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.
Retirednoguilt wrote:Should a user (for whatever reason) 'uninstall/re-install' then that
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 ...
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.
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.)
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what policy
it suggests. Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it
would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
On 4/25/26 11:13, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what policy
it suggests. Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it
would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
149 is gone. 150 says "The Enterprise Policies service is inactive."
policies.json is listed in the Documentation List and is exactly what I
have.
============
policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true | false
}
}
=============
Is there perhaps a different location from firefox/distribution now?
On 4/25/26 11:25, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/25/26 11:13, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what policy >>> it suggests. Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it
would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
149 is gone. 150 says "The Enterprise Policies service is inactive."
policies.json is listed in the Documentation List and is exactly what I
have.
============
policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true | false
}
}
=============
Is there perhaps a different location from firefox/distribution now?
Same location/file on FF149 on a backup from March 31 :-(
In spite of the policies.json file which has worked before. Is there a
new method to stop updates, or are we just hosed?
On 4/25/26 11:13, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what policy
it suggests. Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it
would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
149 is gone. 150 says "The Enterprise Policies service is inactive."
policies.json is listed in the Documentation List and is exactly what I have.
============
policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true | false
}
}
=============
Is there perhaps a different location from firefox/distribution now?
On 4/25/26 2:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/25/26 11:25, The Real Bev wrote:shouldn't that be just true OR false, not both?
On 4/25/26 11:13, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what policy >>>> it suggests. Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it
would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
149 is gone. 150 says "The Enterprise Policies service is inactive."
policies.json is listed in the Documentation List and is exactly what I
have.
============
policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true | false
}
}
=============
Is there perhaps a different location from firefox/distribution now?
Same location/file on FF149 on a backup from March 31 :-(
And if you're on Linux, I don't think json works. You do it with update manager there.
In spite of the policies.json file which has worked before. Is there a
new method to stop updates, or are we just hosed?
On 4/25/26 11:56, Alan K. wrote:
On 4/25/26 2:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/25/26 11:25, The Real Bev wrote:shouldn't that be just true OR false, not both?
On 4/25/26 11:13, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what policy >>>>> it suggests. Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it >>>>> would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
149 is gone. 150 says "The Enterprise Policies service is inactive."
policies.json is listed in the Documentation List and is exactly what I >>>> have.
============
policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true | false
}
}
=============
Is there perhaps a different location from firefox/distribution now?
Same location/file on FF149 on a backup from March 31 :-(
Yes; That was just the listing in the documents. Why anybody would
choose false I have no idea.>
And if you're on Linux, I don't think json works. You do it with update manager there.
The update manager hasn't worked for many years. Perplexity (my
favored AI) finally came up with the answer. Basically, the update
changed the policies.json file to match the windows syntax, which
invalidated it and allowed the update to proceed. Perplexity's fix:
cat -A distribution/policies.json ;reveals ^M corruption
echo '{"policies":{"DisableAppUpdate":true}}' > policies.json ;fixes it about:policies ;confirms "Active"
I wonder what other as-yet-undiscovered wihshit is lurking in the
firefox/ directory.
On 4/25/26 08:45, 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?
Perplexity just solved the problem, also posted further down in the thread.
Basically, the update changed the policies.json file to match the
windows syntax, which invalidated it and allowed the update to proceed. Perplexity's fix:
cat -A distribution/policies.json ;reveals ^M corruption
echo '{"policies":{"DisableAppUpdate":true}}' > policies.json ;fixes it about:policies ;confirms "Active"
The update manager hasn't worked for many years.
Perplexity (my
favored AI) finally came up with the answer. Basically, the update
changed the policies.json file to match the windows syntax, which invalidated it and allowed the update to proceed. Perplexity's fix:
cat -A distribution/policies.json ;reveals ^M corruption
echo '{"policies":{"DisableAppUpdate":true}}' > policies.json ;fixes it about:policies ;confirms "Active"
I wonder what other as-yet-undiscovered wihshit is lurking in the
firefox/ directory.
The Real Bev wrote:
[..snip..]
The update manager hasn't worked for many years.
Which one; and which Linux distribution do you use?
Perplexity (my
favored AI) finally came up with the answer. Basically, the update
changed the policies.json file to match the windows syntax, which
invalidated it and allowed the update to proceed. Perplexity's fix:
cat -A distribution/policies.json ;reveals ^M corruption
echo '{"policies":{"DisableAppUpdate":true}}' > policies.json ;fixes it
about:policies ;confirms "Active"
So frankly - do you understand this blabber? Do you know what it means?
Or do you blindly follow the instructions of your "favored AI"?
I wonder what other as-yet-undiscovered wihshit is lurking in the
firefox/ directory.
I wonder if you are willing to understand the functions and the given
facts of a Linux system. The system that you use.
On 4/25/26 14:03, Frank Miller wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
[..snip..]
The update manager hasn't worked for many years.
Which one; and which Linux distribution do you use?
Perplexity (my
favored AI) finally came up with the answer. Basically, the update
changed the policies.json file to match the windows syntax, which
invalidated it and allowed the update to proceed. Perplexity's fix:
cat -A distribution/policies.json ;reveals ^M corruption
echo '{"policies":{"DisableAppUpdate":true}}' > policies.json ;fixes it
about:policies ;confirms "Active"
So frankly - do you understand this blabber? Do you know what it means?
Or do you blindly follow the instructions of your "favored AI"?
I wonder what other as-yet-undiscovered wihshit is lurking in the
firefox/ directory.
I wonder if you are willing to understand the functions and the given
facts of a Linux system. The system that you use.
Sure, within limits. Yes, I understand that. The problem is when third-party entities interact with other third-party entities, doing
things behind the scenes that are invisible to me. I have other
problems too, of course, but my mitochondria are of little interest to
anyone here.
I know what cat, echo and chmod do. So does everyone reading this
thread, probably. Why would a linux update apply windows formatting to a linux file? No idea, seems either stupid or malevolent. Why would
anyone suspect such a thing?
I'm sorry if I upset you by posting something you felt was... uh... inappropriate is always a useful word. I'll try to have a less-obvious-to-you problem next time.
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.)
On 4/25/26 5:51 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/25/26 14:03, Frank Miller wrote:The ^M corruption you talk about is not corruption. I'll get this wrong but read between
The Real Bev wrote:
[..snip..]
The update manager hasn't worked for many years.
Which one; and which Linux distribution do you use?
Perplexity (my
favored AI) finally came up with the answer. Basically, the update
changed the policies.json file to match the windows syntax, which
invalidated it and allowed the update to proceed. Perplexity's fix:
cat -A distribution/policies.json ;reveals ^M corruption
echo '{"policies":{"DisableAppUpdate":true}}' > policies.json ;fixes it >>>> about:policies ;confirms "Active"
So frankly - do you understand this blabber? Do you know what it means?
Or do you blindly follow the instructions of your "favored AI"?
I wonder what other as-yet-undiscovered wihshit is lurking in the
firefox/ directory.
I wonder if you are willing to understand the functions and the given
facts of a Linux system. The system that you use.
Sure, within limits. Yes, I understand that. The problem is when
third-party entities interact with other third-party entities, doing
things behind the scenes that are invisible to me. I have other
problems too, of course, but my mitochondria are of little interest to
anyone here.
I know what cat, echo and chmod do. So does everyone reading this
thread, probably. Why would a linux update apply windows formatting to a
linux file? No idea, seems either stupid or malevolent. Why would
anyone suspect such a thing?
I'm sorry if I upset you by posting something you felt was... uh...
inappropriate is always a useful word. I'll try to have a
less-obvious-to-you problem next time.
the lines here. Window uses carriage-return line-feed (CRLF) in text files. Linux just
uses carriage-return (CR). So if you grab a policies file from you window HD, and drop it
into Linux, it's got extra characters.
If you had opened it with a proper Linux text
editor and saved it, you probably would have fixed it, but even that might not do it if
the editor is not set for force Linux line endings.
The echo in Linux solves the problem nicely as it writes the file in proper Linux text> For larger files you would have to find a dos2unix script, so sed
format.
Xed in Mint doesn't seem to give me any issues with Windows files.
On 4/25/26 2:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/25/26 11:25, The Real Bev wrote:shouldn't that be just true OR false, not both?
On 4/25/26 11:13, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
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'd take a look at about:policies (under 149 or 150) and see what
policy
it suggests.-a Mozilla have changed this setting's name before and it
would not be a total shock if they changed it again.
149 is gone.-a 150 says "The Enterprise Policies service is inactive."
policies.json is listed in the Documentation List and is exactly what I
have.
============
policies.json
{
-a-a-a-a "policies": {
-a-a-a-a-a-a "DisableAppUpdate": true | false
-a-a-a-a }
}
=============
Is there perhaps a different location from firefox/distribution now?
Same location/file on FF149 on a backup from March 31 :-(
And if you're on Linux, I don't think json works.-a-a You do it with
update manager there.
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:45:01 -0700, The
Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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.)
There is a procedure for reinstalling the previous version but I don't
know much about it. There is a page with a long list of versions for dlownload
I see that 150 is lurking in my future too.
On 4/25/2026 7:58 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:45:01 -0700, The
Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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.)
There is a procedure for reinstalling the previous version but I don't
know much about it. There is a page with a long list of versions for
dlownload
I see that 150 is lurking in my future too.
Looking at all the posts in this thread, this is one of the rare times
that I'm glad that I use windows 11. I'm an end user and both want (and need) to do everything via the GUI. When I turn on my appliances, I
expect them to be user friendly. I shouldn't have to understand what
goes on "under the hood" to be able to start and drive my car, stop when
I brake, and steer to the right when I turn the steering wheel
clockwise. I've driven early model cars (Model A Ford) and had to crank
the engine and adjust the spark advance control on the steering wheel.
Been there, done that. Much prefer dealing with my Prius.
Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 4/25/2026 7:58 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:45:01 -0700, The
Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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.)
There is a procedure for reinstalling the previous version but I don't
know much about it. There is a page with a long list of versions for
dlownload
I see that 150 is lurking in my future too.
Looking at all the posts in this thread, this is one of the rare times
that I'm glad that I use windows 11. I'm an end user and both want (and
need) to do everything via the GUI. When I turn on my appliances, I
expect them to be user friendly. I shouldn't have to understand what
goes on "under the hood" to be able to start and drive my car, stop when
I brake, and steer to the right when I turn the steering wheel
clockwise. I've driven early model cars (Model A Ford) and had to crank
the engine and adjust the spark advance control on the steering wheel.
Been there, done that. Much prefer dealing with my Prius.
My impression is that Bev *is* using some form of Windows, policies.json works for Windows as well as *nix systems but auto-update is something
which is basically there for Windows.
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use >only for taxes -- because I have to.Aw... life's so hard, and then the door to the crematorium beckons.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:11:28 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use >>only for taxes -- because I have to.
Aw... life's so hard, and then the door to the crematorium beckons.
On 4/26/26 15:47, Nobody wrote:But... Win 11 works correctly... Ffox 150.0 works correctly... for
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:11:28 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use >>>only for taxes -- because I have to.
Aw... life's so hard, and then the door to the crematorium beckons.
If noboby every complained we'd still be living in caves and eating raw >meat.
On 4/26/26 15:47, Nobody wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:11:28 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use >>>only for taxes -- because I have to.
Aw... life's so hard, and then the door to the crematorium beckons.
If noboby every complained we'd still be living in caves and eating raw >meat.
Looking at all the posts in this thread, this is one of the rare
times that I'm glad that I use windows 11. I'm an end user and both
want (and need) to do everything via the GUI. When I turn on my
appliances, I expect them to be user friendly.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 17:05:23 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 15:47, Nobody wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:11:28 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use >>>>only for taxes -- because I have to.
Aw... life's so hard, and then the door to the crematorium beckons.
If noboby every complained we'd still be living in caves and eating raw >>meat.
But... Win 11 works correctly... Ffox 150.0 works correctly... for
whomever.
Win 11 is essentially souped-up Win 10 which ticked over flawlessly
for how many?
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use only for taxes -- because I have to. Win3.1 was OK, as was Win95, but
it went downhill from there.
On 4/26/26 18:49, Nobody wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 17:05:23 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 15:47, Nobody wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:11:28 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a Win11 (sorry I upgraded to 11, 10 was better) laptop that I use >>>>> only for taxes -- because I have to.
Aw... life's so hard, and then the door to the crematorium beckons.
If noboby every complained we'd still be living in caves and eating raw >>> meat.
But... Win 11 works correctly... Ffox 150.0 works correctly... for
whomever.
Win 11 is essentially souped-up Win 10 which ticked over flawlessly
for how many?
It works well enough, but there are things that I don't know how to make
it do -- like show subdirectories with ALL the file info for as many
files as I can fit on the screen. 10 did it, but 11 shows me only SOME stuff. Visual personalization is really important to me. I like to be
able to move and resize windows easily. I spent a lot of time fixing
win7 the way I wanted it, but had to stop using it this year. My heart
just isn't up to climbing the win11 learning curve just to make my once-a-year tax stuff a little easier.
< Or Ffox 150.0 for how many without grizzling/grumbling/bitching?
Grizzling?
On 4/27/2026 12:48 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
My heartPerhaps you should explore programs that provide more features than File Explorer. I've never done so because I still can see what I need to do
just isn't up to climbing the win11 learning curve just to make my
once-a-year tax stuff a little easier.
< Or Ffox 150.0 for how many without grizzling/grumbling/bitching?
Grizzling?
using File Explorer.
I did my own taxes for more than 65 years until Congress finally made
the tax code so complicated that I could no longer answer all the
questions that Turbo Tax now requires to deal with what my return
requires. So I blame Congress for me finally having to spend much more
than the price of TurboTax and use a professional tax preparer.
Thinking back, I didn't even need Turbo Tax until about 30 years ago. I
just used the IRS instructions, pen and paper with an occasional assist
from a pocket calculator or desktop adding machine. I guess I'm finally having to pay back all the $$ I saved over all the years I was able to prepare my own returns.
On 4/27/26 10:42, Retirednoguilt wrote:
I did my own taxes with a calculator and pen and paper for a long time,
but a friend gave me a copy of Howardsoft (text-only, better than HRB or
TT) and I never looked back. I tried to e-file with TT, which lied to me
about success; I sent in paper anyway, which is fortunate because TT
did NOT submit it and I would have been late. I switched to HRBlock
then. Clunkier and sometimes it neads to be beaten into submission, but
it works. I get the 'Deluxe' version and have done some complicated
self-employment stuff with it. The question+answer format is annoying,
but sometimes it requires you to do that so I just gave up and use it.
Some things would have been better done by filling in a form directly
(do you REALLY need a whole sheet of paper for a $12.00 dividend that
some damn company insists on sending me quarterly checks for?), but I
didn't.
I don't want to think about this; I just want to feed in numbers, write checks and forget about it for another year.
Perhaps the top-level TT software would do what you need. It's gotta be cheaper than an accountant. Maybe HRBlock will work better. It will
suck in last year's TT return, as TT will suck in last year's HRB return.
I did my own taxes with a calculator and pen and paper for a long time,
but a friend gave me a copy of Howardsoft (text-only, better than HRB or
TT) and I never looked back.
. . .--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
If noboby every complained we'd still be living in caves and eating
raw meat.
My heart just isn't up to climbing the win11 learning curve just to
make my once-a-year tax stuff a little easier.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:48:53 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
My heart just isn't up to climbing the win11 learning curve just to
make my once-a-year tax stuff a little easier.
Here in NZ we get to do our taxes online. Nobody forces us to use
proprietary software.
On 4/26/26 09:46, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
No.-a This computer is slackware-only.-a Perplexity figured that Firefox
had somehow, in its infinite wisdom, added windows-formatting characters (CRLF instead of just CR) to the text file in question.-a That seemed to
be the problem, and the solution given was correct.
I did my own taxes for more than 65 years until Congress finally
made the tax code so complicated that I could no longer answer all
the questions that Turbo Tax now requires to deal with what my
return requires.
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
}
}
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Retirednoguilt wrote:
I did my own taxes for more than 65 years until Congress finally
made the tax code so complicated that I could no longer answer all
the questions that Turbo Tax now requires to deal with what my
return requires.
Do you get a guide booklet? We do ><https://www.ird.govt.nz/en/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/what-happens-at-the-end-of-the-tax-year/individual-income-tax-return---ir3/complete-my-individual-income-tax-return---ir3>.
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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
problem - got there.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Retirednoguilt wrote:
I did my own taxes for more than 65 years until Congress finally
made the tax code so complicated that I could no longer answer all
the questions that Turbo Tax now requires to deal with what my
return requires.
Do you get a guide booklet? We do <https://www.ird.govt.nz/en/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/what-happens-at-the-end-of-the-tax-year/individual-income-tax-return---ir3/complete-my-individual-income-tax-return---ir3>.
On 4/27/2026 2:28 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
Perhaps the top-level TT software would do what you need. It's gotta be... I
cheaper than an accountant. Maybe HRBlock will work better. It will
suck in last year's TT return, as TT will suck in last year's HRB return.
won't and can't get into details, but several years ago I ended up involuntarily owning a type of security that is totally unknown to
probably over 95% of all taxpayers and Congress decided this past year
to complicate taxes related to that ownership even more than it did in
the past. Four different tax preparers I went to refused to deal with
it. I finally had to find a CPA who specialized in tax preparation to
do my return. As you can imagine, it wasn't cheap. In fact, it cost
more than the profit I earned from the investment last year. I think
I'll sell it. It will probably save me money and I can go back to using
TT -I hope.
I think Turbo Tax is overpriced.
There are competing software packages out there. This is a good thing,
For 1040s, as I commented in the other followup, I maintain my own spreadsheet.
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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
problem - got there.
wishes. I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or simple clumsiness. Core dump complete.
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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
problem - got there.
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.
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.-a Some years
ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
policies.json fix -- which worked until today.-a Posted herewith:
Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain
the file policies.json which contains
{
-a-a "policies": {
-a-a-a-a "DisableAppUpdate": true
-a-a }
}
Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
-a 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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
-a problem - got there.
wishes.-a I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or>>> simple clumsiness.-a Core dump complete.
You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
-a for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored>> -a in a json file.
The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the purpose.-a Fixing it worked.
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.-a Some years
ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
policies.json fix -- which worked until today.-a Posted herewith:
Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain
the file policies.json which contains
{
-a-a "policies": {
-a-a-a-a "DisableAppUpdate": true
-a-a }
}
Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
-a 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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
-a problem - got there.
wishes.-a I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
simple clumsiness.-a Core dump complete.
You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
-a for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
-a in a json file.
The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the
purpose.-a 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 canrCOt connect to the server at about:config
^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs an
update.
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.
Richmond wrote:
dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> writes:
^M is not a corruption, this is how cat -A shows CR, your AI needs anSurely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the
update.
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.
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 anSurely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the
update.
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).
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.-a Some years
ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
policies.json fix -- which worked until today.-a Posted herewith:
Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain
the file policies.json which contains
{
-a-a "policies": {
-a-a-a-a "DisableAppUpdate": true
-a-a }
}
Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
-a 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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express
-a problem - got there.
wishes.-a I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
simple clumsiness.-a Core dump complete.
You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
-a for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
-a in a json file.
The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the
purpose.-a 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 canrCOt 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 blockedabout:config, but you didn't test whether
it blocked an update, or if the update altered the json file.
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.
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.-a Some years >>>>>>> ago it stopped working and some kind person posted the
policies.json fix -- which worked until today.-a Posted herewith: >>>>>>>
Make a new firefox/distribution/ subdirectory which will contain >>>>>>> the file policies.json which contains
{
-a-a "policies": {
-a-a-a-a "DisableAppUpdate": true
-a-a }
}
Did that 'kind person' provide a policies.json file for you to
-a 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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express >>>>> wishes.-a I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
-a problem - got there.
simple clumsiness.-a Core dump complete.
You /found/ them after the unwanted update. Were they responsible
-a for it? I doubt it: line endings - of either type - are ignored
-a in a json file.
The windows endings damaged the file such that it no longer served the
purpose.-a 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 canrCOt 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.
On 29/04/2026 17:47, Richmond wrote:
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 theThey appeared when Firefox chose to update itself against my express >>>>>> wishes. I suspect that Firefox did it of its own volition -- or
problem - got there.
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 canrCOt 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.
I tested policies.json, which was reported corrupted, with both CRLF and
LF, any policy will do, we don't need to wait for the next update. Policies.json is not included by default, updates will either not touch
it at all or remove it completely, depending on how you update.
Since we can't see the original file there is no way to tell how it was changed.
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 anSurely that was the point, there isn't supposed to be a CR in the
update.
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).
dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> Wrote in message:
On 29/04/2026 17:47, Richmond wrote:
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 canrCOt 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.
I tested policies.json, which was reported corrupted, with both CRLF and
LF, any policy will do, we don't need to wait for the next update.
Policies.json is not included by default, updates will either not touch
it at all or remove it completely, depending on how you update.
Since we can't see the original file there is no way to tell how it was
changed.
Why might an update remove policies.json? I assume that the
firefox updater will read it if it's there but never write to it.
The point of it is that it's user, or organisation,
controlled.
I did wonder if updates might /update/ policies.json, for changes
in format say, in the way they update a profile. But I doubt
it.
On Debian I have tarballs of Fx nightly and TB beta, in addtion to
packaged versions for regular use. They do not include a
distribution/ directory or a template policies.json.
On 4/29/26 12:20, Dave Royal wrote:
dillinger <dillinger@invalid.not> Wrote in message:
On 29/04/2026 17:47, Richmond wrote:
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
canrCOt 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. >>> I tested
policies.json, which was reported corrupted, with both >>> CRLF
and LF, any policy will do, we don't need to wait for the next >>>
update. >>> Policies.json is not included by default, updates
will either not >>> touch it at all or remove it completely,
depending on how you >>> update. >>> Since we can't see the
original file there is no way to tell how it >>> was changed. >>
Why might an update remove policies.json? I assume that the >>
firefox updater will read it if it's there but never write to it.
controlled. >> I did wonder if updates might /update/The point of it is that it's user, or organisation, >>
policies.json, for changes >> in format say, in the way they
update a profile. But I doubt >> it. >> On Debian I have tarballs
of Fx nightly and TB beta, in addtion to >> packaged versions for
regular use. They do not include a >> distribution/ directory or a
template policies.json.
No, they're not included with the tarball. "Some kind person" posted
the fix at some point in the past (earliest I have is Firefox 72, July 7,2020) posted how to do it. If I want to use a newer version I don't update. I download the tarball, untar it into its own subdirectory
and run it from within that subdirectory (/blabla/firefox/firefox -P
&). After running it once I exit and copy over (cp -rf *) my previous
profile into the newly created profile. Accordingly, I have at least
a dozen fully functional firefoxes. TMI, but there it is.
Worked fine until somebody said that FF148 had some sort of security
problem, at which point I did an update to 149 rather than building a
whole new installation. I think I renamed the policies.json file,
which would have been the simplest thing. Sorry I can't be more
certain. Then I would have renamed it back. And then I got the
unwanted surprise of the 150 update. I turned the problem over to Perplexity, which provided the solution. If anyone is interested I
can have Perplexity generate a nice pdf file of the entire
interchange.
I assume that firefox does some variant of cp -rf * when it updates
and then does some profile-creation stuff and god knows what else. It
must also use some touch-like command, becuase the date of the
policies.json file was the same as the date on all the other FF 150 subdirectories and files. I don't remember looking at the
FF149/firefox files because I would have had no reason to. And that
must be when the mischief occurred.
AH-HAH! At some point when I first heard about the policies.json
thing I was unsure about where to put it, so I put one in the /firefox subdirectory. It's still there, and contains the ^M characters. They
seem to be M- instead of ^M, for what it's worth. Its date is the same
as all the others -- April 24 19:37.
cat -A policies.json {$ M- "policies": {$ M- M- "DisableAppUpdate":
true$ M- }$ }$ $
Most JSON parsers only treat ASCII
whitespace (regular space, tab, newline) as insignificant
whitespace. Non-breaking spaces can cause parse errors depending on the parser.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:52:28 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,321 |