "check for updates,"
AND not a single one of these does anything any differently
for "manual" vs. "automatic" checking, in either case
always asking what I want to do, unless I have
already given explicit voluntary permission not to ask me.

Apple's QuickTime has, in place of wording such as "check for.."
a menu item "Update Existing Software.." which you might think
constitutes advance permission to install, but no,
it turns out that even though it's telling me right now that
"Apple software updates are available for your computer,"
it is still asking "Would you like to update now?"

In addition, every updater and every installer
also proceeds step by step, never omitting a "Cancel" button
from the choices for anything not yet finished installing.

Therefore, I put it to you that your defense
of the exact opposite behavior of Mozilla TB (and FF?),
and possibly of other Mozilla clones which slavishly follow along,
is at the very least highly uninformed as to the reality,
if not a pure wishful invention by a "spin doctor"
who has always defended Mozilla, right or wrong,
even after they come along and negate your old argument
by doing exactly what you've always claimed can't be done
(example: re Bug 250141 re deleting news items from TB,
which you continued explaining as unavoidable even after the bug was removed)

Anyone claiming to "understand" you is similarly out of touch with reality,
or a Mozilla apologist extraordinaire.

The only posture which can't be challenged is "this is what Moz Devs
have decided to do, and if you don't like it, bleep yourself and go away."

Well, I think that this attitude invariably succeeds,
as eventually one's market share will prove.

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/7/2012 7:58 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I agree that it is logical to assume that if a person checks for updates,
> he wants to do the update

There's no "logic" to that at all -- I have, for example,
written a review, containing my observations on what I think is still
the current version. All that I want is to know whether
I can assure my editor, who has just phoned to ask me,
that all my experiences are reported correctly
for the current version, but the computer I am sitting at,
which has that same version I was last using,
doesn't even belong to me, and its owner would kill me
if I changed anything without her permission,
so I want only to _check whether or not an update exists_,
not to actually install it!

Another scenario is the payroll department manager
who wants to check whether her office computer(s)
are up to date, but if they are not, she wants
the I.T. department (me) to update them for her.

She does not want to drag me over needlessly,
she barely knows how to even do a check for updates,
she certainly does not visit newsgroups, etc.,
but she trusts that the button labeled "check for updates"
will do that for her, _and only that_, without spending her time
dong my own job for me by installing it herself.

By the way, what happens if a non-administrator clicks
"check for updates"? Does it download anyway,
then try to install, then fail because of lack of permission to install?

The "reasoning" quoted above is absolutely specious,
and anyone who falls for it has no aptitude for logic,
or perhaps is simply blinded by their own prejudice
(and lack of imagination to envision all other people's circumstances)
to reach a given conclusion against a tide of contrary evidence.

And what are these "defenders" trying to defend against?

The simplest of all products is made of identical parts
as much as possible -- all screws the same type, etc.,
so the simplest way to implement "check for" in two different places
is to use the identical object function in each place.

What's to gain by depriving anyone of the opportunity to just say "no"?

Meanwhile, what's to lose is the tolerance of users to accept the product,
simply because it tries to force preconceived, narrow-minded notions upon them,
like the old joke about the Boy Scout telling his Scoutmaster
that he's done his good deed for the day by "helping
a senior citizen cross the street," which was unfortunately
made so hard by the fact that this citizen happened not to want to go,
as the boy scout had thought they all needed help doing.

The entire sense of values expressed by Moz defenders
is not even "penny wise" in the course of being so "pound foolish."

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/8/2012 4:27 AM, Sailfish wrote:

> The only reason anyone would check for updates and then decide not to update is...

Certain mystery writers depend upon the limited imagination of their readers,
whereupon the author (and the persona of the detective hero) comes up with
an ingenious explanation entirely to the surprise of the readers.

Similarly, the lack of imagination of both developers and their defenders
produces the poorly thought out and unserviceable junk software of the day.

On a larger scale, so does the whole world of political junk fare.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" [Albert Einstein]

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/9/2012 1:58 AM, Sailfish wrote:

>> If Windows can do it, why not SeaMonkey and, I guess Ff & TB??

> So, put another way, would users be willing to pay an annual maintenance fee to fund this activity?
> I rather doubt it since they are unwilling to pay for the product to begin with.

If you are saying that it would cost more money to do the right thing,
no, it would not, because:

o Previous versions were already doing the right thing.

o Even the current version does the right thing during _auto_ checking,
so the ability for another "check for" to do the wrong thing
means that two separate and non-identical functions are present,
where only one reusable function is necessary, sufficient, and improved as to
user satisfaction, and could simply be called from two different places.

You can measure the user satisfaction impact by reference
to this thread, in particular to the report of thousands
of user complaints -- do you think you can find another offsetting
group of thousands of users saying "oh, please don't let that
button be willing to ask me if I want to actually continue,
even if I plead for it by setting options to that effect;
why, that would ruin my entire experience"?

Listening to public opinion and desire apparently has scant effect
upon anyone holed up inside this newsgroup,
nor at Moz HQ, if the product itself is any clue.

--

[John H Meyers]

On 5/6/2012 10:43 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> the way it works is intended to promote users to keep their computer software up to date.

Are you suggesting that asking the user for permission to proceed discourages them
from updating, even when they have set options saying they want to be asked?

I suggest that once users experience that they are dragged unwillingly
into updates they did not want, the unwillingness to update again
is more likely to become quite strong.

One thing that would encourage updating is a positive user experience
that updating benefits them, but I've had a series of experiences
where updating kills my productivity, so I think that this
added stunt of dragging people who don't want to go
is the last update that many will ever do,
and is overwhelmingly self-defeating.

--

[Jay Garcia]

On 09.05.2012 00:49, John H Meyers wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 5/5/2012 10:15 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
>> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc.
>
> The entire rest of the software industry
> makes self-sufficient products that need you to go nowhere else.

Seriously, if you could reply in 25 words or less ........ :-)

Putting anemometer away for a while. 8-)

--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org

[Jay Garcia]

On 09.05.2012 02:56, John H Meyers wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 5/6/2012 10:36 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> In other software applications, users don't know when/if there is an
>> update available and therefore click on "check for updates", there is no
>> other way. The auto-update function takes all the guess work out of it.
>
> Let's perform a reality check on that claim:

Sure, why don't you. Turn off/disable all checking for updates
features/functions, keep the following links in your bookmarks:

For Firefox: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all.html

For Thunderbird: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/all.html

Every now and then click the links and choose whether or not to
download/install the latest release and close to the same number of
clicks as you would for "check for updates", etc.

And no John, I am not an apologist for any vendor. My observations and
subsequent findings/recommendations, etc., are my own.

- putting anemometer away for now -

Cheers

[Jay Garcia]

On 09.05.2012 03:08, Sailfish wrote:

--- Original Message ---

>> Nope, Opera used to be pay.
>>

> Just like Netscape. "Used to be" is the operative phrase there, methinks.

Best I remember, you didn't pay for Opera, only paid to have the nag
screens removed.

--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org

[David]

On 5/9/2012 8:38 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 09.05.2012 00:49, John H Meyers wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 5/5/2012 10:15 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> No, you do NOT make inquiries by manually "Check For Updates". You make
>>> inquiries in the support forums/groups/website, etc.
>>
>> The entire rest of the software industry
>> makes self-sufficient products that need you to go nowhere else.
>
> Seriously, if you could reply in 25 words or less ........ :-)
>
> Putting anemometer away for a while. 8-)
>

I was thinking of recommending a blog. :-)

--

David