i read maintenance service has many bugs and problems.
i never install it, i choose custom installation and unchecke its checkbox.
i never update my firefox and so, set it to never update and also
changed many uptions in about:config to be sure anythings never be
updated for me!
maintenance service is just for updating firefox without users
interaction and silently updates firefox without any notification!

On 11/6/17, Gene <gsasner@...> wrote:
> All the update options are obvious.  There is an automatically update
> option, an option to notify you when an update is available and an option to
> never update.  I don't know if you are saying not all the update options are
> obviouls or not all the options available in the entire options dialog are
> obvious.
>
> If somene doesn't know how or has problems finding the update settings, how
> to find them can be explained and once explained, it shouldn't be difficult
> to find them.  But remopving the actual service itself is a really terrible
> idea.
>
> Gene
>
>
> From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 3:53 AM
> To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>
>
> That is a bit of a sledgehammer way. You can set it in the options, but
> quite what all the choices do is not instantly obvious, except the one to
> say never update of course!
>  Brian
>
> bglists@...
> Sent via blueyonder.
> Please address personal email to:-
> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name field.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "zahra" <nasrinkhaksar3@...>
> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>
>
> just delete maintainance service in your control panel, i mean
> uninstall it and go to options, advance, update and set your desires.
>
> On 11/6/17, Sharni-Lee Ward <sharni-lee.ward@...> wrote:
>> How can I make sure Firefox won't update? I don't want my go-to browser
>> to be unusable!
>>
>>
>> On 6/11/2017 10:17 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> I thought that was why there were beta versions before the main
>>> release, to get these issues ironed out in the first place?
>>> At 07:47 PM 11/5/2017, you wrote:
>>>> Well how does one actually get it to work then, I cannot get to
>>>> anything I can read in order to check if the option is set wrongly, I
>>>> was under the impression that it was supposed to be off by default.
>>>> this has not been my experience, either that or there are more
>>>> serious issues on the 32 bit version or it has problems in windows 7.
>>>> No My thrust and that of several others I know is that it has been
>>>> sprung on people. IE if there was a version of firefox that by
>>>> default could not be used by the sighted it would never leave the
>>>> developers.
>>>> My point is that I'm sick and tired of being a second class citizen
>>>> simply because I'm blind, and its about time these people got their
>>>> fingers out of their ears or wherever they put them, not wanting to
>>>> be rude and embraced accessibility at the start of a new concept not
>>>> half way through it.
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> bglists@...
>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>> in the display name field.
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Isige" <gwynn@...>
>>>> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My apologies, I misunderstood your rhetoric comment. That's what comes
>>>> of trying to do two things at once. Also to be clear, I'm not saying we
>>>> shouldn't question changes. I think it's fine and valuable to ask what
>>>> changes are being made and why they're being made. But there are some
>>>> people who seem to assume they're almost always bad and are the start
>>>> down a path for changes for the worst, it seems to me, and that's what
>>>> I
>>>> object to. As you say, and a few others have reported this here as
>>>> well,
>>>> the new Firefox with the option set correctly seems to be mostly fine,
>>>> if slow. And if not, as you've also pointed out, we have other browsers
>>>> to use until it gets straightened out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also think it's valuable to point out that these aren't ham-fisted
>>>> sledgehammer changes, they are perhaps fairly large changes sure, but
>>>> they're not being done just because, they're being done for a perfectly
>>>> valid security reason. I figured I'd better provide examples instead of
>>>> just telling people it's an issue, now we can all see the potential
>>>> problems with code injection. I should add, I'm really glad the new
>>>> update is mostly fine, though I might use the extended release myself.
>>>> I
>>>> use Firefox as my daily browser and haven't really found any of the
>>>> others to my liking for various reasons, though I need to play with
>>>> them
>>>> some more because of course accessibility keeps improving for them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Man I remember the days of IE 6 or 7 when JFW's Firefox support wasn't
>>>> that great, and IE updated and JFW hadn't caught up yet. Called tech
>>>> support and they insisted I couldn't be running the new version of IE
>>>> because the new version of IE didn't work with JFW. At least we've got
>>>> some pretty decent alternatives nowadays. I'm not even sure if Firefox
>>>> was supported yet, it was ages ago when this happened, but I remember I
>>>> had all kinds of issues browsing until it got updated eventually. And
>>>> that line will stick in my head forever, "you can't be running that",
>>>> I'm like "dude it's right here on my machine"! I think I even cranked
>>>> speech up over the speakers and made it read the version number. Fun
>>>> times!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/4/2017 23:45, Ron Canazzi wrote:
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boy, you really like to press home a point. I didn't fundamentally
>>>>> disagree with you on any of that. In fact, according to beta testers,
>>>>> Firefox 57 without the check box checked isn't very much different
>>>>> than earlier versions. In addition, I have begun to use Edge for many
>>>>> things. The only major issue I see with Edge and NVDA is it is a bit
>>>>> erratic in forms mode. For example on the Send Space page where you
>>>>> have to click on buttons and make descriptive editions if desired,
>>>>> NVDA keeps slipping in and out of forms mode. I bet they nail this one
>>>>> down either later this year or early next year. I can use Edge for
>>>>> anything now including forms and similar editable pages--with some
>>>>> difficulty.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I only objected to your wholesale condemnation of all blind people who
>>>>> raised questions about changes in accessibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/4/2017 9:57 PM, John Isige wrote:
>>>>>> Ah. Rhetoric. Like this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://blog.trendmicro.com/mozilla-firefox-exploit-enlists-pcs-advanced-botnet/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.welivesecurity.com/2015/08/11/firefox-under-fire-anatomy-of-latest-0-day-attack/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason you're not hacked any more than other people is because
>>>>>> Firefox updates for security, i.e. the very thing people are
>>>>>> complaining
>>>>>> about now because it's updating in a way that happens to mess with
>>>>>> screen readers. It's true that, so far as I know, neither of these
>>>>>> injection attacks are the kind of code injection screen readers do.
>>>>>> That's because screen readers are local though and not using
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> like JavaScript, but that's about the only difference. And you should
>>>>>> particularly note from the second link that the particular code
>>>>>> injection attack being discussed there allows reading and writing of
>>>>>> local files as well as uploading them. Have a credit card number
>>>>>> written
>>>>>> down somewhere for easy access? Get infected by that thing and it
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> very well be uploaded to a site for somebody else to try and use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is, injection attacks happen, they're bad, and this is
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> way to try and stop them. There's a real purpose to this change,
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> or not anybody happens to like or agree with it. It's not just
>>>>>> rhetoric,
>>>>>> there are real examples of it, as I've just demonstrated. There's
>>>>>> also a
>>>>>> way for screen readers to deal with browsers that doesn't involve
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> injection, I believe this is how NVDA deals with Microsoft Edge
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> Edge doesn't allow code injection. That's also part of why
>>>>>> everybody's
>>>>>> still working on Edge accessibility, sure, that way doesn't
>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>> overnight, it has to be implemented and I'm sure issues have to be
>>>>>> worked out with it, e.g. if a browser needs to expose certain
>>>>>> things it
>>>>>> doesn't currently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get that the change Firefox is making isn't ideal for us, I'm just
>>>>>> saying, there's a reason for it, and there are a lot of
>>>>>> alternatives to
>>>>>> using the new Firefox, including an older accessible version of
>>>>>> Firefox
>>>>>> if you don't feel like trying to change browsers and use Chrome or
>>>>>> Edge
>>>>>> until better accessibility for the new version of Firefox is worked
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>> There's no reason to assume that the sky is falling and that nothing
>>>>>> will ever get better because clearly, Firefox is going down the
>>>>>> road of
>>>>>> hating blind people and ignoring them entirely and thus we're all
>>>>>> crewed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/4/2017 19:13, Ron Canazzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides all that rhetoric, Mozilla has set the 'disable all
>>>>>>> accessibility features' item to unchecked by default. As long as you
>>>>>>> don't turn it on by accident, there shouldn't be any problem. I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> know what the chance of you getting infected or hacked by
>>>>>>> something is
>>>>>>> when this item is turned off, but I would imagine it isn't very high
>>>>>>> because I don't see any greater number of blind people getting
>>>>>>> hacked
>>>>>>> proportionately than sighted folks. Still there is an issue with
>>>>>>> security now of days and it probably won't get any better for years.
>>>>>>> Some people have already tested 57 with screen readers and were
>>>>>>> careful not to check the box and things seem reasonably good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/4/2017 6:08 PM, John Isige wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you'd read all of the stuff in Freedom Scientific's post, you
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> have seen this link.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Code injection is a horrible idea from a security standpoint and
>>>>>>>> also a
>>>>>>>> coding one. It was something that was necessary back in the day,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> probably isn't anymore. So that was a change that probably should
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> happened long before now anyway. It makes sense as a change and
>>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>>> going to cause this issue whenever it happened. Not only do we have
>>>>>>>> several accessible browsers to choose from, we have an accessible
>>>>>>>> version of the one with the problem and one assumes work will be
>>>>>>>> done to
>>>>>>>> make the current version accessible. Seriously, do you people do
>>>>>>>> anything other than bitch about stuff? I'm beginning to wonder. I
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> that the transition is annoying, sure. but some times there are
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> good reasons to change things, however annoying the transition
>>>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>>> to be, and honestly, this one isn't all that bad in the grand
>>>>>>>> scheme of
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2017 4:14, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, However I am critical of Mozillas handling of this. Its
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> often that the makers of Jaws put up a page about the pitfalls and
>>>>>>>>> also criticise a particular company for being unthinking about
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> policy toward the VI community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let us hope that somebody in the management at that organisation
>>>>>>>>> takes
>>>>>>>>> us more seriously, however I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not
>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> if jamie working for them will help much if the culture is going
>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>> the road toward making all software inaccessible to stop
>>>>>>>>> hacking. He
>>>>>>>>> is probably not the most tactful person in the world as indeed
>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>> am I. I can now afford to grow old disgracefully. Age has its
>>>>>>>>> advantages as history does tend to repeat itself and we have all
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> here before, sadly.
>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bglists@...
>>>>>>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>>>>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>>>>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>>>>>>> in the display name field.
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "никиÑ,а Ñ,аÑ?Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð²"
>>>>>>>>> <ntarasov29@...>
>>>>>>>>> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 6:41 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello. I don't think it's worth installing Mozila 57 until she's
>>>>>>>>> fully
>>>>>>>>> available to NVDA.
>>>>>>>>> ÐzÑ,пÑ?авлено из ÐYоÑ?Ñ,Ñ< длѠ Windows 10
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ÐzÑ,: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
>>>>>>>>> ÐzÑ,пÑ?авлено: 3 Ð½Ð¾Ñ Ð±Ñ?Ñ  2017 г. в 21:17
>>>>>>>>> ÐsомÑf: nvda@nvda.groups.io
>>>>>>>>> Тема: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes I saw a message on the issues list from James, about some
>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> version 58, so maybe it will get resolved from the currently
>>>>>>>>> unusable
>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>> Its new users of any screenreader I feel sorry for, especially
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> its a
>>>>>>>>> shared machine and the sighted member just lets firefox update.
>>>>>>>>> There are a couple of other issues. It disabled both my add ons,
>>>>>>>>> navigational sounds and Ublock Origin ad blocker and even when I
>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> version 52 back on I had to re download both add ons and install
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>> Not only that but nvda after the update could not read the
>>>>>>>>> screen of
>>>>>>>>> the add
>>>>>>>>> ons manager, I had to exit firefox completely and go back in
>>>>>>>>> again to
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> if they had installed correctly, I'm sure this was not the case
>>>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>>> to up
>>>>>>>>> and down dating the version I had, which was 55. How also does one
>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>> 52 to
>>>>>>>>> get security updates without letting it update to 57 as I see it
>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>> till I set updates to no, ie not recommended.
>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bglists@...
>>>>>>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>>>>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>>>>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>>>>>>> in the display name field.
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Mendoza"
>>>>>>>>> <lowvisiontek@...>
>>>>>>>>> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 10:31 AM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Brian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have the same issue on the other machine, and that is the
>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>> why I
>>>>>>>>>> keep to shift instead to use the Firefox ESR version 52 but for
>>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> stick to this version because there is likely more stable in
>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>> and never has a problem. And, once the issue has fix maybe I
>>>>>>>>>> could go
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> to use and test it again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Robert Mendoza
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2017 6:00 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> With regard to this version of Firefox, and in addition to what
>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>> posted about it. Here is what me acting as the average unaware
>>>>>>>>>>> updater
>>>>>>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>>>>>> After installation only the menus work, no content on the page
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> readable, you cannot go into any browse or focus mode. You just
>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>> unknown.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now there may well be some kind of setting that can be altered,
>>>>>>>>>>> I do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> know, to achieve what he got, slow but functioning. I could not
>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> option for this. Not only that but it seemed to lose almost half
>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>> bookmarks as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So unless they fix this on the release version anyone trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to use
>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox 57 when it comes out with the latest version of nvda,
>>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>> am up
>>>>>>>>>>> to date with the master branch here, will not be able to do so
>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>> they know how to make it work.
>>>>>>>>>>> If these people are employees then they will probably need the
>>>>>>>>>>> permission
>>>>>>>>>>> of an admin to reinstall a version like 55, and turn off auto
>>>>>>>>>>> updates. I
>>>>>>>>>>> have reinstalled 52 in actual fact and got my bookmarks back as
>>>>>>>>>>> well as
>>>>>>>>>>> functionality. To my mind the makers of Firefox at the current
>>>>>>>>>>> state of
>>>>>>>>>>> play should be able to see if screenreading software is on a
>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>> similar way to Adobe reader or Jarte does, and prevent it from
>>>>>>>>>>> updating
>>>>>>>>>>> to an unworkable version.
>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot understand why they have not done this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to comment?
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bglists@...
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>>>>>>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>>>>>>>>> in the display name field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> we have not sent you but as a mercy to the entire creation.
> holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
> in the very authentic narration from prophet Mohammad is:
> indeed, imam husayn is the beacon of guidance and the ark of salvation.
> best website for studying islamic book in different languages
> www.al-islam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
we have not sent you but as a mercy to the entire creation.
holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
in the very authentic narration from prophet Mohammad is:
indeed, imam husayn is the beacon of guidance and the ark of salvation.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
www.al-islam.org