FWIWI, I have seen no Firefox issues whatsoever on both openSuse and 16/18 LTS Ubuntu branches.
Release notes would most likely mention settings location change and how to proceed with the upgrade. I'd guess. -T On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 1:37 PM Russell Senior <russ...@personaltelco.net> wrote: > In my brief investigation, it might result from the location of profiles > moving from one version to another. I can say that I, on firefox 62.0 from > Ubuntu, have not seen this behavior. Since distributions often tweak > builds, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that your distribution's > packagers are at fault here. > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:37 PM Keith Lofstrom <kei...@kl-ic.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 06:53:06PM -0700, Keith Lofstrom wrote: > > > > Sometime in the last two days, automatic updates on my > > > > older 32 bit laptops "upgraded" to Firefox Quantum > > > > 60.2.1.esr, and my saved logins stopped working. I have > > > > backups, and I can restore a previous version of Firefox > > > > and my old .mozilla configuration files, then turn off > > > > updates, but perhaps there is a way to make this > > > > "upgrade" work. > > > > > > I'm running an old 32 bit distro on the laptops, which > > > will get upgraded to a recent 64 bit distro Real Soon Now. > > > Then I will upgrade myself to Chromium as John suggested. > > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 10:14:42PM -0700, Russell Senior wrote: > > > Did you report the bug? > > > > Not yet - I need to ponder my use-case a bit, and think > > about how it differs from their (minimal) likely testing. > > > > My WAG is that this happened because we had browser windows > > open when updates are scheduled, and their user-neglecting > > code treats unlocked login/password files as "unencrypted". > > > > However, the fact that they would even conceive of deleting > > /any/ user-generated file without warning or permission > > suggests that their design goals are sociopathic and > > arrogant. I'll send them a bug report when I develop an > > easy-to-reproduce use case, but I expect it to be rejected. > > It won't be the first time they've done that to my reports. > > > > I hope the Chromium development team is more humane. If > > there is less code, there are fewer insecure interactions. > > Code evaluated by two different groups (Google developers > > and outsider repackagers) may be better tested. Many eyes > > make all bugs shallow; two sets of eyes makes bugs ever so > > slightly less deep. > > > > ----- > > > > As an aside, my original reason for becoming involved with > > "open-source" (long before Chris Peterson named it) was > > that even a non-programmer like me could understand it and > > find bugs. I found the Y2K error in BSD, and my suggested > > improvement was coded by Real Programmer(tm). When most of > > us become mere "code consumers", we eat whatever the "cooks > > in the fast food code kitchen" churn out. Some is great, > > some is absolutely awful, but the quantity of code is huge, > > and the combinatorial number of possible interactions is > > literally astronomical, more than the baryon count for the > > universe. That makes secure, high-reliability software > > impossible, even with "perfect" programmers and methods. > > > > Web browsers are vulnerable to their innate flaws, but > > also to the flaws and exploits in every scrap of active > > web content on the internet. Perhaps we need a two-stage > > process; our personal computers use plain-vanilla html > > browsers and external proxies that process all the varied > > crap out there into maximally simple html, with very few > > local extensions. That simplifies code on our machines, > > though admittedly it helps big brother snoop the external > > proxies. I'd rather not have video codecs on the same > > machine accessing the same memory as my password files. > > > > ---- > > > > I wonder how many of you read down this far? In the > > twitter age, most can't read a page of plain English, > > much less software code. > > > > Keith > > > > -- > > Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com > > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
