Can I store Thunderbird's data in my documents?
Terry
Put the data you wanted to keep backed up in it's own folder and make
it the only folder that needed to be backed up.
Does Thunderbird use this feature?
Frank Tabor
No. It's stored in your profile in Documents and
Settings/%username%/application data
--
Frank Tabor
Too much is just enough.
-- Mark Twain, on whiskey
Nir
are stored in your profile folder
"http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile#Thunderbird"
you can/may move your profile folder to any other suitable location
"http://kb.mozillazine.org/Moving_your_profile_folder"
Ron Hunter
My documents is a major boondoggle worthy of the US government! It
handles only SOME data, such as user data, and is hidden away in a
folder that is hidden by default. Now THAT makes sense?
Worse, most programs store a lot of their data in 'applications data',
which is also hidden by default. But then who ever accused Microsoft of
being user-friendly.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
You can, but you SHOULDN'T. Doing this is going to cause headaches in
the future, believe it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Terry
This sounds like your opinion. Would you care to put any facts behind
your statement?
Since using Netscape, I have always put my profiles on my data drive
that stores all my program data (except those that can't be changed). I
have never had any issues because of it.
If it was so problematic, why would there be instructions on performing
the procedure (as provided by the links)?
--
Terry
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Chris Ilias
> Nir wrote:
>
>> you can/may move your profile folder to any other suitable location
>> "http://kb.mozillazine.org/Moving_your_profile_folder"
>
> You can, but you SHOULDN'T. Doing this is going to cause headaches in
> the future, believe it.
I've always had my Tb profile in "My Documents", and I have not run into
any problems regarding that.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Jordon
>> you can/may move your profile folder to any other suitable location
>> "http://kb.mozillazine.org/Moving_your_profile_folder"
Ron Hunter wrote:
> You can, but you SHOULDN'T. Doing this is going to cause headaches in
> the future, believe it.
Why? I've had my profile on the company server for a few months and have
had no problems.
--
Jordon
Moz Champion (Dan)
When you move data/files around then there may be problems in the future.
Programs and updates expect to find the data/files in specific locations
and the necessary checking may not take place. As well, if there are
problems, then you may have to substitute your path names for the
default ones in any fault finding/solution scenario.
In a perfect world, programs would always check before 'assuming'
data/files are in the default postion, and users would always 'remember'
where they put the files... but the world isnt perfect, and neither are
programs nor users.
Terry
keyboard
> Jordon wrote:
IMO, "may be problems" is too vague. When exactly? Almost all programs
have an option to install the program to another location and the same
for the data. Those that do not shouldn't be allowed to install where
the "program" decides it should be (the Quicktime program that comes
with iTunes is a perfect example. If you install iTunes to another
drive (the option is available), Quicktime installs to C: regardless and
there isn't any option to change that. Of course I write that off to it
being an Apple product).
There are dozens of registry entries specifying where programs are
installed. Installers are designed to query those entries before
installing/updating.
As far as FF & TB are concerned, there are issues of crashes where both
will create new profiles. At that point it doesn't make any difference
whether you have placed your profile in a location of your choosing or
the default location, you still will have to go through the same "fault
finding/solution scenario".
Jordon
> When you move data/files around then there may be problems in the future.
> Programs and updates expect to find the data/files in specific locations
> and the necessary checking may not take place.
Shouldn't Thunderbird be a little tolerant of the network environment
and allow users to put their mail on a network share that gets backed up
every day?
If the designers of the program allow you to put profiles where you
want, shouldn't you be able to put profiles where you want?
I am surprised this is coming from Moz Champion (Dan), because if that
is actually the case and I am risking losing something because I've put
my profile on a network, then Thunderbird isn't the right application
for business, unless your business isn't using a network.
--
Jordon
Telmo Amaral
On Windows, and if your disk is formatted in NTFS, a simpler
alternative might be to install NTFS Link, create a new empty
folder under My Documents, and turn it into a junction point
linked to your Thunderbird profile folder (by right-clicking the
new folder and choosing NTFS Link | Link Folder). Like that, a
backup utility (as any program, for that matter) would see your
new folder as the TB profile folder, and process it in the same
way as everything else inside My Documents. An advantage is that
you wouldn't need to go through the hassle of moving your TB profile.
http://www.elsdoerfer.info/=ntfslink
By the way, NTFS natively supports junction points (for folders)
and hard links (for files). The My Documents folder itself is in
fact a junction point linked to a folder inside the user's Windows
profile. The NTFS Link shell extensions simply give access to that
native feature.
Ron Hunter
and it can't find your profile. It is generally safer to allow programs
to put their files where the program wants to put them. I have had
several rather painful experiences with other programs in the past when
I attempted to move the files to my preferences, rather than the
program's preferences. Not all software is as generous as Mozilla
software about allowing these changes. Often it is necessary to find,
and manually change, setup files. If you have the knowledge, and time,
to do this, fine, but I can't recommend it for most users.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Thanks for the support, Dan. Sometimes experience is the best teacher.
I am just trying to pass on my experience in this area.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
always be available to that computer. While it certainly has
advantages, it also has some drawbacks. That goes for any case in which
you elect to move a file/folder from the default location.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Moz Champion (Dan)
As I said, the movement or change in location *May* cause problems, its
not automatic.
What sort of problems? If an update 'assumes' a certain file is at a
certain location, it will simply overwrite the file that is there. If
however the user has moved the file, its not overwritten is it?
Therefore the update is not successful as that file is not updated. Of
course if the program checked first, this wouldnt happen, but as I said,
this is not a perfect world.
The update may fail at the point of installation, may fail at the end or
may not even indicate a failure, its only when the user goes to use that
portion of the program (if they ever do) that the failure becomes a problem.
Not everyone who moves files will experience problems, thats not the
point. But if you do, and later experience problems this may be due to
that fact.
Moz Champion (Dan)
Prudence. You put files on the network so they get backed up, thats
prudent. When was the last time you had a crash/problem where you
actually used those files? Hopefully not often. But you make a backup
just in case anyway.
Many people back up all files, even tho they have never themselves
experienced a problem - they learned from the mistakes of others, better
to be safe than sorry. Well, I am simply advising you that some people
experience problems if they move the files from default - not during
normal day to day operations, but usually during updates and the like.
So you can be prudent, or not, its your choice.
Moz Champion (Dan)
Personally, I just got tired of remembering where I put everything <g>
Ron Hunter
If I had a $ for every time I put something up, never to see it again....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Nir
> The problem comes when you try to do a clean install of a new version
> and it can't find your profile.
I think , Uninstalling firefox using Add-Remove programs ( and even
completely
deleting firefox program folder ) and reinstallation will never create
such problem when default profile folder is moved to non-default
location, as profiles.ini file always remained un-affected as it is
outside of default profile folder
"http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile#Files_outside_the_.22Profiles.22_folder"
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
The profiles are stored in the /thunderbird/ directory where /profiles/
is located. Also there is "profiles.ini" which stores the path to the
profile no matter where it is located and uninstalling and re-installing
a newer version will find the profile no matter where it is by looking
at "profiles.ini".
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
The Thunderbird profile specific location is stored in "profiles.ini" in
/thunderbird/ and therefore will be found no matter if you update to a
newer version.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
You can store your profile and all it's data anywhere on the network you
want so long as /thunderbird/profiles.ini shows the correct path.
Upgrading to a newer version will find the profile via profiles.ini no
matter where it's located.
Jordon
>> If the designers of the program allow you to put profiles where you
>> want, shouldn't you be able to put profiles where you want?
Jay Garcia wrote:
> You can store your profile and all it's data anywhere on the network you
> want so long as /thunderbird/profiles.ini shows the correct path.
> Upgrading to a newer version will find the profile via profiles.ini no
> matter where it's located.
I know this to be the case. I just upgraded to Beta 2 a few weeks ago
and it found my profile just fine.
Thanks,
--
Jordon
Chris Barnes
> Putting your files on a network drive presupposes that the network will
> always be available to that computer. While it certainly has
> advantages, it also has some drawbacks. That goes for any case in which
> you elect to move a file/folder from the default location.
What you say might be appropriate for generic data files, but not email
files. After all, if the network is not available, do you really expect to
be able to read your email???
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com (also MSN IM) Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Terry
keyboard
You could have just as easily stated that changing location MAY NOT
cause problems, so your argument isn't valid.
I have all my programs installed to drive E (except for the ones like
Quicktime that don't offer the option to change). I have done this
since using Windows. My data for all programs is on drive D. I have
NEVER had a problem like you describe. Don't try to scare newbies with
statements that aren't true.
You are trying to argue about a non-issue. And trying to tell someone
"Not everyone who moves files will experience problems" and "But if you
do, and later experience problems this may be due to that fact", is
just wishy-washy talk that doesn't mean anything.
Terry
Not a valid point as Nir & Jay have stated.
Of course when someone asks for help because their next launch of TB or
FF produced an empty profile, almost all of those users report that
their last profile was in the default location (they had let the program
place the profile) and that a glitch of some sort caused a new profile
to be created. So this happens whether or not a profile is where the
program places it or if the user moves it to another location. There is
absolutely no difference.
I have never had a program act like you describe. If you "properly"
move any part of a program (program/data files/etc), there should never
be an issue like you experienced. Especially if you are as knowledgable
as you claim to be. Heck, I've even hacked my way through the registry
to change some programs configuration and if it's done right, you won't
have any problems. But that's not what we're discussing here.
Terry
keyboard
> Jordon wrote:
And someone can experience the EXACT same issue even when using a
program default location. So there isn't any reason to try and "warn"
anyone of this. It is a non-issue.
Terry
Sorry, but you are both supporting a non-issue. Please don't try to
make something of nothing.
If your experience is the best teacher, then please tell us exactly what
programs have experienced this behavior so no one will use them. That
would be helpful.
Moz Champion (Dan)
Fine if you see it that way, I see it as prudent to inform people of
possible adverse situations
Moz Champion (Dan)
Fine you can choose to ignore what some see as prudent advice.
Terry
keyboard
I don't ignore anything that has validity. If you care to be specific
in your "prudent advice" other than something that is a non-issue, I'm
sure everyone would love to know, as would I.
Frank Tabor
>> Fine you can choose to ignore what some see as prudent advice.
>
> I don't ignore anything that has validity. If you care to be specific in
> your "prudent advice" other than something that is a non-issue, I'm sure
> everyone would love to know, as would I.
The prudent advice comes from ones who have been answering the same
questions thousands of times. Some of us for as much as 10-12 years. The
same stupid questions that arise from users that think they know what they
are doing and then come to these and similar other forums for help.
If you will notice, these questions here come from folks who have little
or no clue, and very little computer savvy. Folks answering the questions
here have learned over time that, if they discourage users from making
changes like this unless they actually know what they are doing, they will
have to try to figure out later what the user did to screw his program up
and how to help him fix it.
The fact that you may know what you are doing, and have been able to
figure out how to do things, doesn't mean that you should be telling
posters who have little technical ability to fix their problems to ignore
sound advice given here.
--
Frank Tabor
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would
be a merrier world.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
Terry
Frank,
Others who have also been answering questions for years have stated that
it isn't an issue by their answers (Jay, Chris).
Yes, I know what I'm doing. But I didn't get on a soapbox and tell
everyone what they should do "or they might have problems". The record
is clear that even those who have used defaults can run into the exact
same situation, so this isn't an issue of where a profile should be
located. It is still a "non-issue".
I shouldn't have to mention that Dan is a Mac user and he isn't nearly
the technical wizard in the PC arena. He may have been a "Moz Champion"
on other servers, but here he is offering advice, just like anyone else.
Sometimes advice can be facts and other times it can be just an
opinion. If someone wants to offer their opinion, they need to provide
the facts that their opinion is based on.
I love reading where users offer solid technical assistance. But Ron's
and Dan's advice is only their opinion. One that is old school. If it
really was an issue with TB & FF, there wouldn't be information
everywhere about how to move a profile.
I think reality is, few users choose to mess with the workings of a
program. They install it and use it and that's it. Not a lot of people
have more than one hard drive on their system, so everything is stored
on a single drive. So to me, having a profile located where FF or TB
puts it or whether it's in My Documents, doesn't matter because if the
drive goes down everything is lost anyway. I keep all of my data on a
different drive (which backs up daily to yet another drive), I don't
want to go looking for where my data is. I put it where I want it to
go. I have all my programs on another drive. Only Windows is on my C:
drive (plus whatever doesn't offer an option to move).
I never stated that anyone should ignore "sound advice". But those that
offer advice may need to provide facts to support their claims from time
to time.
Jordon
> The prudent advice comes from ones who have been answering the same
> questions thousands of times. Some of us for as much as 10-12 years. The
> same stupid questions that arise from users that think they know what they
> are doing and then come to these and similar other forums for help.
>
> If you will notice, these questions here come from folks who have little
> or no clue, and very little computer savvy. Folks answering the questions
> here have learned over time that, if they discourage users from making
> changes like this unless they actually know what they are doing, they will
> have to try to figure out later what the user did to screw his program up
> and how to help him fix it.
>
> The fact that you may know what you are doing, and have been able to
> figure out how to do things, doesn't mean that you should be telling
> posters who have little technical ability to fix their problems to ignore
> sound advice given here.
In my own defense...
This is neither her nor there, but since this exchange (not the OP)
started with me I suppose I should point out (chest thumping here) that
for an old fart (of 51) with no formal computer training, I have been
building computers and networks for over 15 years. I even do the network
wiring. I've installed server based networks and currently manage a
small (15 workstation) Win2k Server network running both SQL and Sybase
databases. We have not had a virus or any kind of data loss in the 6
years I've been working here.
I can also build the most biggest, most unnecessarily complicated
spreadsheets you've ever seen. :0
I have a clue or two.
I am also cheap. Ergo, Thunderbird.
--
Jordon
Irwin Greenwald
Mozbackup (as originally written) assumed the profile was in the
standard location, but didn't report that it wasn't, causing some pain
for some users when they tried to restore after a failure.
I should also note that the knowledge Base had no choice but to include
information on how to move profiles: people like me had been telling
others how to do so for quite some time.
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> And someone can experience the EXACT same issue even when using a
> program default location. So there isn't any reason to try and "warn"
> anyone of this. It is a non-issue.
I've been reading this thread and am wondering why, rather than arguing the
merits of (not) having the profile in its default location, no-one seems
to've said, 'If you want to store your profile in a non-default location,
this is how you do it'?
Whether doing so is or is not a good idea strikes me as being largely
irrelevant; if someone wants to add a codicil saying 'This may cause
problems', fine, but right now it seems to've degenerated into a discussion
regarding personal preference. . . . :-(
/b.
--
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Fine if you see it that way, I see it as prudent to inform people of
> possible adverse situations
The problem is that, as on other matters, your status as Champ may incline
others to give more weight to your opinion. :-(
While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with you and
Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even anecdotal evidence
-- to support your position. . . .
Telmo Amaral
> On 2007-02-21 10:05 (-0700 UTC), Terry wrote:
> I've been reading this thread and am wondering why, rather than arguing
> the merits of (not) having the profile in its default location, no-one
> seems to've said, 'If you want to store your profile in a non-default
Well, in a reply to the original post, I explained a simple method
that allows having the profile under My Documents /without/ the
need to actually move it...
Terry
Nir answered the OP right off with a link to move the profile, so that
answers your first paragraph.
It wasn't until Ron and Dan decided to "warn" everyone about what MIGHT
happen if you move your profile that any of this discussion was even
prompted. I challenged their response claiming it was without merit,
because it doesn't matter if a user wants to move their profile or not,
TB or FF will not freak out if one chooses to do so.
Ron Hunter
I did say a CLEAN install, which means you remove both the program
folder, and folder in Applications data.
A clean install would also remove the profile, but you can save the
profile data to replace things like bookmarks and passwords from the old
profile.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
If I do a clean install. I
1. uninstall via run/install.
2. delete all references to TB/FF in registry (yes, it IS tedious)
3. Delete the folders in applications data for the program(s).
.
.
Anything else is NOT 'clean'. Of course I save bookmarks and passwords
(actually the whole profile folder) until I get everything working again.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Profiles/8657hmaw.default
This tells what? If I have moved the data to another location, this
isn't adequate information, unless the program assumes that it will find
the data in the documents and settings/applications data/ folder in
WinXP. If I have deleted this folder (thunderbird), then it hasn't a
clue where to look for profiles, and will make a new thunderbird folder
in applications data, with a default profile. The user will report all
his profile data is lost, unless he remembers where he put it.
This is a good faith attempt to make it possible to move the profile
folder with minimal probability of trouble, but it isn't foolproof.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
the computer hosting the location is also on the network, and no recent
MS updates have been run to reset the security settings (BIG IF).
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Putting your files on a network drive presupposes that the network
>> will always be available to that computer. While it certainly has
>> advantages, it also has some drawbacks. That goes for any case in
>> which you elect to move a file/folder from the default location.
>
> What you say might be appropriate for generic data files, but not email
> files. After all, if the network is not available, do you really expect
> to be able to read your email???
>
purpose. Internet access here is not dependent on all the computers
being available. While it is not unreasonable to expect shared files on
a corporate, or even local commercial network, to be available except in
disaster situations, it is unreasonable to expect all the computers in a
home network to be available all the time.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
really), but I KNOW that it happens. Just because it hasn't happened to
ME yet doesn't mean it won't, or that I don't need to drive safely.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Photoshop Elements.
Sierra greeting card programs.
MS Word.
Google Earth.
In short, just about every application I use. Move their files, and suffer.
I can't even move pictures from one folder to another outside PSE
without having to go back and reindex the whole database, and losing all
my tags, even though they are supposed to be written into the files! I
have been doing this for over 40 years, so perhaps I have experienced
more problems than most. I generally try to operate within reasonable
parameters in order to prevent hassle. Using the computer is my
recreation, so I try to keep it easy.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Just because YOU have not experienced something does not render it a
'non issue'. What I warn against I have experienced more than once.
Otherwise, I wouldn't mention it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Terry
Ron,
You know what you're talking about has nothing to do with your original
statement to Nir.
Why would you feel it is necessary to do the above "clean install"?
Maybe in times past when TB was beta. Maybe you're talking about some
other unruly programs.
And what is so tedious about removing references in the registry? Maybe
you haven't used the search function in a registry cleaner before, but
it makes quick work of what used to be tedious (and before you start,
no, I don't let it remove anything automatically--it searches, I check
it, and only then is it removed, AND a backup is made for me prior to
removal).
Ron Hunter
intentionally move their profile. In view of that, I feel it reasonable
to warn against doing anything that is likely to complicate the
situation, given that I still haven't seen any explanation of why some
users are managing to lose their profiles (even though they didn't
intentionally move them).
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Terry
Once again, you've regressed to talking about absolutely nothing
relevant to this discussion.
But I'm glad you have been spared losing anyone in a car wreak. I
wasn't so fortunate. Not family, but two best friends, both of which
were when I was in high school, at two different times.
Terry
Ron,
That has been my whole point. IF a user has trouble, it has been
reported more I believe, that the user was using the default location
assigned by TB or FF. I have never read where it was specifically
related to the user moving the profile, have you? So if it hasn't
happened to me or anyone else who has relocated their profile, then I
come to the conclusion it happens regardless.
You are warning against something that can't be proved if there is any
relevance at all.
Ron Hunter
unfortunate experiences with other cleaners, and since have avoided
them. I do have one that does a search of the registry, but haven't had
occasion to need it since I downloaded it, so I can't say anything about
its usefulness.
Regedit, even on a fast machine is tediously slow at searching.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
years. Just about anything you can imagine, and many you probably
couldn't, has been reported. I am sure that the number of users,
percentage-wise, that moves their profiles from the default location is
quite small, and that most of those who do are knowledgeable enough to
do it safely, but to suggest it as a general practice is, in my opinion,
unwise, and irresponsible.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Chris Ilias
>>>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>> You can, but you SHOULDN'T. Doing this is going to cause
>>>>>>> headaches in the future, believe it.
>
> really), but I KNOW that it happens. Just because it hasn't happened to
> ME yet doesn't mean it won't, or that I don't need to drive safely.
IMO, that's not enough reason to tell family members that they
"shouldn't" [ever] drive a car. Do /you/ ever drive?
The probability of putting your profile in a non-default location, being
the cause of a problem is so low, I don't recommend against it. You say
"is going to cause headaches in the future, believe it," as if the
probability is 100%.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Regedit, even on a fast machine is tediously slow at searching.
Registry cleaning can certainly be a slow and tedious process, but it does
allow one ample time to consider what bright spark decided that a registry
that apparently has no actual location and isn't really intended to be
human-readable was a good idea. . . . :-P
Ron Hunter
> On 21/02/2007 5:12 PM, _Ron Hunter_ spoke thusly:
>>>>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>> You can, but you SHOULDN'T. Doing this is going to cause
>>>>>>>> headaches in the future, believe it.
>>
>> I have never had anyone in my family killed in a car wreck. (yes,
>> really), but I KNOW that it happens. Just because it hasn't happened
>> to ME yet doesn't mean it won't, or that I don't need to drive safely.
>
> IMO, that's not enough reason to tell family members that they
> "shouldn't" [ever] drive a car. Do /you/ ever drive?
>
> The probability of putting your profile in a non-default location, being
> the cause of a problem is so low, I don't recommend against it. You say
> "is going to cause headaches in the future, believe it," as if the
> probability is 100%.
Believe it.
Been there, done that, have the scars.
BTW, I don't recommend that drivers in my family do things like driving
down the wrong side of the freeway, going the wrong way on oneway
streets, or that they drive at night without lights, either.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> The probability of putting your profile in a non-default location,
>> being the cause of a problem is so low, I don't recommend against it.
>> You say "is going to cause headaches in the future, believe it," as if
>> the probability is 100%.
> IF one carries this practice over to other programs, it IS 100%. Believe
> it.
Not in Thunderbird. The profile being put in a non-default location (in
this thread) is a Thunderbird profile.
> Been there, done that, have the scars.
As I replied to you earlier in this thread, I've always kept my profile
in "My Documents" folder. If the probability of having problems with it
is 100%, where do I fit in?
Then there's my cousin. He had a second internal hard drive installed
(on my advice); and I moved his Thunderbird profile to the second hard
drive using the instructions at
<http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/profile>. He has had no
problems (and he's a computer idiot!).
Moz Champion (Dan)
> On 2007-02-21 10:40 (-0700 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Fine if you see it that way, I see it as prudent to inform people of
>> possible adverse situations
>
> The problem is that, as on other matters, your status as Champ may
> incline others to give more weight to your opinion. :-(
>
> While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with you
> and Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even anecdotal
> evidence -- to support your position. . . .
>
> /b.
>
What? Me? Provide you with evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- why
certainly Sir. And I expect you will accept it with the aplomb you
accepted my factual and anecdotal evidence on other matters.
All I did was advise people of possible adverse situations. I thought it
quite prudent to do so.
If you dont agree, then fine, be my guest. Do it any way you wish.
Brian Heinrich
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
<snip />
>> While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with you
>> and Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even anecdotal
>> evidence -- to support your position. . . .
>
> What? Me? Provide you with evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- why
> certainly Sir. And I expect you will accept it with the aplomb you
> accepted my factual and anecdotal evidence on other matters.
On those other matters, you were never able to provide /factual/ evidence. :-(
Ron, at least, has provided some anecdotal evidence to support his position.
. . .
/b.
<snip />
Ron Hunter
> On 21/02/2007 9:01 PM, _Ron Hunter_ spoke thusly:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> The probability of putting your profile in a non-default location,
>>> being the cause of a problem is so low, I don't recommend against it.
>>> You say "is going to cause headaches in the future, believe it," as
>>> if the probability is 100%.
>> IF one carries this practice over to other programs, it IS 100%.
>> Believe it.
>
> Not in Thunderbird. The profile being put in a non-default location (in
> this thread) is a Thunderbird profile.
>
>> Been there, done that, have the scars.
>
> As I replied to you earlier in this thread, I've always kept my profile
> in "My Documents" folder. If the probability of having problems with it
> is 100%, where do I fit in?
> Then there's my cousin. He had a second internal hard drive installed
> (on my advice); and I moved his Thunderbird profile to the second hard
> drive using the instructions at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/profile>. He has had no
> problems (and he's a computer idiot!).
I'll wait.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Chris Ilias
It takes ten years for the problems to occur? Thunderbird hasn't even
been around for ten years. The Mozilla project isn't even ten years old.
:-P
Don't try to use some "experience" argument. There are plenty of people
in this thread that have been using Mozilla, and doing Mozilla user
support for years (including myself).
Of course, I've been putting my profile in "My Documents" since 1999 (w/
Netscape Communicator, then every Mozilla app); and my cousin's profile:
around 2 years.
Moz Champion (Dan)
> On 2007-02-21 21:51 (-0700 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>>> While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with
>>> you and Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even
>>> anecdotal evidence -- to support your position. . . .
>>
>> What? Me? Provide you with evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- why
>> certainly Sir. And I expect you will accept it with the aplomb you
>> accepted my factual and anecdotal evidence on other matters.
>
> On those other matters, you were never able to provide /factual/
> evidence. :-(
>
> Ron, at least, has provided some anecdotal evidence to support his
> position. . . .
>
> /b.
>
> <snip />
>
Do what you will. When I provide factual evidence you term it
irrelevant, or opinion, or anecdotal. When I dont you complain. So be it.
Keep telling the bumblebee he cant fly, maybe someday he will stop
flying. After all he's only been doing it for a million years or so, but
thats only anecdotal to you.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 2007-02-21 21:51 (-0700 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>>> While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with you
>>> and Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even anecdotal
>>> evidence -- to support your position. . . .
>>
>> What? Me? Provide you with evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- why
>> certainly Sir. And I expect you will accept it with the aplomb you
>> accepted my factual and anecdotal evidence on other matters.
>
> On those other matters, you were never able to provide /factual/ evidence. :-(
>
> Ron, at least, has provided some anecdotal evidence to support his position.
> . . .
>
> /b.
>
> <snip />
>
Is this like, "Hey, don't stand there, a meteorite might land there".
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Of course, I've been putting my profile in "My Documents" since 1999 (w/
> Netscape Communicator, then every Mozilla app); and my cousin's profile:
> around 2 years.
Relocating profiles is like running a network (Novell Netware here)
where all users keep their profiles on a network drive rather than the
individual workstations for ease of use when roaming. No difference in
relocation of profiles in this thread/instance. The principle is the
same and has been working for eons. My program executables are on C: and
my profiles/cache, etc. are on G: with nary a hint of a problem. If C:
goes down, the profiles/data survive. If G: goes down then I restore
from H: so forth and so on. It makes good sense to relocate the profile
away from the program files anyway where other data files are stored on
their own drive or partition.
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
the guy who was standing "there" pondered... "hmmm! is *that* what he
meant? "
But, the serious side of the discussion is:
If and when the user is offered a "user-defined installation" (usually
called "advanced"), then the application should be able to find (and
update) *ALL* relevant files and data, no matter where they are!
The same goes for the registry... IF the programmers knew what they were
doing (teamwork ??), there would be no market for registry cleaners...
but there is (in fact, a *desperate* market).
It also seems wrong that Windows is still so badly constructed and
devised that it actually allows such a mess-up of the registry. The
native uninstaller is of practically no use either, as it is still
incapable of uninstalling what it registers (to be uninstalled) - or
maybe, it simply doesn't "catch" all the entries made by an installation?
reg
JarrE
> I thought "My Documents" was a good idea when Windows 95 came out.
> Put the data you wanted to keep backed up in it's own folder and make
> it the only folder that needed to be backed up.
>
> Does Thunderbird use this feature?
Yes, here (University of Oslo) we have set thunderbird to have it's
profile on users home directory (always mounted as M:) which moves with
them (as computers don't)
Just edit the profiles.ini (if in a large environment, make shure it is
copied in with the installation). Ours look like:
[General]
StartWithLastProfile=1
[Profile0]
Name=Main profile
IsRelative=0
Path=M:\pc\Thunderbird
Default=1
Mvh/
JarrE
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2007 9:01 PM, _Ron Hunter_ spoke thusly:
>>
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Not in Thunderbird. The profile being put in a non-default location (in
>> this thread) is a Thunderbird profile.
>>
>>
>>> Been there, done that, have the scars.
>>>
>> As I replied to you earlier in this thread, I've always kept my profile
>> in "My Documents" folder. If the probability of having problems with it
>> is 100%, where do I fit in?
>> Then there's my cousin. He had a second internal hard drive installed
>> (on my advice); and I moved his Thunderbird profile to the second hard
>> drive using the instructions at
>> <http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/profile>. He has had no
>> problems (and he's a computer idiot!).
>>
> Check back with me in 10 years, and let me know how you are both doing.
> I'll wait.
>
>
>
like to check-out your insurance policies... according to their Laws of
Averages, you just ain't gonna last another 10 years of driving life!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> On 2/21/2007 11:03 AM On a whim, Frank Tabor pounded out on the keyboard
>
>
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:32:32 -0800, Terry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Fine you can choose to ignore what some see as prudent advice.
>>>>
>>> I don't ignore anything that has validity. If you care to be specific in
>>> your "prudent advice" other than something that is a non-issue, I'm sure
>>> everyone would love to know, as would I.
>>>
>> questions thousands of times.
well now - does "giving the same answer" time and time again actually
prove that it is the *correct* answer - or does it prove that the person
giving the reply hasn't given it any further thought?? Many "wise and
prudent" leaders have fought wars that they "thought" to be just and
correct - Hitler fought one for many years..... Bush and Co are still in
Irak.....
<<snipped>>
>
> Frank,
>
> Others who have also been answering questions for years have stated that
> it isn't an issue by their answers (Jay, Chris).
>
>
>
<<snipped>>
> I think reality is, few users choose to mess with the workings of a
> program. They install it and use it and that's it. Not a lot of people
> have more than one hard drive on their system, so everything is stored
> on a single drive. So to me, having a profile located where FF or TB
> puts it or whether it's in My Documents, doesn't matter because if the
> drive goes down everything is lost anyway. I keep all of my data on a
> different drive (which backs up daily to yet another drive), I don't
> want to go looking for where my data is. I put it where I want it to
> go. I have all my programs on another drive. Only Windows is on my C:
> drive (plus whatever doesn't offer an option to move).
>
and here lies the crux... The Windows "default" directories, where some
programs shove their files is a lost soul, when (yes - "when") Windows
goes down the drain... it means a complete re-installation of those
applications and, not only that but it is a certainty that those same
applications won't remove that data when uninstalled...
Some of you may remember my "dilemma" a couple of months back, when I
lost both my C: partition and my external backup drive? In the meantime
I have found that it was (probably) caused by a loose power connection
on my primary HD - but that could happen to anyone. Fact was, I had no
idea - and no way of telling - just what was located in those Windows
defaults.
Putting delicate userdata such as profiles into a Windows default
location is, in my opinion, very bad programming, especially when a
"user installation" has been offered to, *and* selected by the user - it
can be expected (even by the -hmmmmm- experts here,) that the
application is indeed, installed at the user-defined location and not,
as ususlly happens, haphazzardly across the partitions! If it was all
left to the programmers to decide, there would be no requirement for
partitioning - backups on a second HD, everything else on the primary
HD... just imagine it - no hassle with formatting and drive letters!!
> I never stated that anyone should ignore "sound advice". But those that
> offer advice may need to provide facts to support their claims from time
> to time.
>
>
which, of course, requires that those people *have* those facts and are
not just blabbering "we've allways done it like that"
'tis in fact "those" people who have not kept up-to-date with IT
progress and the possibilities that IT is now capable of and offers
reg
squaredancer
>
>> On 2007-02-21 10:05 (-0700 UTC), Terry wrote:
>>
>
>> I've been reading this thread and am wondering why, rather than arguing
>> the merits of (not) having the profile in its default location, no-one
>> seems to've said, 'If you want to store your profile in a non-default
>>
>
> Well, in a reply to the original post, I explained a simple method
> that allows having the profile under My Documents /without/ the
> need to actually move it...
>
that's OK Telmo but, in my opinion "My Documents" is not a genuine
alternative (ie a "secure" place) as it is one of the Windows "default"
directories that gets deleted/overwritten if and when you have to
re-install Windows!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
defines the "location" of the profile - either default (=1) or
user-defined (=0)
reg
Frank Tabor
> well now - does "giving the same answer" time and time again actually
> prove that it is the *correct* answer -
In this case, yes. Having a history of giving incorrect answers doesn't
earn you much creditability, does it?
--
Frank Tabor
You will outgrow your usefulness.
Nir
> Nir wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> The problem comes when you try to do a clean install of a new
>>> version and it can't find your profile.
>>
>> completely deleting firefox program folder ) and reinstallation
>> will never create such problem when default profile folder is moved
>> to non-default location, as profiles.ini file always remained
>> un-affected as it is outside of default profile folder
>> "http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile#Files_outside_the_.22Profiles.22_folder"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I did say a CLEAN install, which means you remove both the program
> folder, and folder in Applications data. A clean install would also
> remove the profile, but you can save the profile data to replace
> things like bookmarks and passwords from the old profile.
>
>
I guess as Firefox/Thunderbird always creates the default profile folder
with 'random numbers' (during first install or Clean Install) so in that
case
Thunderbird will not able to find its previous
default profile folder. so it doesn't matter whether you move your
profile folder elsewhere or keep it at default location, Tb will never
find your profile folder itself if you delete profiles.ini file (during
clean
install )
Telmo Amaral
> Telmo Amaral:
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>> On 2007-02-21 10:05 (-0700 UTC), Terry wrote:
...
>>> I've been reading this thread and am wondering why, rather
>>> than arguing the merits of (not) having the profile in its
>>> default location, no-one seems to've said, 'If you want to
>>> store your profile in a non-default location, this is how
>>> you do it'? ...
>>
>> Well, in a reply to the original post, I explained a simple
>> method that allows having the profile under My Documents
>> /without/ the need to actually move it...
>>
> that's OK Telmo but, in my opinion "My Documents" is not a
> genuine alternative (ie a "secure" place) as it is one of the
> Windows "default" directories that gets deleted/overwritten if
> and when you have to re-install Windows!
I wasn't suggesting the My Documents folder; just describing a way
to have the profile there, because that's the folder being
discussed in this thread (see the subject line). In any case, when
it comes to reinstalling Windows, please note that My Documents is
just as safe or unsafe a location as the default location of
Thunderbird's profiles: both are stored inside the user's Windows
profile...
Terry
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:20:04 +0100, squaredancer wrote:
>
>> well now - does "giving the same answer" time and time again actually
>> prove that it is the *correct* answer -
>
> In this case, yes. Having a history of giving incorrect answers doesn't
> earn you much creditability, does it?
>
>
Sorry Frank, in this case the answer is no. Just because Ron & Dan
(whom you support) believe one shouldn't move a profile, doesn't make it
the right answer, regardless if they've advised it 10,000 times.
The answer is that it doesn't matter if one chooses to move the profile
or not. TB & FF are quite capable of handling a profile location
change. There is absolutely no evidence showing that moving a profile
(correctly) will cause a user to lose that profile any more than if it
stays in the location created by TB or FF.
So the OP's question has been answered multiple times, so now we can
move on.
Brian Heinrich
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> On 2007-02-21 21:51 (-0700 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>>>> While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with
>>>> you and Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even
>>>> anecdotal evidence -- to support your position. . . .
>>>
>>> What? Me? Provide you with evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- why
>>> certainly Sir. And I expect you will accept it with the aplomb you
>>> accepted my factual and anecdotal evidence on other matters.
>>
>> On those other matters, you were never able to provide /factual/
>> evidence. :-(
>>
>> Ron, at least, has provided some anecdotal evidence to support his
>> position. . . .
>>
>> /b.
>>
>> <snip />
>
> Do what you will. When I provide factual evidence you term it
> irrelevant, or opinion, or anecdotal. When I dont you complain. So be it.
You haven't provided factual evidence, because it would require a
substantial period of time to prove whether or not your method truly works
as you claim (/e.g./, people strictly following your method not
(re)encounter degraded performance after processing, say, 10 000 spam messages).
Because that is not necessarily a reasonable request within the context of
these groups, I have, rather, asked you to point to d11n that would support
your claim . . . which you have been unable to do.
> Keep telling the bumblebee he cant fly, maybe someday he will stop
> flying. After all he's only been doing it for a million years or so, but
> thats only anecdotal to you.
This is a red herring, Dan. It would be anecdotal only if I'd never seen a
bumblebee fly. Further, your original intent was to distinguish between
'theory' and 'fact'.
But you're doing so by comparing a (presumed) theory of flight with a case
that appears to contradict that theory with a system or functionality based
on the implementation of a statistical theorem.
You seem also to be confusing 'theory' and 'theorem', which wouldn't
particularly help matters. . . .
/b.
Moz Champion (Dan)
Frankly scarlet....
Brian Heinrich
It would be more like 'Meteorites have been known to land in this area with
a frequency above that of statistical probability, so standing here
increases the chances that you might be hit by a meteorite', but even that
misses the point.
Take a theoretical set, S, of {a . . . z}, which constitutes all of the
software that Ron has run over the years. Of set S, a sub-set, s1,
constitutes those applications that have caused Ron grief when not installed
in or allowed to store their data in their default locations.
Unfortunately, what Ron appears to be doing is taking experience with s1 and
applying it to S in general, without taking into account that there is (or
at least might be) a second sub-set, s2, consisting of apps that have not or
do not cause grief when not installed in or allowed to store their data in
their default locations.
That is, Pr(grief) == s1/S and Pr(!grief) == s2/S, where Ron (on the basis
of his experience) is generalising from Pr(grief).
/b.
Moz Champion (Dan)
> On 2/22/2007 5:50 AM On a whim, Frank Tabor pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:20:04 +0100, squaredancer wrote:
>>
>>> well now - does "giving the same answer" time and time again actually
>>> prove that it is the *correct* answer -
>>
>> In this case, yes. Having a history of giving incorrect answers doesn't
>> earn you much creditability, does it?
>>
>
> Sorry Frank, in this case the answer is no. Just because Ron & Dan
> (whom you support) believe one shouldn't move a profile, doesn't make it
> the right answer, regardless if they've advised it 10,000 times.
>
> The answer is that it doesn't matter if one chooses to move the profile
> or not. TB & FF are quite capable of handling a profile location
> change. There is absolutely no evidence showing that moving a profile
> (correctly) will cause a user to lose that profile any more than if it
> stays in the location created by TB or FF.
>
> So the OP's question has been answered multiple times, so now we can
> move on.
>
Listen Terry, please dont make assumptions when it comes to what I say.
I did NOT ever say 'no one should move a profile'!!!!!!
Go back and read my words again.. ALL of em in this thread. Then you
will see that I NEVER said 'shouldnt move'.
ALL *I* said was... those who DO move profiles should be aware that it
*may* cause problems down the road.
It would please me to no end if you improved your comprehension of the
written word.,
Here it is in a nutshell... all the words I have written on the subject
in this thread, where does it say 'shouldnt' move' ???
QUOTE
When you move data/files around then there may be problems in the future.
As I said, the movement or change in location *May* cause problems, its
not automatic.
Not everyone who moves files will experience problems, thats not the
point. But if you do, and later experience problems this may be due to
that fact.
Fine if you see it that way, I see it as prudent to inform people of
possible adverse situations
All I did was advise people of possible adverse situations. I thought it
quite prudent to do so.
UNQUOTE
there were a few other statements not germane to the subject at hand as
well, and some other which simply repeated the above.
So, SIR... Just where can you claim I said people SHOULDNT move profiles?
Brian Heinrich
<snip >
> and here lies the crux... The Windows "default" directories, where some
> programs shove their files is a lost soul, when (yes - "when") Windows
> goes down the drain... it means a complete re-installation of those
> applications and, not only that but it is a certainty that those same
> applications won't remove that data when uninstalled...
One of the fundamental design flaws of Windows is the way in which the root
partition is linked to the drive label.
On a one-HDD Windows system, the root partition is C:\, whereas, under a
one-HDD 'N*x system, the drive label (for a non-SCSI drive) would be hda,
but the root partition is / -- and, by default, /home (Windows' Documents
and Settings) is mounted on a separate partition.
<snip />
> Putting delicate userdata such as profiles into a Windows default
> location is, in my opinion, very bad programming, especially when a
> "user installation" has been offered to, *and* selected by the user - it
> can be expected (even by the -hmmmmm- experts here,) that the
> application is indeed, installed at the user-defined location and not,
> as ususlly happens, haphazzardly across the partitions!
The problem, in part, is that Microsoft controls the over-all way in which
Windows functions . . . and that mean that programs are installed in
C:\Program Files\ and user data is stored in C:\Documents and
Settings\%USER_NAME%\.
I'm not suggesting that users shouldn't have flexibility in where they
install their programmes and store their user data, or that programmes
shouldn't make it possible for users to do so.
> If it was all
> left to the programmers to decide, there would be no requirement for
> partitioning - backups on a second HD, everything else on the primary
> HD... just imagine it - no hassle with formatting and drive letters!!
Hmm . . . I suspect you'd still need partitions. Under Windows, for
example, it seems to me that you should have several -- one for Windows
itself, one for installed programmes, one for user data -- assuming that no
programmes wrote into \%WINDOWS%. . . .
/b.
<snip />
--
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> that's OK Telmo but, in my opinion "My Documents" is not a genuine
> alternative (ie a "secure" place) as it is one of the Windows "default"
> directories that gets deleted/overwritten if and when you have to
> re-install Windows!
I've never tried, but are you suggesting that there's no simple way in which
to place Documents and Settings on a separate partition? (And, yes, that
pro'ly should be an option during OS install. . . .)
/b.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Frankly scarlet....
Yeah, I know. :-( If you did, you'd actually have tried to finding evidence
to back up your claims or admitted that your assertions were specious and
misinformed. :-(
But apparently it's easier and more fulfilling for you to argue endlessly
about a matter in which your assertions are demonstrably wrong than to find
evidence to back them up or to admit that you are wrong. :-(
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Listen Terry, please dont make assumptions when it comes to what I say.
Dan, would you /please/ stop being such an eristic sonofab****? Please?
Pretty please?
All you're managing to do is to p*** off people and generate endless
giji-bird-like arguments. :-(
/b.
<snip />
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
No, what you're looking for is factual evidence, so let's play the
meteorite game again.
Meteorites are known to strike the Earth. People are known to stand out
in the open. Dan says that if you stand out in the open you may get hit
by one of these meteorites but you're looking for evidence that some
person actually got hit by one. So, he can't produce this factual
evidence but the warning is valid .. at least to some degree if even
miniscule by chance. May have a better chance winning the powerball,
granted.
squaredancer
>
>
>> On 22.02.2007 00:36, Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> On 2007-02-21 21:51 (-0700 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>>
> Unfortunately, what Ron appears to be doing is taking experience with s1 and
> applying it to S in general, without taking into account that there is (or
> at least might be) a second sub-set, s2, consisting of apps that have not or
> do not cause grief when not installed in or allowed to store their data in
> their default locations.
>
> That is, Pr(grief) == s1/S and Pr(!grief) == s2/S, where Ron (on the basis
> of his experience) is generalising from Pr(grief).
>
> /b.
>
>
ummm - Brian.... shouldn't that last one read Pr(good(grief)) ??
reg
Brian Heinrich
The meteorite game isn't necessary: Ron provided anecdotal/circumstantial
evidence from his own experience, but (assuming s1 != S) drew the wrong
conclusion from it:
1. Software can be installed and user data can be stored in non-default
locations.
2. When I have done so in the past, it has caused me grief.
3. Therefore, installing software or storing user data in non-default
locations will cause grief.
> Meteorites are known to strike the Earth. People are known to stand out
> in the open. Dan says that if you stand out in the open you may get hit
> by one of these meteorites but you're looking for evidence that some
> person actually got hit by one. So, he can't produce this factual
> evidence but the warning is valid .. at least to some degree if even
> miniscule by chance. May have a better chance winning the powerball,
> granted.
The issue in this instance is rather different from that in the JMC issue,
because, in this instance, experience /is/ significant, whereas in the
instance off JMC, how they function (or not) is determined by the theorem on
which they're based.
So, for instance, I've never had a Windows machine -- even a clean install
with minimal applications installed (Fx, gaim, OOo, Tb) -- stay up on me for
over a week. That's my experience based on the handful or so of Windows
boxes that I've used that were left running (/i.e./, not shut down daily).
I've seen similar behaviour on other machines.
Yet there are those who claim that they've had a Windows machine,
particularly ones running XP, up for a year or two. Now, given my
experience above, and given that I've found XP to be less stable than W2K,
can I draw the conclusion that those who make the claim are lying?
In this case, there isn't statistically large enough sample for me to draw
any conclusions or make any assertions that aren't hedged about with all
sorts of conditionals.
That's why I've not really questioned Dan's claims about the efficacy of his
JMC based on his experience. The fact of the matter is, they may very well
be working that efficiently for him.
Where he errs in the same way that Ron did is by drawing the conclusion that
his method reflects the conditional probability of Bayes' theorem . . . and
he then exacerbates that by stating that if people only followed his method,
they, too, would experience the kind of miraculous efficiency that his JMC
have achieved.
In Ron's case, it was easy to show how he drew the wrong conclusion in
generalising from a sub-set of experiences so as to encompass the entire set
simply by providing a some pseudo-sets and some generic probability
statements (which are what lead to the syllogism earlier in this posting).
In Dan's case, it's easy to show that, /regardless of what his own
experience might be/, the advice he gives regarding JMC does not take into
account how Bayes' theorem functions and how it has been implemented in JMC
in respect of spam.
In Ron's case, we're talking about something that's purely experiential,
that's 'empirical' to the extent that it is based on observation, and so
anecdotal or circumstantial evidence is all one has to go on.
In Dan's case, however, no matter how much he might want to make it
something experiential/empirical (and thereby lend validity to his claims),
anecdotal/circumstantial evidence is /not/ adequate, since the functioning
of JMC follow clear-cut rules (/i.e./, Bayes' theorem as applied to e-mail),
and those rules require that the filter be seeded with ham (good tokens) as
well as spam (bad tokens) in order for the filter to function properly (that
is, not to skew).
However, since how many ham tokens with which the filter needs to be seeded
is itself predicated on conditional probability, it's almost impossible to
state how much ham one should be feeding the filter; hence my general
statement that the more spam one gets, the more ham one should feed the filter.
But since it's almost impossible to determine with any accuracy the amount
of ham to be fed the filter, one always runs the risk of skewing (/i.e./,
self-poisoning) the filter, which is why I recommend using BJT in order to
maintain training.dat.
In other words, following Dan's advice will eventually lead to degraded
performance due to the skewing/self-poisoning of the filter sooner than
would happen if one were to feed the filter some ham from time to time, but
it will eventually happen in the latter case unless one manages to feed the
filter just the right amount of ham.
Using BJT will allow one to continue to maintain one's training.dat over
time, but also assumes that the filter is being fed ham.
Under ideal circumstances, over time you'll end up with ham tokens that will
encompass all words you or your legitimate correspondents might use with any
frequency (where you set the frequency when you use BJT for maintenance) . .
. which in turn would likely be a product of one's level of literacy and any
jargon that might be part of one's normal correspondence.
I realise it's pretty freakin' obvious to one and all that Dan and I
approach this question from very different perspectives, but Dan has never
been able to point to any d11n that would support his praxis/advice, whereas
I have based my praxis/advice on what I know of Bayes' theorem and how its
is applied to JMC.
Of course, there's always the possibility that Dan is right and I am wrong.
And, of course, I could walk out the back door for a smoke and get bonked
on the noggin by a meteorite. :-)
Terry
keyboard
Dan,
You always seem to respond this way when you feel backed into a corner.
Why don't you be a man and admit there isn't an issue with moving
profiles instead of trying to be so cutting, telling me, "improve your
comprehension of the written word."
If you give false warnings (May be problems, May cause problems, But if
you do...,) you have basically said, DON'T DO IT. So what is the
difference if I stated you said not to move profiles? The difference is
you can't turn around now and claim, "There won't be problems, moving
won't cause problems, if you do it will work fine", can you? This is a
black and white issue and you have tried to introduce gray by your
non-committal comments.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Cripes, you ever heard of a "condensed" version ?? geeze :-(
Ron Hunter
> On 22/02/2007 4:58 AM, _Ron Hunter_ spoke thusly:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> As I replied to you earlier in this thread, I've always kept my
>>> profile in "My Documents" folder. If the probability of having
>>> problems with it is 100%, where do I fit in?
>>> Then there's my cousin. He had a second internal hard drive installed
>>> (on my advice); and I moved his Thunderbird profile to the second
>>> hard drive using the instructions at
>>> <http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/profile>. He has had no
>>> problems (and he's a computer idiot!).
>> Check back with me in 10 years, and let me know how you are both
>> doing. I'll wait.
>
> been around for ten years. The Mozilla project isn't even ten years old.
> :-P
> Don't try to use some "experience" argument. There are plenty of people
> in this thread that have been using Mozilla, and doing Mozilla user
> support for years (including myself).
>
> Of course, I've been putting my profile in "My Documents" since 1999 (w/
> Netscape Communicator, then every Mozilla app); and my cousin's profile:
> around 2 years.
software since 1995.
I don't believe the profiles.ini file is quite that old. It also
presupposes the user doesn't delete the file, either accidentally, or on
(misguided) purpose.
I have experienced the problem with other programs in the past, and just
avoid doing things that cause problems as a matter of operating habits.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> On 22.02.2007 00:36, Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>>
>>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> <snip />
>>
>>>> While I don't necessarily either agree with Terry or disagree with you
>>>> and Ron, neither you nor Ron have given any evidence -- even anecdotal
>>>> evidence -- to support your position. . . .
>>> What? Me? Provide you with evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- why
>>> certainly Sir. And I expect you will accept it with the aplomb you
>>> accepted my factual and anecdotal evidence on other matters.
>> On those other matters, you were never able to provide /factual/ evidence. :-(
>>
>> Ron, at least, has provided some anecdotal evidence to support his position.
>> . . .
>>
>> /b.
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>
> Is this like, "Hey, don't stand there, a meteorite might land there".
>
HD crash, it is not IF, but WHEN.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
spinal stenosis, it may be even sooner in my case. But I should be able
to manage the computer for a while after that....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
out to be a defective UPS. Very strange symptoms. However, the
external USB drive was a casualty of being turned off a week as it will
not spin up.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
they can do this and not have problems down the road are welcome to
their future. I choose to avoid what has caused me much grief in the
past, and feel obligated to warn others of the possibilities. Ignore
them if you wish.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
recently. However, an actual case isn't necessary to the statistical
proof that it is possible (however unlikely). I don't know anyone who
was killed making a pipebomb, but I certainly would advise against
trying it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Terry
Well, we have evidence and the test of time to prove that hard drives
will fail (heck, that's why MTBF is used).
I have never read where if something stays in one place long enough it
will get hit by a meteorite.
So, starting this all over again, stating "And it will, if you wait long
enough" is only an opinion not based on any factual proof... :-(
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
I vote to let Ron stand in one place and we'll see what happens. :-D
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Well that's my point, you don't need actual factual evidence to support
a warning that is reasonable to happen, meteorites not withstanding.
Moz Champion (Dan)
Takes two to Tango.
Moz Champion (Dan)
> On 2007-02-22 13:08 (-0700 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Listen Terry, please dont make assumptions when it comes to what I say.
>
> Dan, would you /please/ stop being such an eristic sonofab****? Please?
> Pretty please?
>
> All you're managing to do is to p*** off people and generate endless
> giji-bird-like arguments. :-(
>
> /b.
>
> <snip />
>
NO.
Terry was wrong when he said I said people shouldnt move profiles...
simply because I never said it.
I will not simply stand by and accept LIES and falsehoods being generated.
To whit :
I NEVER said 'people shouldn't move profiles'
I NEVER said 'if you are thinking of moving profiles - dont'
I NEVER said 'its wrong to move profiles'
I NEVER said 'you are discouraged from doing so'
ALL I said was 'people who move profiles should be aware that this *may*
cause difficulties in the future'
How in the world you or anyone can construe that to mean I am saying
people SHOULDN'T move profiles is beyond me. I didnt say that at all and
I object you or anyone putting words in my mouth by claiming I did.
And I am a sonab for objecting to LIES being told about me to my face?
Stuff it up your shorts.
Moz Champion (Dan)
Change the subject why dont you!
I am upset because YOU claimed something I didnt say!
Listen... POINT out to me where I said 'people shouldn't move profiles'.!!!
\
I DIDNT say that you .....
I am not backed into a corner you ...
YOU lied! YOU made a fraudulent statement! YOU are telling mistruths,
and you have the gall to turn around and claim *I* am backed into a corner?
Learn how to read you mistruthful...