Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-16 Thread WaltS
Ray_Net wrote: »Q« wrote, On 16/02/2014 19:35: In , Ray_Net wrote: I speak about sorting without being a geek .. SIMPLY using the click on the title of the row containing versions strings in excel Non-geeks, by definition, don't need to

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-16 Thread »Q«
In , Ray_Net wrote: > Ok, i don't need to sort version numbers, i just go to this SM page > ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/releases/ > to find the latest SM version, and i see 2.9.1 GREATER than 2.24. That's an ftp directory, n

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-16 Thread Ray_Net
»Q« wrote, On 16/02/2014 19:35: In , Ray_Net wrote: I speak about sorting without being a geek .. SIMPLY using the click on the title of the row containing versions strings in excel Non-geeks, by definition, don't need to sort version nu

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-16 Thread »Q«
In , Ray_Net wrote: > I speak about sorting without being a geek .. SIMPLY using the click > on the title of the row containing versions strings in excel Non-geeks, by definition, don't need to sort version numbers, and the age-old conventi

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-16 Thread Ray_Net
Lee wrote, On 16/02/2014 17:28: On 2/15/14, Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 15/02/2014 01:28: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 18:49: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher w

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-16 Thread Lee
On 2/15/14, Ray_Net wrote: > Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 15/02/2014 01:28: >> Ray_Net wrote: >>> Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 18:49: Ray_Net wrote: > Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: >> Rick Merrill wrote: >> >>> On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher w

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-15 Thread Ray_Net
Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 15/02/2014 01:28: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 18:49: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-15 Thread Rick Merrill
On 2/14/2014 7:28 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 18:49: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy m

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Paul B. Gallagher
Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 18:49: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where hav

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Ray_Net
Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 18:49: Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where have you ever come

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Paul B. Gallagher
Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where have you ever come across "SM 2.80"? Have you been using Dr. Emmet

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Ray_Net
Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 14/02/2014 15:45: Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where have you ever come across "SM 2.80"? Have you been using Dr. Emmett Brown's specia

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Paul B. Gallagher
Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where have you ever come across "SM 2.80"? Have you been using Dr. Emmett Brown's specially configured DeLorean? since when is 2.24

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread MCBastos
Interviewed by CNN on 14/02/2014 09:05, Trane Francks told the world: > Certainly, this does not incriminate SeaMonkey. Human's can easily > decipher the difference between v2.8 vs. v2.08. Every contemporary file > system/operating system will, however, return a sort that indicates the > two ar

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Rick Merrill
On 2/12/2014 1:07 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where have you ever come across "SM 2.80"? Have you been using Dr. Emmett Brown's specially configured DeLorean? since when is 2.24 greater that 2.8? (e

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-14 Thread Trane Francks
On 2/14/14 1:54 PM +0900, Philip Chee wrote: On 13/02/2014 20:25, Trane Francks wrote: On 2/13/14 9:08 AM +0900, MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases cannot (or even should n

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-13 Thread Philip Chee
On 13/02/2014 01:00, andré wrote: > Rick Merrill a écrit : > >> "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) > > I would find it annoying too, if 24 were greater than 80. > That happens on what planet ? Bizarro Earth, where Bizarro Superman comes from. Phil -- Philip C

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-13 Thread Philip Chee
On 13/02/2014 20:25, Trane Francks wrote: > On 2/13/14 9:08 AM +0900, MCBastos wrote: >> Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: >> >>> There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases >>> cannot (or even should not) be padded to the number of expe

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-13 Thread Trane Francks
On 2/13/14 9:08 AM +0900, MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases cannot (or even should not) be padded to the number of expected places, e.g., 2.08.03. That keeps the versions ob

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-13 Thread Ray_Net
MCBastos wrote, On 13/02/2014 01:08: Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases cannot (or even should not) be padded to the number of expected places, e.g., 2.08.03. That keeps the versions obvious

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-13 Thread Daniel
On 13/02/14 11:08, MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases cannot (or even should not) be padded to the number of expected places, e.g., 2.08.03. That keeps the versions obvious a

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread Ray_Net
Trane Francks wrote, On 12/02/2014 23:24: On 2/13/14 12:55 AM +0900, Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/11/2014 9:02 PM, Trane Francks wrote: On 2/12/14 7:25 AM +0900, Ray_Net wrote: I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the pr

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread MCBastos
Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: > There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases > cannot (or even should not) be padded to the number of expected places, > e.g., 2.08.03. That keeps the versions obvious and the sorting simple to > re

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread Trane Francks
On 2/13/14 2:09 AM +0900, Wolfgang Steger wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: [...] "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) In version "numbers", the dot is not a decimal point. That means Version 2.8 is not 2.80 and 2.8 < 2.24 < 2.80. Comes clear when you think about t

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread Trane Francks
On 2/13/14 12:55 AM +0900, Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/11/2014 9:02 PM, Trane Francks wrote: On 2/12/14 7:25 AM +0900, Ray_Net wrote: I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the profile, de-installing 2.8 and installing 2.2

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread Paul B. Gallagher
Rick Merrill wrote: "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) Where have you ever come across "SM 2.80"? Have you been using Dr. Emmett Brown's specially configured DeLorean? -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread Wolfgang Steger
Rick Merrill wrote: [...] > > "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) > In version "numbers", the dot is not a decimal point. That means Version 2.8 is not 2.80 and 2.8 < 2.24 < 2.80. Comes clear when you think about the major.minor.patchlevel scheme. Just my 2cc,

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread andré
Rick Merrill a écrit : "Version Numbers" always annoy me when 2.24 is greater than 2.80 !-) I would find it annoying too, if 24 were greater than 80. That happens on what planet ? -- André ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.m

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread WaltS
On 02/12/2014 10:55 AM, Rick Merrill wrote: On 2/11/2014 9:02 PM, Trane Francks wrote: On 2/12/14 7:25 AM +0900, Ray_Net wrote: I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the profile, de-installing 2.8 and installing 2.24)

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-12 Thread Rick Merrill
On 2/11/2014 9:02 PM, Trane Francks wrote: On 2/12/14 7:25 AM +0900, Ray_Net wrote: I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the profile, de-installing 2.8 and installing 2.24) You can upgrade in-place from 2.8 directly

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-11 Thread Ray_Net
Trane Francks wrote, On 12/02/2014 03:02: On 2/12/14 7:25 AM +0900, Ray_Net wrote: I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the profile, de-installing 2.8 and installing 2.24) You can upgrade in-place from 2.8 directly to

Re: Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-11 Thread Trane Francks
On 2/12/14 7:25 AM +0900, Ray_Net wrote: I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the profile, de-installing 2.8 and installing 2.24) You can upgrade in-place from 2.8 directly to 2.24 without uninstalling. Just "Check fo

Upgrade SM from 2.8 to 2.24

2014-02-11 Thread Ray_Net
I have an old windows XP pc and the installed SM is at version 2.8. Can i pass in one step to 2.24 ? (by, saving the profile, de-installing 2.8 and installing 2.24) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mo