There is is. I do not find it sufficient:

v 1.9.2.3
======
+ A "NoScript development support filterset" gets added to AdBlock
    Plus, whitelisting the noscript.net, flashgot.net, informaction.com
    and hackademix.net web sites recently broken by an aggressive
    EasyList campaign against sites sponsoring NoScript development.
    ABP users are informed both on the install and on the release notes
    pages, so they can easily disable the filterset if they whish to.

but the Mozilla Add-on Policy requires them to inform you in some detail of what is being changed by an update. Since you're in a browser, a web page seems the logical way to do it.

Maybe you shouldn't update them all at the same time?

Specifically, he failed to follow these:

"Also, it is important that you maintain version notes appropriately as you improve and change your add-on. Users should be able to see what's new in an add-on they may have tried previously, and should be made aware of changes that might affect their current use of the add-on when they update."

He can add it to the change list to satisfy this requirement.

"Your software should not intrude on the user unnecessarily, try to trick the user, or conceal any of its activities from the user."

I think that clearly user permission is required before altering other installed add-ons. Or he could just fail to operate if the ads aren't loaded and warn the user that one of his/her other add-ons is incompatible. I know which of the two I would uninstall.

I always thought the incremental updates to NoScript were too frequent to be entirely for the benefit of its users.

1) Involuntary web page visits after an update
2) serve ads
3) no step 3
4) profit

He probably looks for any typo that he can fix to get the next update out on time. At some point he needs to just call it adware, and I think we'd all agree that point has been reached. I'm now going find a way to avoid going to his page after an update, that way it won't matter if his ads were blocked or not.

"...an indication that you were using stenography."

They can always just ask the stenographer if she did any work for you, and then she rats you out.

Lesson: Don't use stenographers. Typing is fast enough.

Ah, it's the old "now they're better" argument. My laptop with a Radeon 9600 still can't suspend with the proprietary driver. Sometimes it locks up when I enable an external monitor with their utility (gotta save all my work before trying that one.) Seriously, I hear the same thing about MS and security. If they're living with a reputation they've earned, don't expect that to change overnight. And don't blame users who've gotten bad support, even if their data is a little out of date. If I'm going to get screwed again, at least it won't be by the same company.

My next laptop will have Nvidia based on the experiences with my current one. Maybe after that they'll get another shot.

They probably will get free academic or community involvement. Just like Linux development, a few get paid, most work for free.

Oh, now it's personal? While you willingly treat customers however the corporation tells you, expect a little flak.

I agree that cleverness is wasted. This is bureaucracy 101 - get in and get out. The supervisor's a waste too, unless you think you'll get a better deal. These days you're likely to hear, "I'm sorry, my supervisor is not available, but I can have him call you back."

Yeah Mandrake. I knew I was late to the game, but finally tried Mandrake 6. I picked that one for the graphical installer. It was easy and nice looking with a ton of dev tools. I was happy. Wish I'd tried it sooner.

They never should have changed the name. Mandrake Linux could not be confused with Mandrake the Magician.

>> it is safer than downloading random EXEs from the Internet.

>How does that follow?

>I mean, it's correct on the technicality that nobody (or almost nobody) writes malware for Linux compared to
>Windows, but that doesn't make it safer by design.

Malware in a repository does not survive as long as malware in a random EXE on the internet. However, this is a benefit of open source repositories, not Linux.

using Ubuntu I do have to use the CLI to perform certain tasks. Often they are tasks I like the CLI for better, but I recognize that isn't the case for normal users.

I have to agree that there's a need to be specific here. Is it something a normal user needs to do? I sometimes install Linux for normal users. Once I finish configuring, I am assuming they won't ever need the terminal. If that's wrong, please let me know.

Copying protected files in nautilus was a good example. I think it should give me a way to override the error. Currently I go to the terminal when that happens.

"Odd. I believe I haven't seen my Ubuntu beep, well, ever..."

Really?? All I have to do is connect or disconnect the power supply on my laptop. When the terminal is open I get it all the time for command completion. This thread has reminded me that I'd really rather have it off than muting the speakers all the time.

"An independent thinker cannot back MS?"

Someone who currently backs MS 100% of the time regardless of the issue is not an independent thinker. Simple really. Stop pretending you're independent.

"If you claim that Word and Excel did not run as standard users, you are now exposing yourself as a liar."

Oh right! If it didn't happen to you then it didn't happen. You won't want to read this link:

Office 2007 Unusable in Limited User Account

I had this problem, but it was better than the crash that I use to get, which only happened as a limited user. So, you don't know what you're talking about. It's a fact that you don't want to be a standard user on Windows XP. Do you like getting updates to those required anti-virus programs? Then you may want to be an administrator.

Prediction: You will now go on to deny that Windows XP and every prior version had a problem with this, or you'll say that it doesn't matter now that everything has been fixed in Vista. It's enough to make anyone wonder why Windows 7 is coming so soon, when Vista was so perfect.

That's just the point: What discoveries?! The patent looks like it takes existing LAN and DSP technology and adds, "but do it wirelessly." This is shades of patents that added "but do it on the internet". Where a specific infringement is not obvious, I wonder if the vague and all-encompassing idea of using a wireless LAN in an office or home setting would allow them to attack any home wireless technology, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with their invention.

I was looking forward to the legal battle, but I guess CSIRO gave them a price they couldn't pass up. Maybe now we'll never find out what they "discovered".

Here is homer's standard operating procedure:

1. Someone says anything negative about Microsoft where you can read it.
2. You say: It's a myth that Microsoft does that. They have no choice. It's not their fault. Groupthink! Groupthink!
3. Someone says, but what about x, y, and z?
4. Deny.
5. Deny.
6. Deny.
7. Claim to know more, but don't actually present a counter argument.

It must never get old for you.

"how dare anyone defend MS on slashdot?"

No, how dare you do nothing but defend MS on slashdot, then call yourself and independent thinker. About the third time that you dug in your heels on something obvious, and not very important, I started to wonder what was up with you. Now we know.

I don't care about DRM. It really was on the list of things you posted recently. Again, I was being factual, and you completely misread the plain meaning of it.

"Now you need to fall back on plain english."

In case you missed it, all of my post were in English. Even when we used different terms, my follow up explained how I was using them. At which point you can continue to argue about what's an admin, or you can actually say something about why you prefer admins on Windows. You chose the former.

Speaking of English comprehension, if I say that being able to run without root privileges is new to Windows, that doesn't mean I didn't know XP has standard users. If I say that those standard users were unusable, it might mean that I think not being able to use ordinary applications, including Microsoft applications like Word and Excel, made the standard user unusable. And if I post a link to a Microsoft executive admitting that they coded like this prior to Vista, then you really should be able to comprehend that.