I'm seeing this increasingly here on this W7-32 machine, but had put it
down to having a lot in my hosts file (so maybe I'm not seeing adverts
or something). However, the latest example -
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-spotlight-lock-screen-picture-wont-change/443cc26c-29f1-4481-80c9-6fb7130f6191
- _doesn't_ have it when viewed on this 7-32 (Chrome, fairly recent),
but when viewed on my provided W10 machine (allowed to update when it
wants to, also Chrome, presumably up to date), it does - and that
machine has very little changed from default - certainly I've never
edited its host file. (It's not just that page; that contains links to
other pages from answers.microsoft.com, and those have the blank space
at the top too.) I see it quite often on this 7 machine on other sites.

It's not completely blank: the pages load with some or all of the head
banner and other parts that fill up web pages these days; just, where
the meat of the text would be, there's blank space, and I have to press
PgDn (or click in the side scrollbar) to see it. There's no empty
rectangle signifying something I'm not seeing - just empty space.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

On 10/21/21 8:05 AM, this is what J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I'm seeing this increasingly here on this W7-32 machine, but had put it down to having a lot in my hosts file (so maybe I'm not seeing
> adverts or something). However, the latest example -
> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-spotlight-lock-screen-picture-wont-change/443cc26c-29f1-4481-80c9-6fb7130f6191
> - _doesn't_ have it when viewed on this 7-32 (Chrome, fairly recent), but when viewed on my provided W10 machine (allowed to update when it
> wants to, also Chrome, presumably up to date), it does - and that machine has very little changed from default - certainly I've never edited
> its host file. (It's not just that page; that contains links to other pages from answers.microsoft.com, and those have the blank space at
> the top too.) I see it quite often on this 7 machine on other sites.
>
> It's not completely blank: the pages load with some or all of the head banner and other parts that fill up web pages these days; just, where
> the meat of the text would be, there's blank space, and I have to press PgDn (or click in the side scrollbar) to see it. There's no empty
> rectangle signifying something I'm not seeing - just empty space.
I don't see anything abnormal with that page.
You probably should do a screen capture of the page or at least the top and post it on some image sharing site for all of us to view. We
might be able to better assist.

However since one browser on one machine (and mine) show the page correct, I might suggest you try a new virgin profile for the browser.
Firefox can be launched with "firefox -P". You start it from a CMD prpmpt.

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.2 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs

On 10/21/2021 8:05 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I'm seeing this increasingly here on this W7-32 machine, but had put it down to having a lot in my hosts file (so maybe I'm not seeing adverts or something). However, the latest example -
> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-spotlight-lock-screen-picture-wont-change/443cc26c-29f1-4481-80c9-6fb7130f6191
> - _doesn't_ have it when viewed on this 7-32 (Chrome, fairly recent), but when viewed on my provided W10 machine (allowed to update when it wants to, also Chrome, presumably up to date), it does - and that machine has very little changed from default - certainly I've never edited its host file. (It's not just that page; that contains links to other pages from answers.microsoft.com, and those have the blank space at the top too.) I see it quite often on this 7 machine on other sites.
>
> It's not completely blank: the pages load with some or all of the head banner and other parts that fill up web pages these days; just, where the meat of the text would be, there's blank space, and I have to press PgDn (or click in the side scrollbar) to see it. There's no empty rectangle signifying something I'm not seeing - just empty space.

Does it look like this one ?

Notice the header Microsoft adds to its pages, when your
browser is not MSEdge :-)

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/3wbn14GG/browser-being-rated-by-microsoft.gif

Paul

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 10:18:48, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 10/21/2021 8:05 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> I'm seeing this increasingly here on this W7-32 machine, but had put
>>it down to having a lot in my hosts file (so maybe I'm not seeing
>>adverts or something). However, the latest example -
>>
>>https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-spotlight
>>-lock-screen-picture-wont-change/443cc26c-29f1-4481-80c9-6fb7130f6191
>> - _doesn't_ have it when viewed on this 7-32 (Chrome, fairly recent),
>>but when viewed on my provided W10 machine (allowed to update when it
>>wants to, also Chrome, presumably up to date), it does - and that
>>machine has very little changed from default - certainly I've never
>>edited its host file. (It's not just that page; that contains links to
>>other pages from answers.microsoft.com, and those have the blank space
>>at the top too.) I see it quite often on this 7 machine on other sites.
>> It's not completely blank: the pages load with some or all of the
>>head banner and other parts that fill up web pages these days; just,
>>where the meat of the text would be, there's blank space, and I have
>>to press PgDn (or click in the side scrollbar) to see it. There's no
>>empty rectangle signifying something I'm not seeing - just empty space.
>
>Does it look like this one ?
>
>Notice the header Microsoft adds to its pages, when your
>browser is not MSEdge :-)
>
>[Picture]
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/3wbn14GG/browser-being-rated-by-microsoft.gif
>
> Paul
>
(I had to view that on a recent browser; my older one said
i.postimg.cc's certificate was out of date, or something.)

Yes, something like that; I don't remember the "browser not supported"
banner, but the whitespace before the text was similar - though longer.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The breathtaking wonders of nature revealed to the soothing tones of Sir David
Attenborough. Life doesn't get much better than that.
- Ben Preston, Radio Times editor (2016/11/26-12/2)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I had to view that on a recent browser; my older one said i.postimg.cc's
> certificate was out of date, or something.

The root certificate used by LetsEncrypt recently expired, most browsers and
operating systems automatically update the root certs list, what O/S and browser
was it?

<https://letsencrypt.org/docs/certificate-compatibility>

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 15:51:36, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I had to view that on a recent browser; my older one said
>>i.postimg.cc's certificate was out of date, or something.
>
>The root certificate used by LetsEncrypt recently expired, most
>browsers and operating systems automatically update the root certs
>list, what O/S and browser was it?
>
><https://letsencrypt.org/docs/certificate-compatibility>

Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox 27.0.1! (On
Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use up-to-date-Chrome.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep
an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the
soul from desiccation. - Humphrey Lyttelton quoted by Barry Cryer in Radio
Times 10-16 November 2012

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> I'm seeing this increasingly here on this W7-32 machine, but had put it
> down to having a lot in my hosts file (so maybe I'm not seeing adverts
> or something). However, the latest example -
> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-spotlight-lock-screen-picture-wont-change/443cc26c-29f1-4481-80c9-6fb7130f6191
> - _doesn't_ have it when viewed on this 7-32 (Chrome, fairly recent),
> but when viewed on my provided W10 machine (allowed to update when it
> wants to, also Chrome, presumably up to date), it does - and that
> machine has very little changed from default - certainly I've never
> edited its host file. (It's not just that page; that contains links to
> other pages from answers.microsoft.com, and those have the blank space
> at the top too.) I see it quite often on this 7 machine on other sites.
>
> It's not completely blank: the pages load with some or all of the head
> banner and other parts that fill up web pages these days; just, where
> the meat of the text would be, there's blank space, and I have to press
> PgDn (or click in the side scrollbar) to see it. There's no empty
> rectangle signifying something I'm not seeing - just empty space.

What happens when you rename the 'hosts' to 'hosts.old', purge cached
data in Chrome before exiting it, reload Chrome, and retest the site?
That one host is yours and the other is someone else's, likely you don't
have your hosts file on the one that is someone else's property, so that
host isn't filtering on hosts (its hosts file probably only has the
127.0.0.1 definition).

In addition, did you disable every add-on in Chrome on your host since
you may not have all of them in the Chrome on the other host? Disable
all extensions in both Chromes, and retest.

Presumably other than the hosts file, and any extensions you installed
into each Chrome instance (which you disable during testing), there is
nothing else you employ to block web content, like VPNs, proxies, URL
filtering (some AVs have this), etc. That is, you don't mention
anything outside of the web browser, other than the hosts file, that
could affect reaching whatever resources the original web doc tries to
access.

I using uBlock Origin for content blocking (in expert mode, so I can on
what it is blocking). The only content it blocks when I visit that web
page is some of microsoft.com's own content, because it comes from a a
different host, or come from a host at Microsoft known to spew ads, and
other fluff/ad/superfluous content. When I open uBO's logger, and
refresh the page (so the logger can catch what uBO is doing), it is
blocking the following sources:

https://browser.events.data.microsoft.com (blocked by Adguard blocklist)
https://wcpstatic.microsoft.com (off-site script)
some Azure (off-site) scripts
https://web.vortex.data.microsoft.com (blocked by EasyPrivacy blocklist)
a bit of CSS garbage

However, for me, those blocks do not affect the layout or the displayed
content of the web page other than the following modifications (when I
disable uBO and refresh the page):

- The top banner saying "Try the browser recommended by Microsoft".
- The rightside frame content to remove the "Microsoft 365" subscribe
bullshit.

Maybe the whitespace you see is that top banner bullshitting you into
thinking about changing of Edge Chromium as your default web browser.

I have no idea where you got the filters to shove into your hosts file.
Although uBO can subscribe to several hosts blocklists, I don't use
them, because they are overly aggressive, don't get updated often enough
to reflect the current state of a site versus whatever decision was used
back when the entry was added to the pre-compiled hosts file, and can
only block on hosts instead of paths or arguments within a URL, or on
the type of content.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox 27.0.1! (On
> Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use up-to-date-Chrome.]

Not only will you run into problems using an old version of any web
browser, especially an old version released back in February 2014, but
you'll also run into problems as sites use newer features, like
functions available in CSS that old web browsers cannot handle. For
best compatibility with sites that will move on to use newer featues,
you should get the latest FF you can on Windows 7. FF 93 works on
Windows 7.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/93.0/system-requirements/

Just because you don't like when Firefox dropped legacy extensions
(XUL/XPCOM) to go to WebExtensions, or other reasons you keep using an
outdated version, the sites don't care. They'll keep progressing
forward using whatever new web technology supported by the more recent
versions of web browser. You run into more and more problems with
incompatibility with new sites with that ancient version of Firefox.

Not sure why you even posted here if you expect problems using an
ancient version (over 7 years old) of Firefox. Yet, you previously
noted you were using the latest version of Chrome. Nothing about
Firefox. See my other reply on why the latest version of Chrome
displays a page differently for different instances of Chrome installed
on different hosts whose configuration are managed differently.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 16:52:21, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox 27.0.1! (On
>> Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use up-to-date-Chrome.]
>
>Not only will you run into problems using an old version of any web
>browser, especially an old version released back in February 2014, but
>you'll also run into problems as sites use newer features, like
>functions available in CSS that old web browsers cannot handle. For
>best compatibility with sites that will move on to use newer featues,
>you should get the latest FF you can on Windows 7. FF 93 works on
>Windows 7.
>
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/93.0/system-requirements/
>
>Just because you don't like when Firefox dropped legacy extensions
>(XUL/XPCOM) to go to WebExtensions, or other reasons you keep using an
>outdated version, the sites don't care. They'll keep progressing
>forward using whatever new web technology supported by the more recent
>versions of web browser. You run into more and more problems with
>incompatibility with new sites with that ancient version of Firefox.
>
>Not sure why you even posted here if you expect problems using an
>ancient version (over 7 years old) of Firefox. Yet, you previously

Your reflex response!

I didn't post the original question (about the blank space) about the
old Firefox; I only mentioned that out of amusement because it had
certificate problems with the image-sharing site Paul used (and I
thought I made clear that I did manage to see his image, by using
Chrome).

>noted you were using the latest version of Chrome. Nothing about

I'm used to seeing these big blank spaces at the top of pages, even in
Chrome, and assume it's something to do with my hosts file - and/or
extensions - on this machine; I was just a little surprised to see one
such on a W10 machine, with no (modifications to the) hosts file, few or
no Chrome extensions, and everything - W10 and Chrome - left to update
themselves as they wish - and even more surprised when I _didn't_ see it
(the blank space at top) when I loaded the same page in my
normally-problematic Chrome/W7 system.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
(according to the film Gandhi [1982])

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in
news:itti3hvqee9j$.dlg@v.nguard.lh:

> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox
>> 27.0.1! (On Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use
>> up-to-date-Chrome.]
>
> Not only will you run into problems using an old version of
> any web browser, especially an old version released back in
> February 2014, but you'll also run into problems as sites
> use newer features, like functions available in CSS that
> old web browsers cannot handle. For best compatibility
> with sites that will move on to use newer featues, you
> should get the latest FF you can on Windows 7. FF 93 works
> on Windows 7.

...."Productivity-inspired new tab design: "...

....and yet, the most unattractive, butt ugly thing about it.

Pretty sad, eh? ...that a detail as small as the new and "improved" tab design is
enough for me to decide not to use FF...and potentially never again.

Thunderbird too. The later/est UI changes are *completely* unbearable.

I agree after a few FF improvements that aren't I put up with the "please
allow my to install another useless upgrade menu". Often I read the page
and exit before I notice the upgrade request off to the side.

DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
news:XnsADCC5A21F7ACAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.166.97.131:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in
> news:itti3hvqee9j$.dlg@v.nguard.lh:
>
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox
>>> 27.0.1! (On Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use
>>> up-to-date-Chrome.]
>>
>> Not only will you run into problems using an old version of
>> any web browser, especially an old version released back in
>> February 2014, but you'll also run into problems as sites
>> use newer features, like functions available in CSS that
>> old web browsers cannot handle. For best compatibility
>> with sites that will move on to use newer featues, you
>> should get the latest FF you can on Windows 7. FF 93 works
>> on Windows 7.
>
> ..."Productivity-inspired new tab design: "...
>
> ...and yet, the most unattractive, butt ugly thing about it.
>
> Pretty sad, eh? ...that a detail as small as the new and "improved"
> tab design is enough for me to decide not to use FF...and potentially
> never again.
>
> Thunderbird too. The later/est UI changes are *completely* unbearable.

David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
news:XnsADCC5DC8BCA09hueydlltampabayrrcom@46.165.242.75:

> I agree after a few FF improvements that aren't I put up
> with the "please allow my to install another useless
> upgrade menu". Often I read the page and exit before I
> notice the upgrade request off to the side.

I was also super put-off by the inability to turn off updates completely, or AT THE VERY
LEAST that I could deal with...

....NOT auto-updating when I open a link in a new FF window, because I've already got
two FF windows open with 10 or 15 tabs each, and closing every damn one of them,
and then not restore them after the upgrade process that happened right in the middle
of whatever I was doing.

Hell....even MS realized this with Windows 10, and allows you to "snooze" updates for
a while, or set a more convenient time FOR YOU, for them to be done.

(Whether or not, it still does this, I haven't a clue. I stopped using FF.)

>
> DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
> news:XnsADCC5A21F7ACAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.166.97.131:
>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in
>> news:itti3hvqee9j$.dlg@v.nguard.lh:
>>
>>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox
>>>> 27.0.1! (On Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use
>>>> up-to-date-Chrome.]
>>>
>>> Not only will you run into problems using an old version
>>> of any web browser, especially an old version released
>>> back in February 2014, but you'll also run into problems
>>> as sites use newer features, like functions available in
>>> CSS that old web browsers cannot handle. For best
>>> compatibility with sites that will move on to use newer
>>> featues, you should get the latest FF you can on Windows
>>> 7. FF 93 works on Windows 7.
>>
>> ..."Productivity-inspired new tab design: "...
>>
>> ...and yet, the most unattractive, butt ugly thing about
>> it.
>>
>> Pretty sad, eh? ...that a detail as small as the new and
>> "improved" tab design is enough for me to decide not to
>> use FF...and potentially never again.
>>
>> Thunderbird too. The later/est UI changes are *completely*
>> unbearable.
>

DanS wrote:

> I was also super put-off by the inability to turn off updates
> completely, or AT THE VERY LEAST that I could deal with...
>
> ...NOT auto-updating when I open a link in a new FF window, because
> I've already got two FF windows open with 10 or 15 tabs each, and
> closing every damn one of them, and then not restore them after the
> upgrade process that happened right in the middle of whatever I was
> doing.
>
> Hell....even MS realized this with Windows 10, and allows you to
> "snooze" updates for a while, or set a more convenient time FOR YOU,
> for them to be done.
>
> (Whether or not, it still does this, I haven't a clue. I stopped
> using FF.)

I'm on FF 93. I don't remember all settings for all past versions of FF
ever since I started using it, but when has the "Check for update but
let you choose to install them" (or similarly worded in the past) option
been not available?

I could look (but I'm not so inclined) to see when automatic updates (if
you choose to enable that setting) added the "When Firefox is not
running". I think before it was called background updating. Regardless
of the change in setting name, both required you include the Mozilla
Maintenance Service, so it could update FF when FF was not running
(i.e., background updating).

I recall a time when navigating to the Help -> About menu ended up
downloading and installing an update instead of telling you there was a
new one available. Very rude. That was many versions ago, but *YOU*
had to interrupt your work to go there, not by you clicking on some
hyperlink in a web doc.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 10:02:20, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote (my responses
usually follow points raised):
[]
>I was also super put-off by the inability to turn off updates
>completely, or AT THE VERY
>LEAST that I could deal with...
[]
>Hell....even MS realized this with Windows 10, and allows you to
>"snooze" updates for
>a while, or set a more convenient time FOR YOU, for them to be done.
>
>(Whether or not, it still does this, I haven't a clue. I stopped using FF.)
>
I use my FF 27 to view a few simple pages that work in it (and faster
than Chrome). It also runs an old version of DownloadHelper, which when
it works is a lot less bother to use than its modern Chrome equivalent.
(I generally use the excellent youtube-dl otherwise.)
>
(The original post in this thread was with up-to-date versions of
Chrome, on an up-to-date W10.)
>>
>> DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>> news:XnsADCC5A21F7ACAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.166.97.131:
>>
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in
>>> news:itti3hvqee9j$.dlg@v.nguard.lh:
>>>
>>>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I expect problems with the browser, as it's Firefox
>>>>> 27.0.1! (On Windows 7 HP 32.) [I also use
>>>>> up-to-date-Chrome.]
>>>>
>>>> Not only will you run into problems using an old version
>>>> of any web browser, especially an old version released
>>>> back in February 2014, but you'll also run into problems
>>>> as sites use newer features, like functions available in
>>>> CSS that old web browsers cannot handle. For best
>>>> compatibility with sites that will move on to use newer
>>>> featues, you should get the latest FF you can on Windows
>>>> 7. FF 93 works on Windows 7.
>>>
>>> ..."Productivity-inspired new tab design: "...
>>>
>>> ...and yet, the most unattractive, butt ugly thing about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Pretty sad, eh? ...that a detail as small as the new and
>>> "improved" tab design is enough for me to decide not to
>>> use FF...and potentially never again.
>>>
>>> Thunderbird too. The later/est UI changes are *completely*
>>> unbearable.
>>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What's awful about weird views is not the views. It's the intolerance. If
someone wants to worship the Duke of Edinburgh or a pineapple, fine. But don't
kill me if I don't agree. - Tim Rice, Radio Times 15-21 October 2011.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in
news:ypt6ly2sy12j$.dlg@v.nguard.lh:

> DanS wrote:
>
>> I was also super put-off by the inability to turn off
>> updates completely, or AT THE VERY LEAST that I could deal
>> with...
>>
>> ...NOT auto-updating when I open a link in a new FF
>> window, because I've already got two FF windows open with
>> 10 or 15 tabs each, and closing every damn one of them,
>> and then not restore them after the upgrade process that
>> happened right in the middle of whatever I was doing.
>>
>> Hell....even MS realized this with Windows 10, and allows
>> you to "snooze" updates for a while, or set a more
>> convenient time FOR YOU, for them to be done.
>>
>> (Whether or not, it still does this, I haven't a clue. I
>> stopped using FF.)
>
> I'm on FF 93. I don't remember all settings for all past
> versions of FF ever since I started using it, but when has
> the "Check for update but let you choose to install them"
> (or similarly worded in the past) option been not
> available?
>
> I could look (but I'm not so inclined) to see when
> automatic updates (if you choose to enable that setting)
> added the "When Firefox is not running". I think before it
> was called background updating. Regardless of the change
> in setting name, both required you include the Mozilla
> Maintenance Service, so it could update FF when FF was not
> running (i.e., background updating).
>
> I recall a time when navigating to the Help -> About menu
> ended up downloading and installing an update instead of
> telling you there was a new one available. Very rude.
> That was many versions ago, but *YOU* had to interrupt your
> work to go there, not by you clicking on some hyperlink in
> a web doc.

I assure you, that's what I was experiencing...
I thought I'd be able to find a lot of mentions of this, but it seems not...a few...

https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/firefox-forcibly-updates-itself-after-disabling-auto-
updates/61437

It just took me a minute to find the right search phrase...

Here ya go...

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q="Sorry.
+We+just+need+to+do+one+small+thing+to+keep+going."&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-8

DanS wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>> DanS wrote:
>>
>>> ...NOT auto-updating when I open a link in a new FF
>>> window, because I've already got two FF windows open with
>>> 10 or 15 tabs each, and closing every damn one of them,
>>> and then not restore them after the upgrade process that
>>> happened right in the middle of whatever I was doing.
>>
>> I'm on FF 93. I don't remember all settings for all past
>> versions of FF ever since I started using it, but when has
>> the "Check for update but let you choose to install them"
>> (or similarly worded in the past) option been not
>> available?
>>
>> I could look (but I'm not so inclined) to see when
>> automatic updates (if you choose to enable that setting)
>> added the "When Firefox is not running". I think before it
>> was called background updating. Regardless of the change
>> in setting name, both required you include the Mozilla
>> Maintenance Service, so it could update FF when FF was not
>> running (i.e., background updating).
>>
>> I recall a time when navigating to the Help -> About menu
>> ended up downloading and installing an update instead of
>> telling you there was a new one available. Very rude.
>> That was many versions ago, but *YOU* had to interrupt your
>> work to go there, not by you clicking on some hyperlink in
>> a web doc.
>
> I assure you, that's what I was experiencing...
> I thought I'd be able to find a lot of mentions of this, but it seems not...a few...
>
> https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/firefox-forcibly-updates-itself-after-disabling-auto-
> updates/61437

"There seems to be a lack of communication between Firefox’s internal
updater and some package manager updaters that leads to unpredictable
updates."

So, Linux distros include some software updater that operates
indendently of the updaters incorporate to the programs themselves?
This smacks of 3rd-party updater tools available on Windows. You enable
some 3rd-party updater that grabs and installs updates for programs the
tool thinks are out-of-date. There are lots of those.

Even CCleaner has its Driver Updater component. I don't use updater
tools those because they are overly aggressive. Oh, gee, there's an
update that I just must have because an older version just must be
vulnerable -- despite the update causes problems for a program or
hardware that was running peachy fine before, but not after the update.
Nor do these updaters provide image backups, so you can restore your
drive's image to the exact state before the pushed update. At best,
they offer a back-out option which is not the same as restoring the
exact state of a partition before the update got applied. Unmonitored
driver updates are worse since they can cause covert data corruption, or
make the system unstable.

I use CCleaner, but killed its outbound connections using the Windows
Firewall. Not only does it disable CCleaner phoning home to get ad
content to puke at the user, it prevents connecting to a server to get a
list of drivers and their latest versions along with installers to
update them from a currently working set.

Too many users have been engrained into the "newer is better" sales
mantra without regard they should be focus on /using/ their computer
rather than constantly repairing it for nebulous cause.

https://www.lifewire.com/free-software-updater-programs-2625200

You get boobs, like this author, who promote automatic updating, because
they don't have to maintain, troubleshoot, and repair the fuckups that
others incur due to non-interactive updating. Those using these
software updaters are inept, and the same ones that should never use
regedit.exe, registry cleaners, or perform any sysadmin duties.

If I were using Linux, I'd never allow it to do automatic updating.
Windows 10 users bitch about loss of control over updating (though they
get a prompt they can override, or pause updates). I would think Linux
users would also bitch about loss of control over updates. I don't what
are those "package manager updaters", but they sound hazardous. The
user should be in charge of package management, not the OS.