Firefox 2.0.0.6 Security Update

As part of Mozilla Corporation’s ongoing stability and security
update process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac,
and Linux for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).

Due to the security fixes, we strongly recommend that all Firefox
users upgrade to this latest release.

If you already have Firefox 2.0.0.x, you will receive an automated
update notification within 24 to 48 hours. This update can also be
applied manually by selecting “Check for Updates…” from the Help menu
starting now.

For a list of changes and more information, please review the Firefox
2.0.0.6 Release Notes ([url]http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/[/url]
2.0.0.6/releasenotes/).

If you are still running Firefox 1.5.0.x, you are highly encouraged
to upgrade to the Firefox 2 series as Mozilla ceased supporting
Firefox 1.5.0.x in May 2007. Simply choose "Check for Updates..."
from the Help menu to begin the upgrade process.
--
Basil Hashem
[email]basil@mozilla.com[/email]

On Jul 30, 11:32 pm, Basil Hashem <ba...@mozilla.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> As part of Mozilla Corporation's ongoing stability and security
> update process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac,
> and Linux for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).
>
> Due to the security fixes, we strongly recommend that all Firefox
> users upgrade to this latest release.
>
> If you already have Firefox 2.0.0.x, you will receive an automated
> update notification within 24 to 48 hours. This update can also be
> applied manually by selecting "Check for Updates..." from the Help menu
> starting now.
>
> For a list of changes and more information, please review the Firefox
> 2.0.0.6 Release Notes ([url]http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/[/url]
> 2.0.0.6/releasenotes/).
>
> If you are still running Firefox 1.5.0.x, you are highly encouraged
> to upgrade to the Firefox 2 series as Mozilla ceased supporting
> Firefox 1.5.0.x in May 2007. Simply choose "Check for Updates..."
> from the Help menu to begin the upgrade process.
> --
> Basil Hashem
> ba...@mozilla.com[/color]

Are we supposed to uninstall previous releases of FF before we install
the latest release? The last two times I've upgraded I've had
hellacious problems with my profile and extensions. It almost
happened again but I think I averted what could have been another 8
-10 hours spent on downloading, configuring and testing extensions for
compatibility issues.

I just tried to upgrade from 2.0.0.5 to 2.0.0.6 and then all hell
broke loose with my extensions - none of them worked and FF would chug
and chug before displaying a non-responsive script error message..
When FF did finally launch and I checked the status of my extensions
via tools | addons, many of them said that they'd install after I
restarted FF... and this was already after I'd restarted it. The only
option available to me was to uninstall them. I have about 150
installed and I use about 134 regularly. FF exhibited the same
behavior after I upgraded from 2.0.0.4 to 2.0.0.5; my profile ended up
being corrupted and I had to reinstall all my extensions, which took
me about 8 - 10 hours including testing incompatibilities among the
extensions.

I uninstalled 2.0.0.6 and reinstalled 2.0.0.5. After a couple of
browser hangs and messages about non-responsive scripts, FF 2.0.0.5
finally loaded with no issues and all my extensions were intact and
working. Any idea about what's going on and where I need to look?
Thanks.

Michael Preiss

On Jul 30, 11:32 pm, Basil Hashem <ba...@mozilla.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> As part of Mozilla Corporation's ongoing stability and security
> update process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac,
> and Linux for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).
>
> Due to the security fixes, we strongly recommend that all Firefox
> users upgrade to this latest release.
>
> If you already have Firefox 2.0.0.x, you will receive an automated
> update notification within 24 to 48 hours. This update can also be
> applied manually by selecting "Check for Updates..." from the Help menu
> starting now.
>
> For a list of changes and more information, please review the Firefox
> 2.0.0.6 Release Notes ([url]http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/[/url]
> 2.0.0.6/releasenotes/).
>
> If you are still running Firefox 1.5.0.x, you are highly encouraged
> to upgrade to the Firefox 2 series as Mozilla ceased supporting
> Firefox 1.5.0.x in May 2007. Simply choose "Check for Updates..."
> from the Help menu to begin the upgrade process.
> --
> Basil Hashem
> ba...@mozilla.com[/color]

Alright.... My bad. I'm straight. Forgot to disable my Antivir and
my firewall. Upgrade went smooth as a baby's butt... but nowhere near
as odoriferous.

Michael wrote:[color=blue]
> On Jul 30, 11:32 pm, Basil Hashem <ba...@mozilla.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> As part of Mozilla Corporation's ongoing stability and security
>> update process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac,
>> and Linux for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).
>>
>> Due to the security fixes, we strongly recommend that all Firefox
>> users upgrade to this latest release.
>>
>> If you already have Firefox 2.0.0.x, you will receive an automated
>> update notification within 24 to 48 hours. This update can also be
>> applied manually by selecting "Check for Updates..." from the Help menu
>> starting now.
>>
>> For a list of changes and more information, please review the Firefox
>> 2.0.0.6 Release Notes ([url]http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/[/url]
>> 2.0.0.6/releasenotes/).
>>
>> If you are still running Firefox 1.5.0.x, you are highly encouraged
>> to upgrade to the Firefox 2 series as Mozilla ceased supporting
>> Firefox 1.5.0.x in May 2007. Simply choose "Check for Updates..."
>> from the Help menu to begin the upgrade process.
>> --
>> Basil Hashem
>> ba...@mozilla.com[/color]
>
> Are we supposed to uninstall previous releases of FF before we install
> the latest release? The last two times I've upgraded I've had
> hellacious problems with my profile and extensions. It almost
> happened again but I think I averted what could have been another 8
> -10 hours spent on downloading, configuring and testing extensions for
> compatibility issues.
>
> I just tried to upgrade from 2.0.0.5 to 2.0.0.6 and then all hell
> broke loose with my extensions - none of them worked and FF would chug
> and chug before displaying a non-responsive script error message..
> When FF did finally launch and I checked the status of my extensions
> via tools | addons, many of them said that they'd install after I
> restarted FF... and this was already after I'd restarted it. The only
> option available to me was to uninstall them. I have about 150
> installed and I use about 134 regularly. FF exhibited the same
> behavior after I upgraded from 2.0.0.4 to 2.0.0.5; my profile ended up
> being corrupted and I had to reinstall all my extensions, which took
> me about 8 - 10 hours including testing incompatibilities among the
> extensions.
>
> I uninstalled 2.0.0.6 and reinstalled 2.0.0.5. After a couple of
> browser hangs and messages about non-responsive scripts, FF 2.0.0.5
> finally loaded with no issues and all my extensions were intact and
> working. Any idea about what's going on and where I need to look?
> Thanks.
>
> Michael Preiss
>[/color]
You are so lucky to have that many extensions working all at the same
time that you should be VERY surprised you are able to make FF work at
all. At some point, you have to choose between using all those
extensions, and being able to safely apply updates, which are usually
intended to plug security issues. Surely you can live without 100 or so
of those extensions....


--
Ron Hunter [email]rphunter@charter.net[/email]

No problems at all updating here. Just went to Search For Updates and job
done - easy.

Basil Hashem wrote:[color=blue]
> As part of Mozilla Corporation’s ongoing stability and security update
> process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac, and Linux
> for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).[/color]

Seems to be a FF but not TB update? Is that correct? I still see only 2.0.0.5 as the latest available release of TB.

Thanks!

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

On 31.07.2007 07:01, Michael Lueck wrote:

--- Original Message ---
[color=blue]
> Basil Hashem wrote:[color=green]
>> As part of Mozilla Corporation’s ongoing stability and security update
>> process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac, and Linux
>> for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).[/color]
>
> Seems to be a FF but not TB update? Is that correct? I still see only 2.0.0.5 as the latest available release of TB.
>
> Thanks!
>[/color]

Hmm, you're in a Firefox group and the post was concerning an update to
Firefox 2.0.0.6 ... How does Thunderbird relate to this and yes, TB is
still at 2.0.0.5 ;-)

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

Jay Garcia wrote:[color=blue]
> How does Thunderbird relate to this[/color]

Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.
[color=blue]
> and yes, TB is
> still at 2.0.0.5 ;-)[/color]

Very well.

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

Michael Lueck wrote:[color=blue]
> Jay Garcia wrote:[color=green]
>> How does Thunderbird relate to this[/color]
> Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.[/color]
Stop interjecting reason into your arguments! After all, we do have form
to consider!

;-)

BTW, TB's now considered the drunken uncle of the Mozilla Corporation
[url]http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/26/2041244[/url]
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
A computer's attention span is as long as it's power cord.

"Michael Lueck" <mlueck@lueckdatasystems.com> wrote in message
news:ncmdnW8s0sUJ3jLbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@mozilla.org...[color=blue]
> Jay Garcia wrote:[color=green]
>> How does Thunderbird relate to this[/color]
>
> Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.
>[color=green]
>> and yes, TB is
>> still at 2.0.0.5 ;-)[/color]
>
> Very well.
>
> --
> Michael Lueck
> Lueck Data Systems
> [url]http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/[/url][/color]

Mione was ok, it uploaded the fiels, then asked to close, then said that
only a partial update had been made and asked to update again, and the
second time it worked ok.

John.

On 31.07.2007 09:13, Michael Lueck wrote:

--- Original Message ---
[color=blue]
> Jay Garcia wrote:[color=green]
>> How does Thunderbird relate to this[/color]
>
> Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.[/color]

Kinda big stretch there .... Thunderbird comes from Minotaur, the first
of the series started and written by Seth Spitzer. How much
Communicator/Mozilla code went into Minotaur I really can't say but
nonetheless Firefox and Thunderbird coming from a common code base is a
far stretch. We can say it all originated with Mosaic which progressed
to Navigator to Communicator, etc.

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

Jay Garcia wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Jay Garcia wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> How does Thunderbird relate to this[/color]
>> Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.[/color]
> Kinda big stretch there .... Thunderbird comes from Minotaur, the
> first of the series started and written by Seth Spitzer. How much
> Communicator/Mozilla code went into Minotaur I really can't say but
> nonetheless Firefox and Thunderbird coming from a common code base is
> a far stretch. We can say it all originated with Mosaic which
> progressed to Navigator to Communicator, etc.[/color]
Jay should do a little research there before making such statements. A
big stretch?!? Not really. As we all know, Mozilla came from the open
sourcing of Netscape code (Reference: History of Mozilla Application
Suite
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application_Suite>
which states "The *Mozilla Application Suite* began as an open source
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source> base of the Netscape
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_%28web_browser%29> suite.^[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application_Suite#_note-0>
"). Thunderbird (the new name for Minotaur) also came from this base,
hence the legitimacy of the statement "Because FF and TB come from the
same common code base". (Reference: History of Mozilla Thunderbird
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Thunderbird> wherein it
states:

Originally launched as /Minotaur
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur>/ shortly after /Phoenix
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_%28mythology%29>/ (the
original name for Mozilla Firefox
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox>), the project failed
to gain momentum. With the success of the Mozilla Firefox, however,
demand increased for a mail client to go with it, and the work on
Minotaur was revived under the new name of *Thunderbird
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird>*, and migrated to
the new toolkit developed by the Firefox team.

Further:

Significant work on Thunderbird restarted with the announcement that
from version 1.5 onwards, the main Mozilla suite would be designed
around separate applications using this new toolkit.

Thus further cementing the notion that Thunderbird comes from the
Mozilla code base which is exactly where Firefox comes from too.

Then again Jay rarely gives credence to such interpretations as he
invents his own as he goes...
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
The Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.

Jay Garcia wrote:[color=blue]
> On 31.07.2007 09:13, Michael Lueck wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>[color=green]
>> Jay Garcia wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> How does Thunderbird relate to this[/color]
>> Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.[/color]
>
> Kinda big stretch there .... Thunderbird comes from Minotaur, the first
> of the series started and written by Seth Spitzer. How much
> Communicator/Mozilla code went into Minotaur I really can't say but
> nonetheless Firefox and Thunderbird coming from a common code base is a
> far stretch. We can say it all originated with Mosaic which progressed
> to Navigator to Communicator, etc.
>[/color]
They use the same rendering engine, no?


--
Ron Hunter [email]rphunter@charter.net[/email]

On 31.07.2007 22:59, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

--- Original Message ---
[color=blue]
> Then again Jay rarely gives credence to such interpretations as he
> invents his own as he goes...[/color]

You need to read and interpret correctly what people write. By "stretch"
was meant to answer directly to the quite vague and generalized
statement made by the poster as pertains to the original post, etc. I
didn't say OR mean that TB and Firefox didn't come from the same
codebase. You need to correlate the answer to the statement as written.
"Stretch" doesn't mean definitively that TB and Firefox don't come from
the same codebase. And THAT is not an "invention". I know where TB came
from as well as Firefox, etc. I was there, part of the original crew.

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

On 01.08.2007 02:25, Ron Hunter wrote:

--- Original Message ---
[color=blue]
> Jay Garcia wrote:[color=green]
>> On 31.07.2007 09:13, Michael Lueck wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> How does Thunderbird relate to this
>>> Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.[/color]
>>
>> Kinda big stretch there .... Thunderbird comes from Minotaur, the first
>> of the series started and written by Seth Spitzer. How much
>> Communicator/Mozilla code went into Minotaur I really can't say but
>> nonetheless Firefox and Thunderbird coming from a common code base is a
>> far stretch. We can say it all originated with Mosaic which progressed
>> to Navigator to Communicator, etc.
>>[/color]
> They use the same rendering engine, no?
>
>[/color]

Yes

Thunderbird 2 will be based on continued development of the Gecko 1.8
branch created for Firefox and Thunderbird 1.5

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.

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

Jay Garcia wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

Since I am said OP:

Take for example recent TB versions...
[url]http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/[/url]

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.

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

Jay Garcia wrote:[color=blue]
> On 31.07.2007 22:59, Andrew DeFaria wrote:[color=green]
>> Then again Jay rarely gives credence to such interpretations as he
>> invents his own as he goes...[/color]
> You need to read and interpret correctly what people write. By
> "stretch" was meant to answer directly to the quite vague and
> generalized statement made by the poster as pertains to the original
> post, etc.[/color]
The operative term here is "interpret correctly" which I shall now
decipher. What Jay means by "interpret correctly" is not "interpret
using the natural definitions of the words actually used and apply logic
and semantic processing", nope. It means interpret it the way that Jay
means it, which may or may not coincide with reality. which we shall
soon see...[color=blue]
> I didn't say OR mean that TB and Firefox didn't come from the same
> codebase.[/color]
That's funny because *that* was exactly what was claimed!!![color=blue]
> You need to correlate the answer to the statement as written.[/color]
Hmmm... Let's look again at the original statement as written:

Because FF and TB come from the same common code base.

to which Jay says:

_Kinda big stretch there_ .... Thunderbird comes from Minotaur, the
first of the series started and written by Seth Spitzer. How much
Communicator/Mozilla code went into Minotaur I really can't say but
nonetheless _Firefox and Thunderbird coming from a common code base
is a far stretch_. We can say it all originated with Mosaic which
progressed to Navigator to Communicator, etc.

Reality? It did come from the same code base ergo no stretch at all!
'Cept in Jay's world...[color=blue]
> "Stretch" doesn't mean definitively that TB and Firefox don't come
> from the same codebase.[/color]
Now comes the attempt to redefine the normal definitions of terms to fit
Jay's mistake... I fail to see how any normally thinking human being
would take something like "Firefox and Thunderbird coming from a common
code base is a far stretch" to really mean "... doesn't mean
definitively that TB and Firefox don't come from the same codebase" but
if you say so Jay. Just I'm still not buying it.[color=blue]
> And THAT is not an "invention". I know where TB came from as well as
> Firefox, etc. I was there, part of the original crew.[/color]
It's my understanding that your not a developer Jay, is that correct? As
a non developer, what do you know about the code?
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Jay Garcia wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]
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 <http://defaria.com>
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

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



Basil Hashem wrote:[color=blue]
> As part of Mozilla Corporation’s ongoing stability and security update
> process, Firefox 2.0.0.6 is now available for Windows, Mac, and Linux
> for free download from GetFirefox ([url]http://getfirefox.com[/url]).
>
> Due to the security fixes, we strongly recommend that all Firefox users
> upgrade to this latest release.
>
> If you already have Firefox 2.0.0.x, you will receive an automated
> update notification within 24 to 48 hours. This update can also be
> applied manually by selecting “Check for Updates…” from the Help menu
> starting now.
>
> For a list of changes and more information, please review the Firefox
> 2.0.0.6 Release Notes
> ([url]http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/2.0.0.6/releasenotes/[/url]).
>
> If you are still running Firefox 1.5.0.x, you are highly encouraged to
> upgrade to the Firefox 2 series as Mozilla ceased supporting Firefox
> 1.5.0.x in May 2007. Simply choose "Check for Updates..." from the Help
> menu to begin the upgrade process.
> --
> Basil Hashem
> [email]basil@mozilla.com[/email]
>
>
>
>[/color]

Margaret wrote:[color=blue]
> 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[/color]

Well, uninstalling/reinstalling FF2.0.0.6 made no difference. And when
I try to uninstall one or more add-ons, it says they'll be uninstalled
when FF is restarted. Once again, restarting has no effect whatsoever.
It even says the default FF theme will be updated when FF is restarted....

Something very wrong here. Guess it's a first for me, as FF has always
installed/upgraded w/o a problem.

Regards,

Margaret