Re: Email Filter/Search behavior like Seamonkey 1.x
Mike wrote: I've never liked the change in filtering for SM 2.0. Previously when I typed in a name or word in the filter/search field above the mail list, it would only search the sender and subjects of the email. Now the results include the search data from from other area's. Is this something can revert in a preference or about:config? I know I can click the column headers for sorting, but there are more clicks involved getting the view back to normal than I care for every time I want to search for something. Hrm are you sure, it seems to only search Subject/Sender for me. (Though I'm not deeply vested in the mailnews code to verify from that end for you). I know Thunderbird has what they call gloda for search, which we do not use [yet, if ever]. But I would be sure that if its different now there is a way to change it back. Out of curiosity, what other aspects of a message are searched, and does it search outside of the folder you are looking at, at the time, or what. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Email Filter/Search behavior like Seamonkey 1.x
Mike wrote: I've never liked the change in filtering for SM 2.0. Previously when I typed in a name or word in the filter/search field above the mail list, it would only search the sender and subjects of the email. Now the results include the search data from from other area's. Is this something can revert in a preference or about:config? I know I can click the column headers for sorting, but there are more clicks involved getting the view back to normal than I care for every time I want to search for something. Hrm are you sure, it seems to only search Subject/Sender for me. (Though I'm not deeply vested in the mailnews code to verify from that end for you). I know Thunderbird has what they call gloda for search, which we do not use [yet, if ever]. But I would be sure that if its different now there is a way to change it back. Out of curiosity, what other aspects of a message are searched, and does it search outside of the folder you are looking at, at the time, or what. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
MCBastos wrote: Things are slightly better on the Mozilla front -- but I still find LOTS of users using FF 3.6.x (and not always the latest update), a fair number using FF 3.5, a few using FF 3.0, and now and then one using FF 2. So, there's quite a bunch of old Mozilla around. Not as much or as old as IE, but still a lot. I am using FF 3.6.17. I do get updated regularly, but I have never had any message about moving to FF 4. In fact I thought that new version was still not yet ready. And again, as my version of FF works just fine for me why change? Neil ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 03.06.2011 23:45, MCBastos wrote: --- Original Message --- Interviewed by CNN on 04/06/2011 00:14, Jay Garcia told the world: On 03.06.2011 20:49, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I can only go by example since Mozilla hasn't enabled this feature yet so there isn't any history yet. However, as long as Microsoft hasn't had any problems with their auto-updates I would have to assume that MS would be a prime target for malware authors to invade. AFAIK there hasn't been any malware attached to MS updates. Actually, Firefox 4 by default auto-updates: when online, it checks periodically with the Mozilla servers if there's a new minor version or a patch. If there is one, it will download it and install on next Firefox restart. It's a complicated equation. Google auto-updates even major versions of Chrome. The downside of it is that yes, you are giving them the privilege to install stuff on your machine. And new major versions might break compatibility with stuff you need -- for instance, I ran into an odd problem with Flash ads that only appeared in IE9 (downgrading to IE8 solved the issue), and Firefox 4 is incompatible with the current version of a (required) plugin used by several Brazilian banks. The upside? Well... Some 10-20% of IE users are still using IE6 -- which is *three* major versions old, and has been superseded by IE7 almost *five years* ago. That's a very long lingering tail of old versions. Even Microsoft is concerned. Things are slightly better on the Mozilla front -- but I still find LOTS of users using FF 3.6.x (and not always the latest update), a fair number using FF 3.5, a few using FF 3.0, and now and then one using FF 2. So, there's quite a bunch of old Mozilla around. Not as much or as old as IE, but still a lot. Meanwhile, most Chrome users are already using Chrome 11. You will still find some with Chrome 10, a few with Chrome 9 but hardly anyone with Chrome 8 -- which was superseded just *four months ago*.(*) So, auto-update does have its points: it turns over users very quickly to the latest version. (*)There's exceptions, of course. The main ones are people who deliberately turned off auto-updates, and people who installed via MSI package instead of using the default Google Update installer. Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Email Filter/Search behavior like Seamonkey 1.x
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Hrm are you sure, it seems to only search Subject/Sender for me. (Though I'm not deeply vested in the mailnews code to verify from that end for you). I know Thunderbird has what they call gloda for search, which we do not use [yet, if ever]. But I would be sure that if its different now there is a way to change it back. Out of curiosity, what other aspects of a message are searched, and does it search outside of the folder you are looking at, at the time, or what. AFAICT, it does what is says, which is search Subject or Address, ie, the Subject, From, To, Cc fields. Although I do not totally like this, it has the advantage of being mailbox-independent, In SeaMonkey 1.x, the search behavior was different (for example) in the Inbox and Sent mailboxes. -- David Wilkinson ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Need testers for Lightning 1.0b4 for SeaMonkey 2.1
Stefan Sitter ha scritto: Francesco Presel wrote: I have been using the latest-comm-central builds on SM2.1 rc1 (linux x64; I've also used lightning x64), without any problems. I've noticed, though, that there's no l10n version for lightning miramar for linux x64 (whereas, there is an English version for linux x64, and there are localized versions for all other OSs), which I find quite annoying, because it's not nice to have the mail and newsgroups window half in Italian and half in English. Is there a particular reason for that? Is there a way to get a localized linux64 version? I filed Bug 659992. Lets see if you get an answer :) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659992 /Stefan The bug appears to have been solved: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/calendar/lightning/nightly/latest-comm-miramar-l10n/ has now a linux64 folder. It appears to be working now on SM 2.1RC1. BTW, is my UA correct (I've read somewhere that there were problems with the seamonkey UA and lightning)? Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110511 Firefox/4.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.1 Lightning/1.0b4pre -- Francesco ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Need testers for Lightning 1.0b4 for SeaMonkey 2.1
Francesco Presel wrote: BTW, is my UA correct (I've read somewhere that there were problems with the seamonkey UA and lightning)? Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110511 Firefox/4.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.1 Lightning/1.0b4pre Yes, this was fixed with the 2011-06-04 Lightning nightly build. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. Currently, I have to click a button to approve a proposed update -- you're thinking of doing away with this option, or making its absence the default? The former is pretty scary, even if you are a trusted friend. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Anyway to use Sync bookmarks addon with Seamonkey?
Hi, Is there anyway to use sync bookmarks addon with SM 2.0.14 ? Right now I have FF installed then I import the syn'd bookmarks from FF to SM... thanks ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 04.06.2011 11:08, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. Currently, I have to click a button to approve a proposed update -- you're thinking of doing away with this option, or making its absence the default? The former is pretty scary, even if you are a trusted friend. I am not thinking anything, not one of the programmers. But yes, the programmers are mulling that over ( silent updates ). -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: On 04.06.2011 11:08, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Jay Garcia wrote: Thanks, we already know how this works. What we're speaking of here is that Mozilla is contemplating silent updates where no user input is required. Currently, I have to click a button to approve a proposed update -- you're thinking of doing away with this option, or making its absence the default? The former is pretty scary, even if you are a trusted friend. I am not thinking anything, not one of the programmers. But yes, the programmers are mulling that over ( silent updates ). Sorry for the confusion -- English you can be singular or plural. I intended the plural sense, referring to the team as a whole. And thanks for clarifying. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: On 03.06.2011 20:08, PhillipJones wrote: --- Original Message --- Chris Ilias wrote: On 11-06-03 4:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote: Neil Winchurst wrote: Although not new to computers I am fairly new to SeaMonkey. I am using version 2.0.14. There has been a lot of chat about the new version 2.1. Since my version works just fine for me is there any real reason or advantage to moving up? I feel that I would be quite happy to stay where I am. If it ain't broke . If you have decide to use SM instead of IE, you should know that with SM you always must change,upgrade, etc there is no stable release IE updates are distributed via Windows Update. And every SeaMonkey version is stable. :-) Your post is a good example of why some developers want to do automatic updates in the background and not market every update with a version number. That thought about doing updates in the Background. Is dangerous. If You are a PC User you may not aware of the Mac scare-ware deal on the internet where some virus developers have found away bypass Apple's security system where you Must provide a User name and password before your allowed to install software. Your going back to the days of turning on a PC and AOL automatically taking over the computer not allowing any other activity while installing software. Your going to allow The bad guess the ability to use techniques used 10 years ago or more to add virus, and malware steal passwords, and such. The Mac OS will end up not allowing SM or FF or TB updates because they are doing not what they are supposed to Bypassing install safeguards. So if they don't want Apple to Ban Mozilla Products they had better not go there. If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move,ie., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. On a Mac MS Updates have to go throug the asking for username and password in fact all applications. Even Ms, and Mozilla to this point especially when and Updater is downloaded. the auto updaters in MS notify you of updates then ask to update Then you fill out user name and password before the updater runs. Suppose the code is high-jacked and you designed a silent updater. In Software you can trust no one. There is always the risk code can be high-jacked or a disgruntled developer can poison code from trusted Source. That's the reason Mac has such a strict method of dowloading software that has worked up to recently. And since the last security upgrades work again. I am sure when Lion comes out it will be even tighter. Developers can be our friends one second and angry, upset, pixxed off the next second. So you can really trust no one. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I am aware the AOL method described is not used in Mozilla. But that's what your going back to with silent installs. No one knows for such But apple gives you the option to use your own head. If you screw up then its on you. You take ownership of what you download. On the other hand on other Platforms you just get updates and you have no choice so if your computer gets screwed up you don't necessarily own the responsibility for getting whacked. Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. If you have the option you can stop the update before damage can occur. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 04/06/2011 00:14, Jay Garcia told the world: On 03.06.2011 20:49, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I can only go by example since Mozilla hasn't enabled this feature yet so there isn't any history yet. However, as long as Microsoft hasn't had any problems with their auto-updates I would have to assume that MS would be a prime target for malware authors to invade. AFAIK there hasn't been any malware attached to MS updates. Actually, Firefox 4 by default auto-updates: when online, it checks periodically with the Mozilla servers if there's a new minor version or a patch. If there is one, it will download it and install on next Firefox restart. It's a complicated equation. Google auto-updates even major versions of Chrome. The downside of it is that yes, you are giving them the privilege to install stuff on your machine. And new major versions might break compatibility with stuff you need -- for instance, I ran into an odd problem with Flash ads that only appeared in IE9 (downgrading to IE8 solved the issue), and Firefox 4 is incompatible with the current version of a (required) plugin used by several Brazilian banks. The upside? Well... Some 10-20% of IE users are still using IE6 -- which is *three* major versions old, and has been superseded by IE7 almost *five years* ago. That's a very long lingering tail of old versions. Even Microsoft is concerned. Things are slightly better on the Mozilla front -- but I still find LOTS of users using FF 3.6.x (and not always the latest update), a fair number using FF 3.5, a few using FF 3.0, and now and then one using FF 2. So, there's quite a bunch of old Mozilla around. Not as much or as old as IE, but still a lot. Meanwhile, most Chrome users are already using Chrome 11. You will still find some with Chrome 10, a few with Chrome 9 but hardly anyone with Chrome 8 -- which was superseded just *four months ago*.(*) So, auto-update does have its points: it turns over users very quickly to the latest version. (*)There's exceptions, of course. The main ones are people who deliberately turned off auto-updates, and people who installed via MSI package instead of using the default Google Update installer. Mac version fire fox ask if you wish to install the update after it is downloaded -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
On 04.06.2011 16:07, PhillipJones wrote: --- Original Message --- Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I am aware the AOL method described is not used in Mozilla. But that's what your going back to with silent installs. How do you know WHAT Mozilla has in mind or what they are planning on the implementation? It's just being discussed at the moment, there is no plan that I am aware of. No one knows for such But apple gives you the option to use your own head. If you screw up then its on you. You take ownership of what you download. On the other hand on other Platforms you just get updates and you have no choice so if your computer gets screwed up you don't necessarily own the responsibility for getting whacked. Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. If you have the option you can stop the update before damage can occur. You're doing an awful lot of guessing Phillip. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Could i let Adobe Acrobat 10 upgrade from version 9
Interviewed by CNN on 04/06/2011 19:20, Ray_Net told the world: Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 NOT Firefox/3.6.16 SeaMonkey/2.0.10 Sometimes when opening a pdf file a message from Adobe came on asking if a agree an upgrade to Acrobat Version X may i let this installation to be done in my Windows 7 pro 32 bits ? SM will continue to function rpoperly with pdf files ? Yes. I have been using Adobe Reader X for a couple months with no problems. Win 7 Ultimate x64, Seamonkey 2.0.14. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Babcom. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.0.14 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Could i let Adobe Acrobat 10 upgrade from version 9
Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 NOT Firefox/3.6.16 SeaMonkey/2.0.10 Sometimes when opening a pdf file a message from Adobe came on asking if a agree an upgrade to Acrobat Version X may i let this installation to be done in my Windows 7 pro 32 bits ? SM will continue to function rpoperly with pdf files ? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Could i let Adobe Acrobat 10 upgrade from version 9
On 6/4/11 3:20 PM, Ray_Net wrote: Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 NOT Firefox/3.6.16 SeaMonkey/2.0.10 Sometimes when opening a pdf file a message from Adobe came on asking if a agree an upgrade to Acrobat Version X may i let this installation to be done in my Windows 7 pro 32 bits ? SM will continue to function rpoperly with pdf files ? Because I have an old version of PGP installed on my PC, I had big problems with Adobe Reader X. I have PGP 8.0.3. The trialware form of PGP 10.0 contains a security vulnerability that I could avoid only by obtaining a purchaseware form. However, Adobe Reader X is incompatible with PGP 8.0.3 although no one could explain why there is any relationship between the two applications. Various strategies were proposed by others to overcome the incompatibility. I tried most of them. While they allowed me to use Adobe Reader as a stand-alone application, they generally prevented use of Adobe Reader with SeaMonkey. Finally, I found a successful strategy. To use Adobe Reader X with SeaMonkey under Windows XP, I had to do the following after installing Adobe Reader X: 1. In my Windows registry, in [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\10.0\FeatureLockDown], I had to create a new key named bUseWhitelistConfigFile with the dWord value of 0001. Be careful when modifying the registry. Great harm can result from an erroneous modification. 2. In the folder containing the installed AcroRd32.exe, I had to create an ASCII file named ProtectedModeWhitelistConfig.txt. This file contains the one line SECTION_ALLOW_ANY = *PGPhk* -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ On occasion, I might filter and ignore all newsgroup messages posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent because of spam from that source. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Anyway to use Sync bookmarks addon with Seamonkey?
On 04/06/11 19:33, goldtech wrote: Hi, Is there anyway to use sync bookmarks addon with SM 2.0.14 ? Right now I have FF installed then I import the syn'd bookmarks from FF to SM... thanks AFAIK there is no clean way to use Sync with SeaMonkey 2.0.x, but SeaMonkey 2.1 will have Sync built-in, just like Firefox 4 and later. The first release-candidate is already out (there is a link to its download page on the SeaMonkey homepage http://www.seamonkey-project.org/ ) and the second release-candidate is due any day now. These are release candidates which means better and stabler than your average beta; indeed, the RC2 which is about to be released could quite well become the official release 2.1 if no serious bug is found in it. HTH, Tony. -- Romeo wasn't bilked in a day. -- Walt Kelly, Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Years With Pogo ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: New version
Jay Garcia wrote: On 04.06.2011 16:07, PhillipJones wrote: --- Original Message --- Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Jay Garcia wrote: If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking, Microsoft automatic updates are also dangerous. Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust? If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place, if any. I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and without my consent to install something they thought was essential. Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way. I am aware the AOL method described is not used in Mozilla. But that's what your going back to with silent installs. How do you know WHAT Mozilla has in mind or what they are planning on the implementation? It's just being discussed at the moment, there is no plan that I am aware of. No one knows for such But apple gives you the option to use your own head. If you screw up then its on you. You take ownership of what you download. On the other hand on other Platforms you just get updates and you have no choice so if your computer gets screwed up you don't necessarily own the responsibility for getting whacked. Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. If you have the option you can stop the update before damage can occur. You're doing an awful lot of guessing Phillip. Without endorsing or rejecting his guesses, I would point out that people normally do guess in the absence of clear data. It's part of the human condition. Until Mozilla comes out with a clear statement, lots of users will be guessing what's coming. I hope the programming team is made aware of our concerns and takes them into account. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
