Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

On 8/20/2011 3:32 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 20/08/11 09:34, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 9:53 pm, Asa Dotzler<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> panos wrote:
>>>> On Aug 18, 8:52 am, Asa Dotzler<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is one thing that I think several people in this discussion
>>>>> are missing. There is only the latest version. There are no other
>>>>> versions. You're either on the latest version or you're just about
>>>>> to be updated to the latest version. Those are the two states in
>>>>> the new development model.
>>>
>>>> Are you talking about the perception you wish to give to users or you
>>>> actually mean that automatic updates will be enforced and the choice
>>>> to disable them will be removed ?
>>>
>>> Panos, the choice to disable unprompted updates will never be removed.
>>> You can be assured of that. It certainly won't happen as long as I'm
>>> involved in Mozilla. But unprompted updates are the normal case now and
>>> unprompted updates are and will be the experience for the overwhelming
>>> majority of our users going forward.
>>>
>>> - A
>>
>> The way you're saying it seems like "prompted updates" is not a choice
>> that you would like us to have. But one that is interfering with your
>> plans and so you want to make it difficult for those that choose
>> something that you're offering against your will.
>>
>> MS heavy handed approach is the main reason why Mozilla grew into such
>> a fruitful tree. From your words, it seems that the Firefox tree has
>> grown too much to be handled with nurturing hands and now needs a
>> heavy hand to control it.
>>
>> Without a nurturing hand, the tree will still bear fruits but won't
>> grow any bigger. So it is time to pick up the fruits and run, soon
>> there won't be any left because the masses are coming.
>>
>> You're either right about:biting the hands of those who have been
>> watering the tree all along, or you're wrong and just not capable of
>> keeping it nurtured.
>>
>> But in this sick world we live in, you could also be right by doing
>> the tree wrong, if you are a virus trojaned by a competitor.
>>
>> Freedom of choice is what the thinking man wants. Freedom from choice
>> is what the lazy masses want. You don't need to alienate one to serve
>> the other. But you have to understand both.
>
> He said (I'm paraphrasing in the hope of making it clearer) that he'll
> never allow users' ability to disable unprompted updates to be taken
> away from them; IOW, as long as he has a say, users will always be able
> to prevent auto-updates. So he's with you there (IIUC).
>

That doesn't mean some toy with the idea of 'forced updates', with the 
best of intentions, of course.  I suspect that for some, the only things 
restraining that option is Asa, and a potential fire-storm of user 
protest (mine among them).


> It's true he didn't say where that ability is to be found, so I did some
> detective work (Asa, please correct me if I'm wrong). The capability
> applies to all three of Firefox, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey. Some browser
> versions may have a checkbox somewhere for this (probably under
> "Advanced" Options), but IIUC that choice is governed by two
> about:config preferences: app.update.auto and app.update.enabled
>
> For details, see:
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/App.update.auto
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/App.update.enabled
>
> In short, the meanings are as follows:
>
> enabled=true auto=true (default)
> update automatically without asking
>
> enabled=true auto=false
> check automatically; if found, ask user
>
> enabled=false (auto=any)
> do not check automatically
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.

In Firefox, this is under tools/options/advanced/update tab.
AIUI, there also exists a method by which updates can be offered in 
spite of update settings.  Not sure of details, and I haven't seen it as 
I am always on either the current, or next beta release.