On 9/5/2021 3:51 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Walt,
>
>> I have explained how a complete executable could be downloaded using other
>> apps,
>
> And it seems to me that he made clear that he got that list of executables
> as part of upgrade cycles, not by manually downloading them.
>
To be clear, the process does involve "manually downloading" the
updates. As I mentioned earlier, when the notice of an update pops up
while using TBird, clicking on the update button sends you to the
Mozilla site, where, as others have pointed out, there is a large green
button that reads "Download". The file is then saved to the selected
folder on the user's computer.

> P.s.
> I just saw that Neil doesn't want to talk with you any further. Can't blame
> him. To bad though, as I would have liked to hear what the actual cause of
> the difference between your and his experience is.
>
The "actual cause" isn't complicated: I'm not running Linux on this
computer and Walt is not referring to the Windows process. I see no
point in arguing that they are different.

--
best regards,

Neil

Walt,

> Oh good, since he is the only one experiencing this problem

:-) Neil doesn't seem to be experiencing any problem. His TB works and he
also gets updates.

Its actually /you/ who is having a problem - with accepting that he has a
different update cycle than the one you say you have.

Besides, lots of people could also have Neils upgrade cycle, but do simply
not recognising it as something out of the ordinary and thus stay silent -
and you would be none the wiser.

And even *if* he would be the only one experiencing it, it gives you no
right to effectivily call him a liar.

> The answer to the "So many Thunderbird updates" is that they are needed.

Que ? Besides that thats an explanation without explaining anything, how
come you are responding with that to /me/ (my post(s) ) ?

> Maybe he should ask on the official support site.

:-) Why ? Again, /you/ are having a problem with that upgrade cycle he
described. He doesn't (that I've seen).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Neil,

> To be clear, the process does involve "manually downloading" the updates.

Thanks for that clarification. Doesn't change much though : Walt bluntly
denying that what you told him happens on your side.

> The "actual cause" isn't complicated: I'm not running Linux on this
> computer

Yep. And that was what my first reply was about : asking him if he could
imagine that Windows does updating differently than his Linux. Something
he never answered.

He did however mention that "it isn't an executable in my experience on my
Windows 10 laptop" - although that seems to be part of he himself initiating
the whole thing by pushing some buttons ("Using Help > About Thunderbird or
updating from the update prompt"), which is "not quite" the situation you
described.

> I see no point in arguing that they are different.

The environments are ofcourse different, but that does not automatically
mean that the update methods /have/ to be different too. Apart from some
limitations (under windows you cannot change/patch the file of a running
program or DLL) its all upto the program which applies the actual update.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a "devils advocate". :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 9/5/2021 10:58 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Neil,
>
>> To be clear, the process does involve "manually downloading" the updates.
>
> Thanks for that clarification. Doesn't change much though : Walt bluntly
> denying that what you told him happens on your side.
>
>> The "actual cause" isn't complicated: I'm not running Linux on this
>> computer
>
> Yep. And that was what my first reply was about : asking him if he could
> imagine that Windows does updating differently than his Linux. Something
> he never answered.
>
> He did however mention that "it isn't an executable in my experience on my
> Windows 10 laptop" - although that seems to be part of he himself initiating
> the whole thing by pushing some buttons ("Using Help > About Thunderbird or
> updating from the update prompt"), which is "not quite" the situation you
> described.
>
>> I see no point in arguing that they are different.
>
> The environments are ofcourse different, but that does not automatically
> mean that the update methods /have/ to be different too. Apart from some
> limitations (under windows you cannot change/patch the file of a running
> program or DLL) its all upto the program which applies the actual update.
>
> Yeah, I'm a bit of a "devils advocate". :-)
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
The issue that I raised was about the number of updates, nothing else.
All the rest of the noise regarding the details of the updates avoids
answering that basic question. I probably could have pointed out that
even under 78.x there were 6 updates in about 3 months, which, IMO is
indicative of poor programming practices because it wastes users' time
making sure that the update didn't affect anything else before they can
do whatever they were going to do when they turned on the computer.

Basically, I don't use a computer for fun and games, and I don't read a
Windows ng for comments about Linux, Apple or Android OS.

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil,

> The issue that I raised was about the number of updates, nothing else.

I know. And I don't think you will get an answer on that from Walt, or
anyone else here for that matter. All we can do is see what the big
companies do, and, like you, wonder why they do it that way.

> All the rest of the noise regarding the details of the updates avoids
> answering that basic question.

True. But do notice that you yourself started the "how does the upgrade
cycle work" subthread yourself. /and/ continued it (by multiple replies to
Walt).

> Basically, I don't use a computer for fun and games, and I don't read a
> Windows ng for comments about Linux, Apple or Android OS.

:-) You noticed that too. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser