Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #12857
| From | jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.software.firefox |
| Subject | Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" |
| Date | 2025-03-23 10:27 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <bs60ujtpob69tec6tkmrfk52jvig5pdkcg@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <rpjptjppua96rj3hiscp7tmno993bb3nog@4ax.com> <vrj3fc$2dccr$1@paganini.bofh.team> <0t5rtj1lskmdq64ae1b2sr54kkmfnn0jga@4ax.com> <8fcrtjdjogcndspvr538i8oeg5ortq7to0@4ax.com> <vrn05v$2od76$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 13:40:01 -0500, gym <no_one@example.net> wrote:
>On 3/21/2025 1:46 PM, jetjock wrote:
>> gym, one more question for you please.
>>
>> I just installed 115.21.0esr on wife's Win 10 machine. Everything went
>> very smoothly...even smoother than my update. It activated all her
>> addons, albeit with a warning (not a problem), and even put the tabs
>> on the bottom using the already installed userChrome.css file.
>>
>> My question is, when I checked about Firefox in Help it suggested I
>> update to 128.8.0esr. Is this the last version that works in Win 10
>> like 115.21.0esr does in Win7? Should I update or leave well enough
>> alone? Thanks!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>
> >> I just installed 115.21.0esr on wife's Win 10 machine.... <<
>
>According to Mozilla, Firefox 115.21.0 ESR is only supported on Windows
>7, 8 and 8.1. Users on other OSes are advised to install Firefox 128 ESR
>(or the release version) instead. So your wife is on an unsupported
>version of Firefox!
See below.
>
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.21.0/releasenotes/
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.21.0/system-requirements/
>
>Also, since your wife is on Win 10, she does not need to run an ESR
>version (unless she wants to). She could run the latest release version,
>which is Firefox 136.0.2. The latest ESR version is 128.8.0.
I installed 128.8.0 on my sister's computer yesterday via TeamViewer
(she lives in Las Vegas and is almost 91 so I'm her IT guy). Will
update wife's today.
Decided to try it to see if it would work and it did. Clicked on the
"update to 128" button in "help" "About Firefox" and after it
installed it said to restart which I did. After restarting FF it still
said she had 115 no matter how many times I restarted it. Finally just
downloaded 128.8.0esr from the ftp site, installed it and was finally
told she had 128. Strange!!
>
>I suggest you or your wife research the new features and the differences
>between the two versions. A lot has changed since 115.
>
> >> Is this the last version that works in Win 10 like 115.21.0esr does
>in Win7? <<
>
>Firefox 115 is the last supported Firefox version that works in Win7.
>But Firefox 115.21.0 ESR is not the last version. It is just the latest
>Firefox 115 ESR version. Firefox 115.22 ESR is scheduled to be released
>on April 1, Firefox 115.23 ESR on April 29, Firefox 115.24 ESR on May 27
>etc. Mozilla said that it will continue to support Firefox on Win7 until
>at least September 2025 and it will reevaluate in August. If that holds,
>Firefox 115.27 ESR would be the last version, but that may change.
This is very bad news! I was really hoping that installing the "last"
version of the esr would mean that it really was the "last version".
This was not a problem until Mozilla disabled the ability to block the
update nag. Has anyone been able to find a work-around to block this
constant nagging to update? I told my sister that she wouldn't have to
worry about the constant nagging anymore! :-( That's why I gave her
(and wife) the esr version; to stop the constant updates of the
release versions.
>
>Firefox 128 or Firefox 136 does not work on Win7. Note that Firefox 138
>for Windows 7 that Reiner linked to is NOT an official Firefox release
>from Mozilla. It is a patched version from China.
>
>https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk
>
> >> It activated all her addons, albeit with a warning (not a problem),,, <<
>
>Do you have extension signing disabled on your wife's machine?
I'll have to check on that. I have it on mine, but as you say, it's
not needed now. FF did re-enable all wife's extensions even though she
was on an "unsupported version; 115 vs 128. Maybe updating to 128 will
remove the warning.
>
>With Firefox 115.21.0 ESR, this is not necessary because it has the new
>root certificate.
>
>The following preference does not need to be set to false:
>
>xpinstall.signatures.required
>
>It can remain at the default setting of true.
>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Back to alt.comp.software.firefox | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 20:06 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-15 04:17 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-15 04:42 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 21:56 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-15 06:01 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 22:05 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 22:03 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-15 14:21 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 14:44 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-15 15:02 +0000
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 06:04 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-16 15:09 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-15 11:23 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 05:57 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-03-15 06:57 +0000
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-15 13:06 +0000
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 07:55 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-15 13:36 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-15 19:45 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" None <none@none.none> - 2025-03-15 14:43 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-15 21:15 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-15 16:07 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 21:24 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-17 13:12 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 01:42 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-18 11:41 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 23:28 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 23:41 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 23:59 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-19 20:43 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-20 09:31 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-20 13:25 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-20 21:39 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-21 02:11 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-21 11:53 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-21 13:46 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-22 14:50 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-22 13:40 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-22 20:59 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-23 10:27 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-22 04:40 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-15 18:03 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-16 03:19 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 23:45 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 20:31 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 21:20 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 12:25 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 21:24 +0100
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 23:40 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 06:09 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-16 09:57 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-16 15:11 +0000
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-17 13:06 -0500
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-16 09:13 -0700
Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 20:25 -0500
csiph-web