Where is 1.9.8.5?

[kukla]

I have 1.9.8.4. I've restarted FF which is set to check for updates to add ons. Checked for updates in installed add ons with NS highlighted. "No updates found." I've been noticing that I'm often leapfrogging, sometimes, 3 or 4 versions, maybe more. Mac issue?

[Alan Baxter]

http://noscript.net/getit#devel
Ignore the ominous sounding "If you're brave enough". It's the latest and greatest.

[kukla]

OK. I see. It's a build. Does that explain the sometime leapfrogging, i.e. a number of in between builds and then, suddenly, a final release? I think I went from 1.9.7. something directly to 1.9.8. something a few weeks ago. That doesn't sound right, does it? Wouldn't a final release have settled on 1.9.8.0?

[Alan Baxter]

OK. I see. It's a build. Does that explain the sometime leapfrogging, i.e. a number of in between builds and then, suddenly, a final release? I think I went from 1.9.7. something directly to 1.9.8. something a few weeks ago. That doesn't sound right, does it? Wouldn't a final release have settled on 1.9.8.0?

1.9.8 was a final release. It was released on August 10, but was superseded only a day later by 1.9.8.1, which fixed a problem in the Mac OS X version. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... rsions/722

Here's Giorgio's explanation of his release methodology. From http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopi ... 9867#p9867

Due to my development model, latest dev build is always the best version available (the one I use for my daily browsing).
Unless an outstanding bug or security enhancement is mandatory, though, I try to put at least one week between "stable" releases, since some users find automatic updates rather annoying.

I get notified of any "development build" updates with this RSS feed.
http://noscript.net/feed?c=200&t=b

[kukla]

Thanks, Alan, for the background on this.

[Alan Baxter]

You're welcome. I was hoping you'd find it useful.

[Foam Head]

It would be helpful if the Changelog was updated to indicate which are development versions and which are public release versions. A release date, a way to collapse the details on older versions (the list is getting looooong), and a way to filter based on public/devel versions would be nice too .

-Foam

[Alan Baxter]

Having the release date right there in the changelog could be more convenient, but, fortunately, the RSS feeds include the release date. That's an acceptable workaround for me.
http://noscript.net/feed
http://noscript.net/feed?c=200&t=b

I would not like to see the information in the changelog collapsed or abbreviated in any way. The fine-grained, verbose history has been useful on occasion. I usually search the changelog rather than trying to read it line by line, so its being long isn't a problem for me. The version history listed on AMO provides the release date and changes for each of the "official' updates. I would not like to see it have less information either. Having the changelog itself differentiate between public/development versions would be useless to me, especially since that information is detailed elsewhere.

[Grumpy Old Lady]

Alan Baxter speaks sense here, for whatever my opinion counts ;-)
There is maximum information in the feed/changelog combo right now.

[Alan Baxter]

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-AU; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009080315 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.13

3.0.13?

[Grumpy Old Lady]

Quoth Alan Baxter

3.0.13?

That's the version that's fully supported by the Ubuntu package manager - - which is streets ahead of any old Windows or OS X one. If I want to play with 3.5.x I can - but it's still flaky in parts, for example no blacklisted site warning.

This post is from a live cd with Puppy Linux in control, that I'm making for a visitor's kid.
It's got a pretty good package manager also.

[Alan Baxter]

If I want to play with 3.5.x I can - but it's still flaky in parts, for example no blacklisted site warning.

I haven't run across any problem with that, but perhaps I misunderstand. Could you elaborate?

[Grumpy Old Lady]

It's an Ubuntu-specific bug. A Win stable release wouldn't get away with that - even though others on the bugzilla boards are whinging about a few other dns kinds of bads.
I'll find the bug link when I get back onto the Ubuntu system. - - not that the bug page will have much information... the wheels of Ubuntu bug finding grind exceedingly small, but also exceedingly slow.

Edit - back after checking launchpad, and it was fixed 10 days ago - for those who want to make 3.5 and up their default. Which I don't yet: see the things that the Ubuntu Fx maintainers still have to do:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu ... irefox-3.5

[Alan Baxter]

I see. Thanks for the info. Can't you just install Fx 3.5 on Linux? What's with these monolithic distribution packages? That sounds so much like a carryover from the days when one provider determined what programs could be run on your OS. Is Linux so fragile you can't just install a third-party program on it and expect it to work?

A little background: I developed networking applications on Unix and Linux systems full-time until eight years ago, when I retired and switched to being just a user -- and a Windows one at that. So I have many years of experience as a Linux/Unix user and system administrator, but it's dated. I thought a single-user system would have had more flexibility by now. Please forgive me for not researching this. It's mostly an excuse to chat.

[Grumpy Old Lady]

I see. Thanks for the info. Can't you just install Fx 3.5 on Linux?

Of course, but I want to keep 3.0.x for a few reasons, one of which is for NS support, another is for Ubuntu community forum contribution. The Ubuntu supported package setup won't allow me (a plain non-coding user remember) to run a separate, different xul runner (which is what I need for GB language support and some French too) for both versions, even though they can both run in parallel for most uses. So I have a play with Shiretoko but do serious stuff in the Ubuntu branded version.

What's with these monolithic distribution packages? That sounds so much like a carryover from the days when one provider determined what programs could be run on your OS. Is Linux so fragile you can't just install a third-party program on it and expect it to work?

Not so much fragile as far too diverse for this kind of user (plain, not geek, not all the hours in the day to make sure that packages are coming from whomever and whatever trustworthy source) to keep ahead of a very diverse and busy load of development. So I, and many non geeks who don't want the MS kind of corporate oversight but need a trusted oversight nonetheless, choose say Novell, or Canonical for our overlords.
I looked at a few of the distros and decided on Ubuntu because - - see my answer to single user security below - - it best matched the approach to multi-user security that OS X has done so well.

A little background: I developed networking applications on Unix and Linux systems full-time until eight years ago, when I retired and switched to being just a user -- and a Windows one at that. So I have many years of experience as a Linux/Unix user and system administrator, but it's dated. I thought a single-user system would have had more flexibility by now.

Well, ahem, the most famous single-user system (in practise, if not design) is Windows NT/XP. It is supposed to be multi-user and ends up being a barstward to operate flexibly in anything except the dangerous and oh-so attractive to malware writers admin mode.
Ubuntu, on the other hand has put a lot of thought into developing a GNU linux system that can be successfully run by novices without the root being vulnerable in normal use, and with a good fast user switching routine. Permissions remain a source of confusion for some few operations, but overall I think the Canonical team have managed to do a nice OS X clone by stealth. Even nicked the OS X temporary root access routine - - a very safe one.
Ask me again in a year or so. I might have given up and gone back to an even more restricted distro, but one that's very dear to my heart and which has been fun and reliable to use for a few years already - PuppyLinux. Developed here not a couple of hundred miles away from me in Western Australia. All I need is a flash drive to take my puter with me anywhere I am allowed to live boot, and it lets me run the last of the socket 7 motherboards - the one that I learned all about hardware on, my trusty old EpoX - as nicely as if it was 9 years younger.
Get yourself an Ubuntu cd and run your older machine with it. Check out the Synaptic Package Manager. It's a very well designed update manager too. Beats MS and OS X.
Hope that's enough gabble to fill up your chat needs for another year ;-)