Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #16805 > unrolled thread

Unwanted update to 150 just happened

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 08:45 -0700
    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> - 2026-04-25 13:12 -0400
      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-25 18:18 +0100
        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-04-25 10:26 -0700
          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 11:01 -0700
            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-04-28 10:14 +0100
              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 12:40 -0700
                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-04-28 22:21 +0100
                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 19:36 -0700
                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> - 2026-04-29 15:45 +0200
                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-29 15:04 +0100
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-29 15:10 +0100
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-29 15:21 +0100
                            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> - 2026-04-29 17:26 +0200
                            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 19:41 -0700
                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-29 16:47 +0100
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-29 16:52 +0100
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-29 16:54 +0100
                            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-29 17:00 +0100
                              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-02 05:41 +0000
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> - 2026-04-29 18:11 +0200
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-04-29 20:20 +0100
                            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 20:30 -0700
                              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-30 09:10 +0100
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-30 10:03 +0100
                              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> - 2026-04-30 05:48 +0200
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-30 14:23 +0100
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 20:16 -0700
                                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-03 21:47 +0000
                                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 19:33 -0700
                              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-05-01 07:04 +0000
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:33 -0700
                                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-05-01 18:00 +0100
                                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-03 21:51 +0000
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-05-03 11:52 +0000
                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-01 08:09 +0000
                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:17 -0700
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-05-01 19:10 +0200
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:16 +0200
                            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-05-01 12:57 -0700
                              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 11:58 -0700
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-05-02 21:15 +0200
                                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 12:53 -0700
                                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-05-02 22:25 +0200
                                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 22:10 -0700
                                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-05-02 16:40 -0700
                                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 22:01 -0700
                                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-05-03 18:49 -0700
                            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-05-01 22:09 +0200
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:08 +1200
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-02 00:11 +0000
    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-04-25 20:13 +0200
      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 11:25 -0700
        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 11:35 -0700
          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2026-04-25 14:56 -0400
            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 12:41 -0700
              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2026-04-25 15:56 -0400
              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-04-25 23:03 +0200
                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 14:51 -0700
                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2026-04-25 18:12 -0400
                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 22:13 -0700
            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-04-26 10:12 +0200
        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-04-25 21:40 +0200
    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-04-25 14:21 -0500
    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 12:45 -0700
      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened -- SOLVED! The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 13:01 -0700
    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-04-25 19:58 -0400
      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> - 2026-04-26 07:42 -0400
        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-04-26 18:46 +0200
          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 12:11 -0700
            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-04-26 15:47 -0700
              Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 17:05 -0700
                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-04-26 18:49 -0700
                  Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 21:48 -0700
                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> - 2026-04-27 13:42 -0400
                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 11:28 -0700
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> - 2026-04-27 16:01 -0400
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 12:45 -0700
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-04-28 00:23 +0000
                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-28 08:36 +0000
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-04-28 12:35 +0000
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> - 2026-04-28 15:42 -0400
                    Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-28 01:14 +0000
                      Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-04-28 02:51 +0000
                        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 12:51 -0700
                          Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2026-05-08 15:06 -0500
                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-04-26 22:27 -0400
                Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-28 01:12 +0000
            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> - 2026-04-27 13:24 -0400
            Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-04-28 09:15 +0200
        Re: Unwanted update to 150 just happened Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-27 04:07 +0000

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#16805 — Unwanted update to 150 just happened

In spite of the policies.json file which has worked before. Is there a 
new method to stop updates, or are we just hosed?

(I just made a similar post, but it doesn't seem to have taken.)

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
                                                  -- Hunter S. Thompson

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16806

On 4/25/2026 11:45 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> In spite of the policies.json file which has worked before. Is there a 
> new method to stop updates, or are we just hosed?
> 
> (I just made a similar post, but it doesn't seem to have taken.)
> 

I've never had FF update me autonomously.  I like to see when updates
are available to install and usually wait a few days to see if folks
report problems.  Only then to I click on the small "Update" rectangle
that appears inside the status popup with the frame title of "About
Mozilla Firefox" that appears when I click on "Help" -> "About Firefox".

In the Firefox settings for updates, which is fairly far down on the
"General" tab, I've always selected, "Check for updates but let you
choose to install them".  Never have I experienced FF over ride that
selection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16807

Retirednoguilt wrote:

> I've never had FF update me autonomously.

I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16808

On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Retirednoguilt wrote:
>
>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>
>I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
>and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...

Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.

Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but lemme
do the work' setting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16809

On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>>Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>
>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>
>>I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
>>and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
> 
> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
> 
> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but lemme
> do the work' setting.

I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years ago it 
stopped working and some kind person posted the policies.json fix -- 
which worked until today.  Posted herewith:

Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain the 
file policies.json which contains
{
   "policies": {
     "DisableAppUpdate": true
   }
}

-- 
Cheers, Bev
          Horn broken.  Watch for finger.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16889

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>
>>>I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
>>>and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>> 
>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>> 
>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but lemme
>> do the work' setting.
> 
> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years ago it 
> stopped working and some kind person posted the policies.json fix -- 
> which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
> 
> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain the 
> file policies.json which contains
> {
>    "policies": {
>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>    }
> }

Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
 download, or did you create one - on Linux?

Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
 problem - got there.
-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16909

On 4/28/26 02:14, Dave Royal wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> 
>> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>>
>>>>I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
>>>>and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>>> 
>>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>>> 
>>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but lemme
>>> do the work' setting.
>> 
>> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years ago it 
>> stopped working and some kind person posted the policies.json fix -- 
>> which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
>> 
>> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain the 
>> file policies.json which contains
>> {
>>    "policies": {
>>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>>    }
>> }
> 
> Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
>   download, or did you create one - on Linux?

Someone posted about that file long ago, and the one I created with pico 
worked for years.
> Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
>   problem - got there.
They appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express 
wishes.  I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or simple 
clumsiness.  Core dump complete.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
  When you wish upon a falling star your dreams can come true. Unless
  it's really a meteorite hurtling to the earth which will destroy all
  life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for.
  Unless it's death by meteor.                         --Demotivators

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16917

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On 4/28/26 02:14, Dave Royal wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> 
>>> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
>>>>>and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>>>> 
>>>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>>>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>>>> 
>>>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but lemme
>>>> do the work' setting.
>>> 
>>> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years ago it 
>>> stopped working and some kind person posted the policies.json fix -- 
>>> which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
>>> 
>>> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain the 
>>> file policies.json which contains
>>> {
>>>    "policies": {
>>>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>>>    }
>>> }
>> 
>> Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
>>   download, or did you create one - on Linux?
> 
> Someone posted about that file long ago, and the one I created with pico 
> worked for years.
>> Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
>>   problem - got there.
> They appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express 
> wishes.  I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or simple 
> clumsiness.  Core dump complete.

You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
 for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
 in a json file. 
-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16919

On 4/28/26 14:21, Dave Royal wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> 
>> On 4/28/26 02:14, Dave Royal wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> 
>>>> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to install them"
>>>>>>and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>>>>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but lemme
>>>>> do the work' setting.
>>>> 
>>>> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years ago it 
>>>> stopped working and some kind person posted the policies.json fix -- 
>>>> which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
>>>> 
>>>> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain the 
>>>> file policies.json which contains
>>>> {
>>>>    "policies": {
>>>>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>>>>    }
>>>> }
>>> 
>>> Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
>>>   download, or did you create one - on Linux?
>> 
>> Someone posted about that file long ago, and the one I created with pico 
>> worked for years.
>>> Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
>>>   problem - got there.
>> They appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express 
>> wishes.  I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or simple 
>> clumsiness.  Core dump complete.
> 
> You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
>   for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
>   in a json file.

The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the 
purpose.  Fixing it worked.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
     before executing them."
            -Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16941

Op 29-04-2026 om 04:36 schreef The Real Bev:
> On 4/28/26 14:21, Dave Royal wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>>> On 4/28/26 02:14, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to
>>>>>>> install them"
>>>>>>> and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>>>>>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but
>>>>>> lemme
>>>>>> do the work' setting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years
>>>>> ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
>>>>> policies.json fix -- which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
>>>>>
>>>>> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain
>>>>> the file policies.json which contains
>>>>> {
>>>>>    "policies": {
>>>>>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>>>>>    }
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
>>>>   download, or did you create one - on Linux?
>>>
>>> Someone posted about that file long ago, and the one I created with
>>> pico worked for years.
>>>> Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
>>>>   problem - got there.
>>> They appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
>>> wishes.  I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
>>> simple clumsiness.  Core dump complete.
>>
>> You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
>>   for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
>>   in a json file.
> 
> The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the
> purpose.  Fixing it worked.
> 

Firefox doesn't care about line endings.

Just for the sake of it I tested it for you, I created a policies.json
which blocks about:config and tested it with both CRLF (windows) and LF
(unix) line endings.

The result are the same for both, it works:
Blocked Page, Firefox can’t connect to the server at about:config

^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
update.

CRLF (windows):
cat -A policies.json
{^M$
  "policies": {^M$
    "BlockAboutConfig": true^M$
  }^M$
}^M$

LF (unix):
cat -A policies.json
{$
  "policies": {$
    "BlockAboutConfig": true$
  }$
}$

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16942

dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:

> Op 29-04-2026 om 04:36 schreef The Real Bev:
>> On 4/28/26 14:21, Dave Royal wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/26 02:14, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to
>>>>>>>> install them"
>>>>>>>> and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>>>>>>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but
>>>>>>> lemme
>>>>>>> do the work' setting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years
>>>>>> ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
>>>>>> policies.json fix -- which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain
>>>>>> the file policies.json which contains
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    "policies": {
>>>>>>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
>>>>>   download, or did you create one - on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Someone posted about that file long ago, and the one I created with
>>>> pico worked for years.
>>>>> Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
>>>>>   problem - got there.
>>>> They appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
>>>> wishes.  I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
>>>> simple clumsiness.  Core dump complete.
>>>
>>> You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
>>>   for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
>>>   in a json file.
>> 
>> The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the
>> purpose.  Fixing it worked.
>> 
>
> Firefox doesn't care about line endings.
>
> Just for the sake of it I tested it for you, I created a policies.json
> which blocks about:config and tested it with both CRLF (windows) and LF
> (unix) line endings.
>
> The result are the same for both, it works:
> Blocked Page, Firefox can’t connect to the server at about:config
>
> ^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
> update.

Surely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the linux
file.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16943

Richmond wrote:

> dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:
> 
>> ^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
>> update.
> 
> Surely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the linux
> file.

There could be zero CRs, or there could be a million of them, provided 
they're not within quoted strings e.g. "not^Mhere" which would break stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16944

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:
>> 
>>> ^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
>>> update.
>> Surely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the
>> linux
>> file.
>
> There could be zero CRs, or there could be a million of them, provided
> they're not within quoted strings e.g. "not^Mhere" which would break
> stuff.

The example shows them all at the end of the lines. So that looks like a
Windows file, i.e. ^M^J instead of ^J. CRLF instead of LF. Whether it
actually caused the problem or not is another matter, but if nobody is
going to test it, we'll never know (and maybe not care).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16945

On 29/04/2026 16:21, Richmond wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
> 
>> Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:
>>>
>>>> ^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
>>>> update.
>>> Surely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the
>>> linux
>>> file.
>>
>> There could be zero CRs, or there could be a million of them, provided
>> they're not within quoted strings e.g. "not^Mhere" which would break
>> stuff.
> 
> The example shows them all at the end of the lines. So that looks like a
> Windows file, i.e. ^M^J instead of ^J. CRLF instead of LF. Whether it
> actually caused the problem or not is another matter, but if nobody is
> going to test it, we'll never know (and maybe not care).
> 

I tested it, it's in the part you snipped.

Firefox doesn't care, but since we can't see Bev's original 
policies.json we'll never know what else her rewrite fixed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16957

On 4/29/26 07:21, Richmond wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
> 
>> Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:
>>> 
>>>> ^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
>>>> update.
>>> Surely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the
>>> linux
>>> file.
>>
>> There could be zero CRs, or there could be a million of them, provided
>> they're not within quoted strings e.g. "not^Mhere" which would break
>> stuff.
> 
> The example shows them all at the end of the lines. So that looks like a
> Windows file, i.e. ^M^J instead of ^J. CRLF instead of LF. Whether it
> actually caused the problem or not is another matter, but if nobody is
> going to test it, we'll never know (and maybe not care).

With the ^Ms in the file the 'help' screen said I was updated, which is 
true.  When I recreated the file without the ^Ms I was told that updates 
had been blocked by my organization.

I'm unwilling to put the ^Ms back to do a second test.  If it ain't 
broke don't fix it.  I'm happy with what I did.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "Life is actually fair. It just doesn't seem to be common
     knowledge that 'fair' sometimes sucks."      -- Jim Cook

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16946

dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:

> Op 29-04-2026 om 04:36 schreef The Real Bev:
>> On 4/28/26 14:21, Dave Royal wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/26 02:14, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/26 10:26, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 18:18:07 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've never had FF update me autonomously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have it set for "Check for updates but let you choose to
>>>>>>>> install them"
>>>>>>>> and as best as I can remember, its never disobeyed ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
>>>>>>> radio button changes to 'automatically install/recommended'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semi-OT, Thunderbird conversely holds the 'check for updates but
>>>>>>> lemme
>>>>>>> do the work' setting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had that setting for decades -- and still do.  Some years
>>>>>> ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
>>>>>> policies.json fix -- which worked until today.  Posted herewith:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain
>>>>>> the file policies.json which contains
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    "policies": {
>>>>>>      "DisableAppUpdate": true
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
>>>>>   download, or did you create one - on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Someone posted about that file long ago, and the one I created with
>>>> pico worked for years.
>>>>> Just wondering how these Windows line endings - if that was the
>>>>>   problem - got there.
>>>> They appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
>>>> wishes.  I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
>>>> simple clumsiness.  Core dump complete.
>>>
>>> You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
>>>   for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
>>>   in a json file.
>> 
>> The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the
>> purpose.  Fixing it worked.
>> 
>
> Firefox doesn't care about line endings.
>
> Just for the sake of it I tested it for you, I created a policies.json
> which blocks about:config and tested it with both CRLF (windows) and LF
> (unix) line endings.
>
> The result are the same for both, it works:
> Blocked Page, Firefox can’t connect to the server at about:config
>
> ^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
> update.
>
> CRLF (windows):
> cat -A policies.json
> {^M$
>   "policies": {^M$
>     "BlockAboutConfig": true^M$
>   }^M$
> }^M$
>
> LF (unix):
> cat -A policies.json
> {$
>   "policies": {$
>     "BlockAboutConfig": true$
>   }$
> }$

You tested whether it blocked about:config, but you didn't test whether
it blocked an update, or if the update altered the json file.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16947

Richmond wrote:

> You tested whether it blockedabout:config, but you didn't test whether
> it blocked an update, or if the update altered the json file.

I think dilinger did more than his bit to test stuff, at this point if 
Bev is happy, nobody is likely to go back and find what actually 
happened, but it doesn't sound to me like a stray CR or LF would be the 
cause ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16948

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> You tested whether it blockedabout:config, but you didn't test whether
>> it blocked an update, or if the update altered the json file.
>
> I think dilinger did more than his bit to test stuff, at this point if
> Bev is happy, nobody is likely to go back and find what actually
> happened, but it doesn't sound to me like a stray CR or LF would be
> the cause ...

But how does firefox process json? it may be different code that
processes the update part from the block part.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16949

Richmond wrote:

> But how does firefox process json? it may be different code that
> processes the update part from the block part.

I haven't checked, but I would expect the FF devs to use a decently 
supported library (probably libjson) to save reinventing the wheel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17004

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:00:37 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> I haven't checked, but I would expect the FF devs to use a decently
> supported library (probably libjson) to save reinventing the wheel.

On my Debian system,

    apt-cache depends firefox

doesn’t show any JSON-related library that I can see. I need to do

    apt-cache depends --recurse firefox

to see “libjson-glib-1.0-0” brought in as an indirect dependency via
various GNOME components.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web