Fix Firefox Update Interval

[Steve Wilson]

If you are running Firefox, you may be annoyed at the frequent requests to
update the browser. It takes a long time, during which you cannot use your
computer, and it only takes a month until a new version is available and
you have to do it again. There is no need for these frequent updates if
your browser is functioning properly and you have no problems.

I found that modifying the parameters in about:config stops these incessant
interruptions and allows you to browse in peace.

To implement,

1. type about:config in the url window
2. click on "Show All", or "I understand" to bypass the warning
3. when Search Preference Name appears, type update
4. adjust the parameters as follows:

app.update.BITS.enabled true
app.update.auto.migrated true
app.update.backgroundMaxErrors 10
app.update.badgeWaitTime 345600
app.update.channel release
app.update.checkInstallTime true
app.update.checkInstallTime.days 100000
app.update.download.attempts 0
app.update.download.promptMaxAttempts 0
app.update.elevate.attempts 0
app.update.elevation.promptMaxAttempts 0
app.update.interval 10000000
app.update.langpack.enabled true
app.update.log false
app.update.log.file false
app.update.notifyDuringDownload false
app.update.promptWaitTime 691200
app.update.service.enabled false
app.update.staging.enabled false
app.update.timerFirstInterval 10000000
app.update.timerMinimumDelay 1000000
browser.region.update.enabled false
browser.search.update.interval 1000000

Once you have your browser tamed, you may be interested in the following
extentions:

1. AdBlocker for YouTube
- kills popup ads
https://mybrowseraddon.com/adblocker-for-youtube.html

2. Audio Equalizer
- allows you to set the frequency response for best results
https://mybrowseraddon.com/audio-equalizer.html

3. I don't care about cookies
- stops incessant request to allow cookies
https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

4. JavaScript Toggle On and Off
- allows you to turn javascript off so you can avoid requests to sign up
https://add0n.com/javascript-toggler.html





--
The best designs occur in the theta state. - sw

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Steve Wilson <spa...@not.com> wrote in
news:XnsAD95580C92...@144.76.35.252:

> It takes a long time, during which you cannot use your
> computer,

Total bullshit.

You must still be using a 9600 baud modem on a POTS connection.

On a single threaded POS machine too.

Mine happen and I do not stop using my machine at all... ever.

Zero effect, in fact.

And the "no need" remark is not very bright either. I guarantee that
every one is a SECURITY update, thwarting hacking.

You spent way more time doing your adjustments than the action uses.
And now you downplay the updates.

Damn, Steve... not very bright.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

søndag den 29. august 2021 kl. 14.39.26 UTC+2 skrev Steve Wilson:
> If you are running Firefox, you may be annoyed at the frequent requests to
> update the browser. It takes a long time, during which you cannot use your
> computer,

? update is downloaded in the background FF, ask for a restart,
it takes about 10 seconds and the session is restored with all open tabs etc.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

Fewer updates is good. Most updates turn the startup launcher process
on, and I have to go into about:config and turn it off, and restart.
That's a recurring pain. If the launcher is on, I can't drag/drop a
link from the address bar.



--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

[Steve Wilson]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

> søndag den 29. august 2021 kl. 14.39.26 UTC+2 skrev Steve Wilson:
>> If you are running Firefox, you may be annoyed at the frequent requests

>> t o update the browser. It takes a long time, during which you cannot
>> use you r computer,

>
> ? update is downloaded in the background FF, ask for a restart,
> it takes about 10 seconds and the session is restored with all open tabs
> etc.

It takes a whole lot longer to download and install on my system. I'm running
Win 7 on virtualbox under Ubuntu 10.04 and have two separate installations to
maintain. This doubles the work.

I am firmly in the camp that if it is not needed, then don't do it. There are
all kinds of things that could go wrong and kill the system. If it is working
fine, then leave it alone.

Of course, I keep good backups on a separate SSD, so if anything happens I
can always return to a recent backup. This happens from time to time. As long
as I prevent updates, that is one less thing to worry about when things go
screwy.

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2021-08-29 18:51, Steve Wilson wrote:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>

Ah, I agree there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Software people
are crazy, always updating things with new versions that are just as
immature as the things they replace, usually with new "features" that
are really just new nuisances. And new bugs, always new bugs. On
second thought, they certainly aren't crazy. They are exploiting us.

What irritates me are sites that proclaim my browser is obsolete,
with links that pretend to expose the security holes, but that
really just state that there are more recent versions. Liars!

The web was supposed to be universal, version and system-agnostic,
compatible, reliable, persistent. Instead we have sites that exploit
incompatible new gadgets to try and force you to 'upgrade' and sell
your soul doing so. Grrr! Sir Tim is horrified, I'm convinced. I sure
am.

Jeroen Belleman

[Don Y]

On 8/29/2021 11:56 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-29 18:51, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> ? update is downloaded in the background FF, ask for a restart,
>>> it takes about 10 seconds and the session is restored with all open tabs
>>> etc.
>>
>> It takes a whole lot longer to download and install on my system. I'm running
>> Win 7 on virtualbox under Ubuntu 10.04 and have two separate installations to
>> maintain. This doubles the work.

Download the binary, install it twice -- potentially at the same time!

>> I am firmly in the camp that if it is not needed, then don't do it. There are
>> all kinds of things that could go wrong and kill the system. If it is working
>> fine, then leave it alone.

Exactly. Chances are, you've already discovered any "problems" and have
sorted out "adequate" work-arounds. An update runs the risk of rendering
your workarounds ineffective *and* introducing new bugs.

I run FOSS applications for things that I need to have "up to date" -- as
*I* can patch them to suit *my* needs (greping any later releases/patches
for information to make that easier).

>> Of course, I keep good backups on a separate SSD, so if anything happens I
>> can always return to a recent backup. This happens from time to time. As long
>> as I prevent updates, that is one less thing to worry about when things go
>> screwy.
>
> Ah, I agree there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Software people
> are crazy, always updating things with new versions that are just as
> immature as the things they replace, usually with new "features" that
> are really just new nuisances. And new bugs, always new bugs. On

There's nothing unique to software, in that regard. Have you seen how
often *phones*, TVs, and damn near any consumer kit are updated?
Often making the earlier versions "obsolete" -- simply because the newer
ones change the newest standards while the old ones aren't updated
any longer.

Or, how often you are called upon to update a PC to support a new OS?
Or, replace a monitor because a FET or cap blew on its inverter?

Consumer kit is intended to be churned. If you don't like that,
then you have to assume the responsibility of maintaining what you
have, going forward. (need new rollers for your printer? a
replacement power supply? etc.)

> second thought, they certainly aren't crazy. They are exploiting us.

They only exploit the people who are willing to be exploited.
Those who want to chase a bleeding edge -- whether it is in
hardware *or* software.

How fast does your GPU *need* to be? Why can't you live with
the game/application that you were using when you originally
purchased it?

Look at the features being added to newer cars. Do you see
upgrade kits to add "smart autopilot" to your '57 chevy?
Or, lane monitoring? Or, collision avoidance?

> What irritates me are sites that proclaim my browser is obsolete,
> with links that pretend to expose the security holes, but that
> really just state that there are more recent versions. Liars!
>
> The web was supposed to be universal, version and system-agnostic,
> compatible, reliable, persistent. Instead we have sites that exploit
> incompatible new gadgets to try and force you to 'upgrade' and sell
> your soul doing so. Grrr! Sir Tim is horrified, I'm convinced. I sure
> am.

The standards are in a state of continual revision. And, if
a standard can't catch up to the needs of a particular web-app,
then someone invents a mechanism to address that need. That's
how things like cookies came into being.

Should there be a mime type for "zoom meeting" so my browser
automatically launches the zoom helper app? Or, should I be required
to manually twiddle things to get that support up without "burdening"
the browser with a new mime type? Or, viewing/manipulating a 3D object?
Or...

Why can't skype and zoom and facebook and... all use the same
mechanisms? (let me know what answers they give you :> )

Pick the subset that you can live with. Find a tool that adequately
addresses that subset. When you encounter a site that requires
something newer, just shrug and resign yourself to being excluded
(but by *your* choice)

[Robert Baer]

...and ALL saved passwords, etc DESTROYED.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

søndag den 29. august 2021 kl. 23.02.27 UTC+2 skrev Robert Baer:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> > søndag den 29. august 2021 kl. 14.39.26 UTC+2 skrev Steve Wilson:
> >> If you are running Firefox, you may be annoyed at the frequent requests to
> >> update the browser. It takes a long time, during which you cannot use your
> >> computer,
> >
> > ? update is downloaded in the background FF, ask for a restart,
> > it takes about 10 seconds and the session is restored with all open tabs etc.
> >
> ...and ALL saved passwords, etc DESTROYED.

total nonsense, FF restarts and everything is at it were

[Steve Wilson]

Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

[...]

> Ah, I agree there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Software people
> are crazy, always updating things with new versions that are just as
> immature as the things they replace, usually with new "features" that
> are really just new nuisances. And new bugs, always new bugs. On
> second thought, they certainly aren't crazy. They are exploiting us.
>
> What irritates me are sites that proclaim my browser is obsolete,
> with links that pretend to expose the security holes, but that
> really just state that there are more recent versions. Liars!
>
> The web was supposed to be universal, version and system-agnostic,
> compatible, reliable, persistent. Instead we have sites that exploit
> incompatible new gadgets to try and force you to 'upgrade' and sell
> your soul doing so. Grrr! Sir Tim is horrified, I'm convinced. I sure
> am.
>
> Jeroen Belleman

+1. Very eloquent.

Of course, we have to allow for progress in technology.

Youtube used to go nuts when I used older Firefox versions. I was running
XP at the time, and the latest version was 52 ESP. It continually hung on
newer videos and this finally convinced me to move to Win7. This was very
painful. I have some legacy programs that won't run on Win7 due to the
change in the Documents and Settings folder, and the huge number of dll's
in WINSXS. So I keep a version of Win XP running for the times it is
needed.

Fortunately, virtualbox allows you to run multiple operating systems
simultaneously, so I have Ubuntu, two versions of Win 7, and Win XP all
running at the same time. I am constantly amazed when I go back to Win XP
to see how fast it is. Blazingly instant response, while Win 7 is so
sluggish that I have ordered different versions of my cpu to see if I can
find a faster one. This was expensive, but ya do what ya gotta do.

I recall the old days when DOS was so terrible we longed for upgrades. DOS
3, 4, and 5 were horrible and full of bugs. DOS 6 was OK, but then came
Windows. Win 95 and 98 were improvements, then came Win ME. There was
another release that I forgot the name of, and finally Win XP. This was the
finest version, but Microsfot made it impossible to run newer programs on
it, which forced the move to Win 7. This will be my last move. Win 8, 10,
and 11 are simply not on my horizon.

I am pleased with the config changes to Firefox. Every time I turned around
there was a request to upgrade. That is over now. Of course, I can upgrade
any time I want by loading the Help menu. It has an upgrade link, but I see
no reason to upgrade at the moment.

It seems silly that Firefox has gone to a 4 week upgrade cycle. It seems
unlikely they will ever be able to make any significant changes that would
be worthwhile, and they will be just frittering away their energy and
talent on miscellaneous stuff. They should go to a 6 month cycle where they
can really accomplish something, or really shoot themself in the foot.

There is a move afoot to overhaul the web. I don't see them making changes
what would obsolete the billions of browsers on the web, but you never
know. In that case it would be useful to wait for a couple of revisions
before upgrading to avoid the inevitable bugs, but now we can do that
instead of having it forced on us.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote in
news:0ec47b8f-651e-45d2...@googlegroups.com:

They probably keep OUR password database out in one of their clouds.

How do you think they can keep them across multiple devices?

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Steve Wilson <spa...@not.com> wrote in

news:XnsAD95B0744E...@144.76.35.252:

>> Ah, I agree there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Software
>> people are crazy, always updating things with new versions that
>> are just as immature as the things they replace, usually with new
>> "features" that are really just new nuisances. And new bugs,
>> always new bugs. On second thought, they certainly aren't crazy.
>> They are exploiting us.
>>

FREE web browser authors are exploiting us?

They update to keep the exploiters out. D'Oh!

Spammers want to exploit us, but one only needs to be smart and
ignore it. Find and buy your own product choices.

But I am reasonably certain that the web browser authors are not
exploiting us. They didn't write the html language and they didn't
write java, and they let the use turn off 'features'.

Really? You blame the web browsser?

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Steve Wilson <spa...@not.com> wrote in
news:XnsAD95B0744E...@144.76.35.252:

>> What irritates me are sites that proclaim my browser is obsolete,
>> with links that pretend to expose the security holes, but that
>> really just state that there are more recent versions. Liars!
>>

Those are not "sites" those are clicks that will allow you to be
hacked if you click/visit them. That is how they get in to 'install'
ransomware on your machine. You click a button marked X and you get
1BigOne up your computer hiney hole. It says X, but you get Y.

Then they lock down your hard drive and all you get are instructions
on how to pay. In bitcoin, which is non-refundable and non-tracable.

That is why bitcoin should be shut down.

[John Miles, KE5FX]

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:16:12 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> Fewer updates is good. Most updates turn the startup launcher process
> on, and I have to go into about:config and turn it off, and restart.
> That's a recurring pain. If the launcher is on, I can't drag/drop a
> link from the address bar.

Yeah, this is infuriating. I have to turn the launcher off as well, over
and over, about every other week.

Reverting user preferences is one of the most disrespectful things a
developer can do. It's the sort of thing you do when you want to lose
50 million users to the competition.

The Mozilla devs don't care. They know better than we do,
dontchaknow... and when it comes to security, they're *sure* that
everybody from DIRNSA to my grandmother has the same threat model.
Eventually these rocket surgeons will remove the browser.launcherProcess.enabled
key altogether, and that'll be when I, too, switch to whatever browser is next.

-- john, KE5FX

[Clifford Heath]

On 30/8/21 4:56 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> The web was supposed to be [...] reliable

But it's made of software. We had no idea at the time that software
which seemed to be "mostly working" was in fact so easy to break in a
myriad of ways... almost all of them unavoidable now, and certainly at
the time.

CH

[Steve Wilson]

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I have tried every other browser
available and they all suck. Big Time. Firefox is where it's at. Let's fix
it.

Unfortunately I just got another update alert, Mon Aug 30, 2021,04:22:21 am

They are much less often than before, but there is one I apparently missed.
I'll try to measure the time to the next one and see how many seconds it
takes. That should help identify the variable that needs fixing.

I'll let you know what I find out.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

"John Miles, KE5FX" <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b88d9722-86eb-4eec...@googlegroups.com:

>
> Reverting user preferences is one of the most disrespectful things
> a developer can do. It's the sort of thing you do when you want
> to lose 50 million users to the competition.

The only reason they would lose folks is if the other guy(s) had
better security. Maybe Chrome, but that fight is up in the air.

No firefox update in over ten years has ever erased my user settings.
I still have modified window frames with fractals. It never touches my
theme choice.

It may reset setting about security if the update was a security
update and you setup is one of the vulnerabilities addressed, but I
would not expect logic from so many folks who just want to piss and
moan like a group of dopey construction workers down at the sports bar.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Steve Wilson <spa...@not.com> wrote in

news:XnsAD96337D08...@144.76.35.252:

I think they switched. From every update being a full download of
the entire app code to incrimental updates which update only those
things they changed. Because mine happen now, and I do not even any
longer get the "new version" page it used to pop each time, and the
DL indicator does not take long at all. So I thik they addressed the
problem of you low bandwidth guys. And I think it updates in the BG
now.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

The launcher has something to do with Windows security settings. I
battled that for a while and gave up.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

They have changed something but the bgnd update does not work quite
yet (windows 10). I get the update request, allow it, then if I don't
restart the browser for a day, may be less, I get the same request
again. Took a few days of getting the request every day until I
noticed. Not a big issue of course. The really big issue I had
with them was when they changed to a completely new version for
android, which is still unusable (and has no about: confing ...).
I maintain the latest of the former version on my phone, one
of these days I'll check if I can somehow install both...
(the old version suits my habits of checking the cameras at
home etc., tried the new and it was very very clunky).

[Robert Baer]

Excuse me, but there are ways to write bug-free programs, ways of
proving them, in fact there are now languages built for that.

Even 15 years ago (roughly) it was easy to make a program that had no
"memory leaks" and no "buffer overflow"; ways to make such
funny-business impossible.

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 12:39:20 -0000 (UTC), Steve Wilson
<spa...@not.com> wrote:

Now FF is popping up a giant ugly block in the middle of my screen, no
matter what I'm doing, announcing yet another update.

And it looks like they have sold out to Google.

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:03:23 -0700, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

>Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 30/8/21 4:56 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> The web was supposed to be [...] reliable
>>
>> But it's made of software. We had no idea at the time that software
>> which seemed to be "mostly working" was in fact so easy to break in a
>> myriad of ways... almost all of them unavoidable now, and certainly at
>> the time.
>>
>> CH
> Excuse me, but there are ways to write bug-free programs, ways of
>proving them, in fact there are now languages built for that.

Yes, it's possible to approach that ideal, but it is too expensive for
anything like a browser. And too slow by decades.

> Even 15 years ago (roughly) it was easy to make a program that had no
>"memory leaks" and no "buffer overflow"; ways to make such
>funny-business impossible.

Yes, but it's quite the process.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C>

It only cost ~100 times as much as full DoD mission code.

Joe Gwinn

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

[...]

> Now FF is popping up a giant ugly block in the middle of my screen, no
> matter what I'm doing, announcing yet another update.
>
> And it looks like they have sold out to Google.

What version are you running?

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:46:56 -0000 (UTC), Steve Wilson
<spa...@not.com> wrote:

>John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Now FF is popping up a giant ugly block in the middle of my screen, no
>> matter what I'm doing, announcing yet another update.
>>
>> And it looks like they have sold out to Google.
>
>What version are you running?

91.0.2 64 bit. It says I'm up to date, so why the popups?

[Steve Wilson]

Did you modify the about:config update parameters?

[Clifford Heath]

On 31/8/21 6:03 am, Robert Baer wrote:
> Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 30/8/21 4:56 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> The web was supposed to be [...] reliable
>>
>> But it's made of software. We had no idea at the time that software
>> which seemed to be "mostly working" was in fact so easy to break in a
>> myriad of ways... almost all of them unavoidable now, and certainly at
>> the time.
>>
>> CH
>   Excuse me, but there are ways to write bug-free programs, ways of
> proving them, in fact there are now languages built for that.
>
>   Even 15 years ago (roughly) it was easy to make a program that had no
> "memory leaks" and no "buffer overflow"; ways to make such
> funny-business impossible.

That's hilarious, coming from a guy who still pines for Windows 95 and
wonders why he can never get his software to work.

Joe gave you the correct answer.

[Don Y]

On 8/30/2021 3:32 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:03:23 -0700, Robert Baer
> <rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 30/8/21 4:56 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>> The web was supposed to be [...] reliable
>>>
>>> But it's made of software. We had no idea at the time that software
>>> which seemed to be "mostly working" was in fact so easy to break in a
>>> myriad of ways... almost all of them unavoidable now, and certainly at
>>> the time.
>>>
>>> CH
>> Excuse me, but there are ways to write bug-free programs, ways of
>> proving them, in fact there are now languages built for that.
>
> Yes, it's possible to approach that ideal, but it is too expensive for
> anything like a browser. And too slow by decades.

What this glosses over is that it inherently limits the rate
of evolution. If you can't reify changes in a timely manner,
then you'll not encounter many real changes!

We'd still be using *gopher* clients!

Likewise, it limits the complexity of any potential solution
to only those things that can be completely codified and tested
in some timeframe.

>> Even 15 years ago (roughly) it was easy to make a program that had no
>> "memory leaks" and no "buffer overflow"; ways to make such
>> funny-business impossible.

Why can't we design power supplies that never fail? Surely,
that's a more mature technology, right? (Oh, you can? It just
costs a lot more than you are willing to spend and ends up
physically larger than the device it seeks to power??)

And, what about things like *cars*? Surely the volume is high enough
to justify "getting it right" and then repeating the process over
and over...

[Corvid]

On 8/30/21 6:57 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
> John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:46:56 -0000 (UTC), Steve Wilson
>> <spa...@not.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Now FF is popping up a giant ugly block in the middle of my
>>>> screen, no matter what I'm doing, announcing yet another
>>>> update.
>>>>
>>>> And it looks like they have sold out to Google.
>>>
>>> What version are you running?
>>
>> 91.0.2 64 bit. It says I'm up to date, so why the popups?
>
> Did you modify the about:config update parameters?

Why would you modify those individually? Twenty-two of them?

Edit > Settings (linux) , the General group, has a Firefox Updates section.

This page
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-options-preferences-and-settings?as=u&utm_source=inproduct#w_general-panel
says:
"Firefox Updates
This is where you can check your update history or change update
settings for Firefox."

There's nothing there that I can change, but that's probably because my
FF and its updates are coming thru Ubuntu repos, not from Mozilla.

[Steve Wilson]

Unfortunately, I cannot duplicate your results as I am running 32-bit
88.0.1.

However, if 91.0.2 is similar, you should have a box in the upper right
corner marked "Show only modified preferences". Click on it and any
parameters that have changed will appear.

Most parameters have a little counterclockwise arrow in the far right. If
you click on it, the parameter will go back to the original value. This
should restore the system to the original configuration and eliminate the
problem.

If you are really brave, you can downgrade Firefox to a previous version
and see if that eliminates the problem. Just copy your firefox folder to a
backup folder in case something goes wrong. You can find previous versions
at

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Firefox Setup 88.0.1.exe is at

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/88.0.1/win64/en-US/Firefox%
20Setup%2088.0.1.exe

You may have to reinstall your profile after downgrading, so save your home
url and any extensions you have installed.

I still have not had any upgrade requests since the first one after
modifying the about:config parameters shown here:

app.update.BITS.enabled true
app.update.auto.migrated true
app.update.backgroundMaxErrors 10
app.update.badgeWaitTime 345600
app.update.channel release
app.update.checkInstallTime true
app.update.checkInstallTime.days 100000
app.update.download.attempts 0
app.update.download.promptMaxAttempts 0
app.update.elevate.attempts 0
app.update.elevation.promptMaxAttempts 0
app.update.interval 10000000
app.update.langpack.enabled true
app.update.log false
app.update.log.file false
app.update.notifyDuringDownload false
app.update.promptWaitTime 691200
app.update.service.enabled false
app.update.staging.enabled false
app.update.timerFirstInterval 10000000
app.update.timerMinimumDelay 1000000
browser.region.update.enabled false
browser.search.update.interval 1000000

browser.search.update.log false

It should be possible to tame Firefox with the right parameter. Since there
is no documentation from mozilla, we have to find it ourself. But when we
do find it, the update problem should be fixed forever.

My installation seems to be stable. No funny bugs, and no update requests.

[Jeroen Belleman]

Software adheres very much to "There is never time to do it
right, but always time to do it over."

It's the same mindset that seems to think it's normal to
reboot a machine when you install new software. People
have been conditioned to accept the unacceptable.

Jeroen Belleman

[Don Y]

On 8/31/2021 1:59 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-31 00:32, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:03:23 -0700, Robert Baer
>> <rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>> On 30/8/21 4:56 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>> The web was supposed to be [...] reliable
>>>>
>>>> But it's made of software. We had no idea at the time that software
>>>> which seemed to be "mostly working" was in fact so easy to break in a
>>>> myriad of ways... almost all of them unavoidable now, and certainly at
>>>> the time.
>>>>
>>>> CH
>>> Excuse me, but there are ways to write bug-free programs, ways of
>>> proving them, in fact there are now languages built for that.
>>
>> Yes, it's possible to approach that ideal, but it is too expensive for
>> anything like a browser. And too slow by decades.
>>
>>
>>> Even 15 years ago (roughly) it was easy to make a program that had no
>>> "memory leaks" and no "buffer overflow"; ways to make such
>>> funny-business impossible.
>>
>> Yes, but it's quite the process.
>>
>> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C>
>>
>> It only cost ~100 times as much as full DoD mission code.
>

> Software adheres very much to "There is never time to do it
> right, but always time to do it over."

But is that the developer's fault? Or, the company's?

Before you answer, look at FOSS projects. In theory, they have
as much time as they choose (there are no "market pressures"
driving the financial aspects of the transaction). So, they
should be the most rigorously planned and implemented, right?

[Planning, testing, etc. are boring activities. "Let the user
tell us what's broke..."]

> It's the same mindset that seems to think it's normal to
> reboot a machine when you install new software. People
> have been conditioned to accept the unacceptable.

To some extent, yes. But, how many users are actually *confident*
in their knowledge of how a particular tool/device is *supposed*
to work?

How many have ever read a manual about a particular application?

Users boil software interactions down to a series of questions that
they pose of OTHERS, never of a manual: "How do I..." They aren't
interested in how it's *supposed* to work, just how to get it to
solve their immediate problem.

So, if something doesn't work "as it should", the user is never sure
whether they did something wrong *or* the program farted. And, if
someone else comes along and manages to get the program to do what
they'd intended, that's effectively proof that they obviously did
something wrong, previously.

I can recall arguments I've had with compiler vendors where they
try to dismiss a claim I've made against their tools. Not
easily intimidated, I refine my test case to something short and
sweet (so they can't blame it on some other aspect of the code
or wave it off as TL;DR).

"Here. Run this through your compiler and see what you get.
Then, try to explain how the generated code can *claim* to
be true to my source! Or, some excuse for my code not
being compliant with current standards. I'll just wait here,
for your reply..."

"Ooops!"