Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update - Mozilla ; On 8/1/2007 12:01 PM, Margaret wrote: > I did an "in place" upgrade to FF 2.0.0.6, and not a one of my ~10 > extensions work. They all say they'll be "upgraded" when I restart FF, > but I have ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

  1. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update - All Extensions Broken

    On 8/1/2007 12:01 PM, Margaret wrote:
    > I did an "in place" upgrade to FF 2.0.0.6, and not a one of my ~10
    > extensions work. They all say they'll be "upgraded" when I restart FF,
    > but I have restarted and restarted FF to no avail. Don't recall every
    > having this prob before. Guess I'll uninstall/reinstall FF 2.0.0.6 and
    > see what happens.
    >
    > Margaret


    I don't know what you mean by an "in place" upgrade. Did you use the FF
    update mechanism or did you download and install a complete upgrade?


    --
    Irwin

    Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.

    Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

  2. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update - All Extensions Broken

    Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    > On 8/1/2007 12:01 PM, Margaret wrote:
    >> I did an "in place" upgrade to FF 2.0.0.6, and not a one of my ~10
    >> extensions work. They all say they'll be "upgraded" when I restart
    >> FF, but I have restarted and restarted FF to no avail. Don't recall
    >> every having this prob before. Guess I'll uninstall/reinstall FF
    >> 2.0.0.6 and see what happens.
    >>
    >> Margaret

    >
    > I don't know what you mean by an "in place" upgrade. Did you use the FF
    > update mechanism or did you download and install a complete upgrade?


    Yes, that's exactly what I meant. BTW, turned out to be a corrupt
    profile. Luckily I had a backup.... :-)

    All fixed.

    Regards,

    Margaret

  3. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    On 01.08.2007 06:47, Michael Lueck wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> But please don't misinterpret what I said like Andrew did (as usual). By
    >> "big stretch" I meant to answer the correlation of Firefox codebase to
    >> the Thunderbird codebase as relates to the subject of this thread and
    >> the question from that user pertaining to why one app is security
    >> updated and not the other automatically.

    >
    > Since I am said OP:
    >
    > Take for example recent TB versions...
    > http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozi...bird/releases/
    >
    > Notice the skip between 2.0.0.0 and 2.0.0.4. I thought that skip was intentional to signify that TB 2.0.0.4 and FF 2.0.0.4 are more or less at the same patch level. TB of course released at 2.0.0.0
    > well after FF, thus FF had 2.0.0.1 etc... before TB 2.0.0.0 ever was released.
    >
    > But reading between the lines of this thread, I would be forced that "Oh no, the version numbers of FF and TB mean nothing at all. Just pulling numbers out of the sky."
    >
    > All of this nonsense bickering... well, I will shut up. Enough said.
    >


    Makes sense, thanks for the clarification of your inquiry.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  4. OT Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    On 01.08.2007 10:49, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> But please don't misinterpret what I said like Andrew did (as usual).
    >> By "big stretch" I meant to answer the correlation of Firefox codebase
    >> to the Thunderbird codebase as relates to the subject of this thread
    >> and the question from that user pertaining to why one app is security
    >> updated and not the other automatically.

    > Back pedaling, back pedaling. I was merely commenting on the statement
    > that they came from the same code base, which they did, and which you
    > said they didn't. Don't blame me if you misinterpreted what I clearly
    > wrote. Go back and look. I said nothing about why one app is security
    > updated and not the other. Somebody commented that they thought that FF
    > and TB came from the same code base and thus are similar and you tried
    > to say that they didn't come from the same code base, miscommunicated
    > and I called you on that fact. Now you're back pedaling to save face.
    > You screwed up. Admit the mistake and move onward. Geeze.
    >
    > Further back pedaling will be ignored.


    And I never said definitively that TB and FF didn't come from the same
    codebase. The OP posted again why he made that statement and clarified
    his position. I agree and understand what he meant. You need to get off
    your personal bashing horse and stay out of conversations that you don't
    understand and/or misinterpret. The OP understands what he wrote and now
    so do I after he clarified his position.

    This has now gone OT and the followup to .general set where you can talk
    to yourself if you like.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  5. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    clay wrote:
    > Sad how we can't all get along here.
    > After all, we are all brothers and sisters since we all came from the
    > same common code base.


    It is said that "A house divided can not stand."

    So on the one hand you have Microsoft that is what it is. Then you have Mozilla with all of this infighting. Maybe the "best choice" is to do what Monty suggested in "Brewster's Millions" and "Vote
    for none of the above!!!"

    --
    Michael Lueck
    Lueck Data Systems
    http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/

  6. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    clay wrote:
    > Sad how we can't all get along here.
    > After all, we are all brothers and sisters since we all came from the
    > same common code base.

    Yeah and just think of that initial incest...
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    What would a chair look like if your knees bent the other way.


  7. Re: OT Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > You need to get off your personal bashing horse and stay out of
    > conversations that you don't understand and/or misinterpret.

    You sir are not my father, nor the law, and therefore you cannot tell me
    what to do! I will do as I please regardless of you say!

    What an idiot!
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.


  8. Re: OT Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    On 01.08.2007 21:52, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> You need to get off your personal bashing horse and stay out of
    >> conversations that you don't understand and/or misinterpret.

    > You sir are not my father, nor the law, and therefore you cannot tell me
    > what to do! I will do as I please regardless of you say!
    >
    > What an idiot!


    See, there you go again - misinterpretation. I didn't "tell" you to do
    anything. "You need" is a suggestion, not a command. Why would I expend
    useless energy telling you to do something "as I please regardless of
    what you say!"
    ^


    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  9. Re: OT Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > See, there you go again - misinterpretation. I didn't "tell" you to do
    > anything. "You need" is a suggestion, not a command.

    You clearly have your own language there Jay. *You need* to get an
    education! *You need* to shut up. *You need* to stop posting. *You need*
    to study the English language more. *You need* to get out more often.

    Of course, we all know, from the mouth of Jay himself, that I am clearly
    not telling you to do any of those. Never mind that the definition of
    "need" includes such choice phrases as "required", "requisite",
    "necessity" or "obligation" - Jay has commanded us that "you need" is
    the new "I suggest"! Indeed!

    I wonder Jay, if pulled over by a cop with gun drawn and he barks out
    "you need to get on the ground" if you would turn to him and explain to
    him your philosophy that "you need" is not a command but merely a
    suggestion. Something tells me you wouldn't....

    OK, I've had enough.
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.


  10. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 01.08.2007 06:47, Michael Lueck wrote:
    >> Take for example recent TB versions...
    >> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozi...bird/releases/
    >>
    >> Notice the skip between 2.0.0.0 and 2.0.0.4. I thought that skip was intentional to signify that TB 2.0.0.4 and FF 2.0.0.4 are more or less at the same patch level. TB of course released at 2.0.0.0
    >> well after FF, thus FF had 2.0.0.1 etc... before TB 2.0.0.0 ever was released.
    >>
    >> But reading between the lines of this thread, I would be forced that "Oh no, the version numbers of FF and TB mean nothing at all. Just pulling numbers out of the sky."
    >>
    >> All of this nonsense bickering... well, I will shut up. Enough said.
    >>

    >
    > Makes sense, thanks for the clarification of your inquiry.


    ROTFLOL....

    http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozi...6/win32/en-US/

    So it seems it was necessary to update TB, just the release did not happen on the same day.

    --
    Michael Lueck
    Lueck Data Systems
    http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/

  11. Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    On 02.08.2007 08:10, Michael Lueck wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 01.08.2007 06:47, Michael Lueck wrote:
    >>> Take for example recent TB versions...
    >>> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozi...bird/releases/
    >>>
    >>> Notice the skip between 2.0.0.0 and 2.0.0.4. I thought that skip was intentional to signify that TB 2.0.0.4 and FF 2.0.0.4 are more or less at the same patch level. TB of course released at 2.0.0.0
    >>> well after FF, thus FF had 2.0.0.1 etc... before TB 2.0.0.0 ever was released.
    >>>
    >>> But reading between the lines of this thread, I would be forced that "Oh no, the version numbers of FF and TB mean nothing at all. Just pulling numbers out of the sky."
    >>>
    >>> All of this nonsense bickering... well, I will shut up. Enough said.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Makes sense, thanks for the clarification of your inquiry.

    >
    > ROTFLOL....
    >
    > http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozi...6/win32/en-US/
    >
    > So it seems it was necessary to update TB, just the release did not happen on the same day.
    >


    Hindsight is always 20-20 isn't it .... :-)

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  12. Re: OT - Re: Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 01.08.2007 18:23, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused clay to
    > generate the following:? :
    >> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> But please don't misinterpret what I said like Andrew did (as
    >>>> usual). By "big stretch" I meant to answer the correlation of
    >>>> Firefox codebase to the Thunderbird codebase as relates to the
    >>>> subject of this thread and the question from that user pertaining
    >>>> to why one app is security updated and not the other automatically.
    >>>>
    >>> Back pedaling, back pedaling. I was merely commenting on the
    >>> statement that they came from the same code base, which they did,
    >>> and which you said they didn't. Don't blame me if you misinterpreted
    >>> what I clearly wrote. Go back and look. I said nothing about why one
    >>> app is security updated and not the other. Somebody commented that
    >>> they thought that FF and TB came from the same code base and thus
    >>> are similar and you tried to say that they didn't come from the same
    >>> code base, miscommunicated and I called you on that fact. Now you're
    >>> back pedaling to save face. You screwed up. Admit the mistake and
    >>> move onward. Geeze.
    >>>
    >>> Further back pedaling will be ignored.
    >>> --
    >>> Andrew DeFaria
    >>> The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Sad how we can't all get along here.
    >> After all, we are all brothers and sisters since we all came from the
    >> same common code base.
    >>
    >>

    > 'fraid I can't qualify that statement... I traced my line back to ol'
    > man Noah but it seems, he threw all the paperwork overboard to gain
    > some weight... he managed to get two monkeys abord.....

    Yeah and forgot to get those two damn mosquitoes for all of us! ;-)

    Perhaps that'd be explained in the new /Evan Almighty/ movie. Nothing
    like getting pearls of truth from Hollywood!
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2