Re: duplicate msgs
Ron Hunter
> On 08/11/2011 01:57 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 8/10/2011 7:00 PM, g wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:33 PM, Miles wrote:
>>> <>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the info and for the moment have elected not to save
>>>> downloaded msgs on the pop server; however, this is not my preferred
>>>> msg, as I frequently am traveling and download msgs to another computer
>>>> and need to redownload them again when returning home.
>>> welcome.
>>>
>>> have you considered using a 'sync' to maintain the 2 computers?
>>>
>>>> And the 2nd extension looks OK, but believe it's a bit dumb to fix
>>>> something that is broken in TB 5 with an extension -- Mozilla needs to
>>>> fix TB!
>>> i agree. but moz devs seem to prefer it that way. gives them more time to
>>> play with thunderbird to they can make a new release and try to "keep up
>>> with the jones's".
>>>
>>>> I have been using this program since Netscape and have never experienced
>>>> this before.
>>> moz devs seem to have adopted a new belief that "it is better to follow
>>> than to lead".
>>>
>>> their new thinking that there is "no need for 'beta' or 'alpha' when we
>>> can just call it a new release" is a bit of dumb move.
>>>
>>
>> So, you would rather have an old, stale program that doesn't keep up with
>> the new things available with new technology, and security flaws that aren't
>> fixed, so that nothing changes?
>
> nothing wrong with new technology. but i am against forcing a user to
> change from what is working to what still needs debugging just so devs
> can "keep up with the joneses".
>
> as far as stale, you will note from my headers that i am using;
>
> }> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110622)
>
> you are telling me that 20110622 is stale and has security flaws?
>
> well, first you need to convince red hat and scientific linux that it
> is stale and has security flaws. ;)
>
>> OK, your choice. turn off updating. Enjoy.
>
> i trust red hat and scientific linux to know when an update is needed.
>
> as for turning off updating, it is already disabled in linux.
>
>> Bet you won't like it for long.
>
> wrong. i am enjoying it and have for some time now.
>
> from what i see on this list and firefox list, devs have dropped 'alpha'
> and 'beta' to draw more users to their *testing*, because new users do
> not want to be a 'test bed'.
>
> from what i see of posters about problems, i can come to no other
> conclusion of intent.
>
> this is drifting so;
>
> *follow-up set to moz.gen*
>
Yes! TB 2.0.0.24 is stale, and will not continue to have security
updates. At some point in the future, standards may change, and since
you aren't updating, things will stop working. It may take years, so
you may be happy for a long time.
This is open source software. Maybe you don't understand how it is
supposed to work.
gla...@linuxuser.iam
<>
> Yes! TB 2.0.0.24 is stale, and will not continue to have security
> updates.
"stale" as is in the eye of the ms user. :)
not that i debate your statement, but i do doubt that red hat will allow
2.0.0.24 to go without security fixes. even if they do not make security
updates, they will make fixes/updates/upgrades as necessary. when they do,
so will scientific linux.
> At some point in the future, standards may change, and since
> you aren't updating, things will stop working.
wrong, i am updating when updates are available.
something that you need to understand, things are handled differently
with linux than what they are with ms windows. they are 2 different
worlds, as well as ways of thinking.
rh/sl, from my observations, deal with security in a much different way
than what ms does. mainly, linux, within in it self, is much more secure
than what ms is. always has been and always will be.
with linux, there seems to be more back porting of code to stable versions
than what is done with ms.
such that, with ms, if devs find a problem with a revision, they just
release a later version for ms.
where as with linux, if new code can be applied to a stable version, it
is as a release. if not, then a new revision or sub version will be made.
linux software tends to hang with "tried and true" belief that;
"if it is not broken, you can not fix it. if it needs repair, repair it".
> It may take years, so you may be happy for a long time.
well, i am still with very a stable 2.0.x and i am very happy with it as
compared with what i see happening to ms users.
> This is open source software. Maybe you don't understand how it is
> supposed to work.
i am very much aware of how *open source software* works. i would guess
that 90% of linux software is open source.
which tends to indicate that it is _you_ who does not fully understand
what "open source software" is about.
--
peace out. tc, hago.
walking the walk. long live tux.
g
.
Terry R.
keyboard
> On 08/11/2011 07:40 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> <>
>
>> Yes! TB 2.0.0.24 is stale, and will not continue to have security
>> updates.
>
> "stale" as is in the eye of the ms user. :)
>
I believe most of us are over your constant MS bashing. Would you mind
leaving your MS jabs out of the conversations? Thanks. You use Linux.
We get it. These are Mozilla forums, for multiple platforms.
> not that i debate your statement, but i do doubt that red hat will allow
> 2.0.0.24 to go without security fixes. even if they do not make security
> updates, they will make fixes/updates/upgrades as necessary. when they do,
> so will scientific linux.
>
The "security fixes" will likely not be in 2.x, but in newer versions.
>> At some point in the future, standards may change, and since
>> you aren't updating, things will stop working.
>
> wrong, i am updating when updates are available.
>
You're still using 2.x, so "updating" would put you into v5. I have 3
versions of TB on this partition of Windows, but I prefer 3pre, as I
only use it for newsgroups. If I used TB for email, I would surely use
the latest version available.
> something that you need to understand, things are handled differently
> with linux than what they are with ms windows. they are 2 different
> worlds, as well as ways of thinking.
>
I'm sure he never considered that...
> rh/sl, from my observations, deal with security in a much different way
> than what ms does. mainly, linux, within in it self, is much more secure
> than what ms is. always has been and always will be.
>
The profit speaks. Is anyone listening? :-(
> with linux, there seems to be more back porting of code to stable versions
> than what is done with ms.
>
> such that, with ms, if devs find a problem with a revision, they just
> release a later version for ms.
>
Maybe it is you that doesn't understand, or you just prefer to bash
something you no longer are familiar with.
> where as with linux, if new code can be applied to a stable version, it
> is as a release. if not, then a new revision or sub version will be made.
>
> linux software tends to hang with "tried and true" belief that;
>
> "if it is not broken, you can not fix it. if it needs repair, repair it".
>
>> It may take years, so you may be happy for a long time.
>
> well, i am still with very a stable 2.0.x and i am very happy with it as
> compared with what i see happening to ms users.
>
>> This is open source software. Maybe you don't understand how it is
>> supposed to work.
>
Right, Ron is a newbie...
> i am very much aware of how *open source software* works. i would guess
> that 90% of linux software is open source.
>
> which tends to indicate that it is _you_ who does not fully understand
> what "open source software" is about.
>
>
>
The wise lux user speaking to all of us dumb Windows users...
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Ron Hunter
few years. NO PROGRAM IS EVER PERFECT. That is no excuse to just stop
working on new features, while squashing bugs as you can. In the
commercial reality, new features, new interfaces, etc., powers sales.
gla...@linuxuser.iam
> On 8/11/2011 8:25 AM On a whim, gla...@linuxuser.iam pounded out on the
> keyboard
>
>> On 08/11/2011 07:40 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> <>
>>
>>> Yes! TB 2.0.0.24 is stale, and will not continue to have security
>>> updates.
>>
>> "stale" as is in the eye of the ms user. :)
>>
>
> I believe most of us are over your constant MS bashing.
a shame, as that it appears that you are not over it.
"eye of the ms user" is not a bashing of ms users. it is simply a comment
regarding that ms users are one who are constantly telling me that version
of thunderbird is stale or out of date.
ms users are not aware that linux distributors will back port fixes to
what is used in linux and only change versions when necessary.
> Would you mind leaving your MS jabs out of the conversations?
if you are having problems with my comments, then over look them as i
am tending to do with your comments. this one being and exception.
> You use Linux. We get it.
and for some reason it _gets_ to you. which is something you need to over
come.
> These are Mozilla forums, for multiple platforms.
i am very much aware that mozilla is a multi platform software. when i used
ms, i used mozilla because i did not and do not care for what ms offers for
internet use.
>> not that i debate your statement, but i do doubt that red hat will allow
>> 2.0.0.24 to go without security fixes. even if they do not make security
>> updates, they will make fixes/updates/upgrades as necessary. when they do,
>> so will scientific linux.
>>
>
> The "security fixes" will likely not be in 2.x, but in newer versions.
as stated above, linux distributors back port to stable releases. they do
not "follow the crowd" and push out unstable new releases.
>>> At some point in the future, standards may change, and since
>>> you aren't updating, things will stop working.
>> wrong, i am updating when updates are available.
>>
>
> You're still using 2.x, so "updating" would put you into v5.
wrong, i believe. if there is a version update, i believe and hope that
it will be to 3.1.11. not to an unstable version 5.
here again, "updating" in linux does not mean changing versions. a change
in release would be more likely. even if it is a release change only in
linux.
> I have 3 versions of TB on this partition of Windows, but I prefer 3pre,
> as I only use it for newsgroups. If I used TB for email, I would surely
> use the latest version available.
what ever works for you is what you should use. but using 'latest version
available' does not mean a stable version.
>> something that you need to understand, things are handled differently
>> with linux than what they are with ms windows. they are 2 different
>> worlds, as well as ways of thinking.
>
> I'm sure he never considered that...
possible not. possible did. but for sure, i do not consider myself knowing
what he does consider.
>> rh/sl, from my observations, deal with security in a much different way
>> than what ms does. mainly, linux, within in it self, is much more secure
>> than what ms is. always has been and always will be.
>
> The profit speaks. Is anyone listening? :-(
i do not know about anyone listening, but i do know that those reading
are laughing at you.
correct word you should have used is *prophet*. and even that is not
a proper term to use because i am not speaking for any god. i do not
consider myself a prophet, nor do i consider linux to be in any shape,
form, or fashion, a god.
>> with linux, there seems to be more back porting of code to stable versions
>> than what is done with ms.
>>
>> such that, with ms, if devs find a problem with a revision, they just
>> release a later version for ms.
>>
>
> Maybe it is you that doesn't understand, or you just prefer to bash
> something you no longer are familiar with.
my statement was not a bashing of ms.
i was simple stating that with linux, code is back ported by distributors.
where as with ms, ms devs do nothing to what moz devs put out.
> Right, Ron is a newbie...
that may be your thinking, but i well know that Ron is not a newbie, and
i am very well aware of his knowledge. which i believe he already knows.
for sure, he does now.
seems that with you, you allowing yourself to get upset as you do, you are
losing it as to who is saying what.
> The wise lux user speaking to all of us dumb Windows users...
those are you words not mine. seems like you are trying to defend yourself
by making it look like i think all window users are dumb.
i do not. fact is, i am very well of who the intelligent users are on the
mozilla tsl's. i hold _them_ in high regard and always will.
gla...@linuxuser.iam
<>
> I understand what software is all about, given I wrote it for quite a
> few years.
ok. software is software. open source software is one of the things that
linux is about.
was not aware, but from reading most all of your post, i would have given
you credit for having intelligence to do so.
> NO PROGRAM IS EVER PERFECT.
nothing created by humans is perfect. :)
tho i will say that programming in assembler language is a whole lot better
than in current day 'high level' languages.
i have never written any al or seen any al code that had buffer over flows,
stack errors, or any other bugs that are associated with 'high level'.
i do not claim that there are not any out there. just that i have not
seen them.
> That is no excuse to just stop working on new features, while squashing
> bugs as you can.
true. but i do not see justification of pushing test software out on users.
moz should continue to maintain testing separate from stable. plus, updating
should be done by user choice, not auto updating as a default.
> In the commercial reality, new features, new interfaces,
> etc., powers sales.
_but_, when and only it has become stable.
Terry R.
keyboard
> On 08/11/2011 06:38 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 8/11/2011 8:25 AM On a whim, gla...@linuxuser.iam pounded out on the
>> keyboard
>>
>>> On 08/11/2011 07:40 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> <>
>>>
>>>> Yes! TB 2.0.0.24 is stale, and will not continue to have security
>>>> updates.
>>> "stale" as is in the eye of the ms user. :)
>>>
>> I believe most of us are over your constant MS bashing.
>
> a shame, as that it appears that you are not over it.
>
>
I was just bringing the obvious to your attention.
> "eye of the ms user" is not a bashing of ms users. it is simply a comment
> regarding that ms users are one who are constantly telling me that version
> of thunderbird is stale or out of date.
>
> ms users are not aware that linux distributors will back port fixes to
> what is used in linux and only change versions when necessary.
>
You have a was of speaking of "ms users" that is offensive. Maybe you
could try and adjust the way you talk about the majority of computer users.
>
>> Would you mind leaving your MS jabs out of the conversations?
>
> if you are having problems with my comments, then over look them as i
> am tending to do with your comments. this one being and exception.
>
Sorry. When someone feels they're superior because of the operating
system they use, it deserves a comment.
>
>> You use Linux. We get it.
>
> and for some reason it _gets_ to you. which is something you need to over
> come.
>
I don't care what OS anyone uses. You obviously can't say the same,
since every chance you get you feel the need to criticize the MS OS.
>> These are Mozilla forums, for multiple platforms.
>
> i am very much aware that mozilla is a multi platform software. when i used
> ms, i used mozilla because i did not and do not care for what ms offers for
> internet use.
>
And obviously, that is what most of the users on this server do also.
>>> not that i debate your statement, but i do doubt that red hat will allow
>>> 2.0.0.24 to go without security fixes. even if they do not make security
>>> updates, they will make fixes/updates/upgrades as necessary. when they do,
>>> so will scientific linux.
>>>
>> The "security fixes" will likely not be in 2.x, but in newer versions.
>
> as stated above, linux distributors back port to stable releases. they do
> not "follow the crowd" and push out unstable new releases.
>
And yet, below you say you really don't know whether that will happen or
not.
>>>> At some point in the future, standards may change, and since
>>>> you aren't updating, things will stop working.
>>> wrong, i am updating when updates are available.
>>>
>
>> You're still using 2.x, so "updating" would put you into v5.
>
> wrong, i believe. if there is a version update, i believe and hope that
> it will be to 3.1.11. not to an unstable version 5.
>
A contradiction to your statement above.
> here again, "updating" in linux does not mean changing versions. a change
> in release would be more likely. even if it is a release change only in
> linux.
>
>> I have 3 versions of TB on this partition of Windows, but I prefer 3pre,
>> as I only use it for newsgroups. If I used TB for email, I would surely
>> use the latest version available.
>
> what ever works for you is what you should use. but using 'latest version
> available' does not mean a stable version.
>
I prefer the shortcut keys of 3pre because they reflect the same as 2.x,
which were changed in v3.
>>> something that you need to understand, things are handled differently
>>> with linux than what they are with ms windows. they are 2 different
>>> worlds, as well as ways of thinking.
>> I'm sure he never considered that...
>
> possible not. possible did. but for sure, i do not consider myself knowing
> what he does consider.
>
If you really knew Ron's computer knowledge, you would have never said
such a thing.
>>> rh/sl, from my observations, deal with security in a much different way
>>> than what ms does. mainly, linux, within in it self, is much more secure
>>> than what ms is. always has been and always will be.
>> The profit speaks. Is anyone listening? :-(
>
> i do not know about anyone listening, but i do know that those reading
> are laughing at you.
>
> correct word you should have used is *prophet*. and even that is not
> a proper term to use because i am not speaking for any god. i do not
> consider myself a prophet, nor do i consider linux to be in any shape,
> form, or fashion, a god.
>
It was a play on words. "Profit" meaning "benefit", as in what gain
does your linux boasting do. I fully know the difference between the
two. And anyone stating, "... and always will be" is surely speaking
prophetically, wouldn't you agree?
>
>>> with linux, there seems to be more back porting of code to stable versions
>>> than what is done with ms.
>>>
>>> such that, with ms, if devs find a problem with a revision, they just
>>> release a later version for ms.
>>>
>> Maybe it is you that doesn't understand, or you just prefer to bash
>> something you no longer are familiar with.
>
> my statement was not a bashing of ms.
>
Funny, you only spoke of linux and MS. You were obviously supporting
one and bashing the other.
> i was simple stating that with linux, code is back ported by distributors.
>
> where as with ms, ms devs do nothing to what moz devs put out.
>
>> Right, Ron is a newbie...
>
> that may be your thinking, but i well know that Ron is not a newbie, and
> i am very well aware of his knowledge. which i believe he already knows.
> for sure, he does now.
>
No, I've known Ron in these groups and Netscape groups for a long time.
It is you making the derogatory comments about what he knows.
> seems that with you, you allowing yourself to get upset as you do, you are
> losing it as to who is saying what.
>
Please state the exact wording of where I, "get upset".
>> The wise lux user speaking to all of us dumb Windows users...
>
> those are you words not mine. seems like you are trying to defend yourself
> by making it look like i think all window users are dumb.
>
I don't have any need to defend myself. My comments are posted, as are
yours.
I could quote dozens of your comments of you talking down about the MS
OS and how people are basically stupid for using Windows. But others
can search for the same posts that you've made.
> i do not. fact is, i am very well of who the intelligent users are on the
> mozilla tsl's. i hold _them_ in high regard and always will.
>
>
And yet once again you throw a jab, in your broken English way. I think
your munged email address says it all.
Ron Hunter
> On 08/11/2011 09:36 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> <>
>
>> I understand what software is all about, given I wrote it for quite a
>> few years.
>
> ok. software is software. open source software is one of the things that
> linux is about.
>
> was not aware, but from reading most all of your post, i would have given
> you credit for having intelligence to do so.
>
>> NO PROGRAM IS EVER PERFECT.
>
> nothing created by humans is perfect. :)
>
> tho i will say that programming in assembler language is a whole lot better
> than in current day 'high level' languages.
>
> i have never written any al or seen any al code that had buffer over flows,
> stack errors, or any other bugs that are associated with 'high level'.
>
Those programming errors can happen when programmers forget the basic
rules. One of those is 'program for all conditions, even those you
consider impossible'.
> i do not claim that there are not any out there. just that i have not
> seen them.
>
>> That is no excuse to just stop working on new features, while squashing
>> bugs as you can.
>
> true. but i do not see justification of pushing test software out on users.
> moz should continue to maintain testing separate from stable. plus, updating
> should be done by user choice, not auto updating as a default.
>
So why is auto updating fine for Google Chrome, and horrible for FF/TB?
Why is fast version updating ok for them, but not for FF/TB? Why do
you assume that any version of FF/TB is 'unstable' just because it is
less than a couple of years old? Are you following the development
cycle of Mozilla products? I am currently using the beta versions of
FF/TB 6, and neither gives me any trouble. That seems 'stable' to me.
In fact, the last unstable version of either I have seen was TB3 (all
versions). FF5 fixed most of the bugs in FF3.
If 'stable' means not being updated any more, then you have lots of
versions to choose from.
>> In the commercial reality, new features, new interfaces,
>> etc., powers sales.
>
> _but_, when and only it has become stable.
>
How would you define 'stable', then?
Looking at my 'crash reports' folders, I find none for TB, and two for
FF on the same day (July 30). I don't recall what caused those. For
beta software, that's pretty good. FF6 is due for release next week,
and I suspect it will be quite stable.
Miles
> in going back thru thread to help op, i noted i had not replied to your
> post.
> On 08/11/2011 01:57 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> <>
>
>> So, you would rather have an old, stale program that doesn't keep up
>> with the new things available with new technology, and security flaws
>> that aren't fixed, so that nothing changes?
>
>
> you are using;
>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
> rv:6.0) Gecko/20110729 Thunderbird/6.0
>
> i was using;
>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110622)
>
> and now using;
>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110816)
>
> which is more current than your v/r.
>
>
> my 2.0.0.24 is updated with latest security fixes, etc., via *back porting*,
> not version and release changing.
>
>> OK, your choice. turn off updating. Enjoy.
>
> am enjoying it. for some time now.
>
>
> if you would like to debate this,
>
> followup set to moz.gen.
>
> as for myself, i would rather spend time trying to help op "miles" fix
> his problem.
>
>
Thanks to G's patience this has been fixed. As far as I can determine
it related to erroneous coding in in one of my gmail accounts that
automatically fetched msgs, even though it couldn't be seen.. It
resisted everything until I went into the account and set up and
deleted a new fetch. And I've asked the question of gmail tech to see
if they have an explanation.