661–670 of 733 posts
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-55.0-release-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And they have some of the best extensions. Sadly 11 of the 14 extensions i use do not work on Firefox 57 (i just tried it). The browser is indeed faster - it feels faster than Chrome and Edge - but i never really had an issue with its performance. On the other hand i have a very big issue with the functionality that is lost. Stylish, FireFTP, Greasemonkey (with its own extensions), Better Reader, DownThemAll and a…
Looked into Palemoon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM will exist with or without EME, and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. So EME versus no EME is a wash there, and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" -- it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music. Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99…
>>DRM will exist with or without EME Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard >and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all >and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" No it can only be done by principled stands >it has to be done via market forces, as it was with o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM will exist with or without EME, and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. So EME versus no EME is a wash there, and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" -- it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music. Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99…
>>DRM will exist with or without EME Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard >and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all >and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" No it can only be done by principled stands >it has to be done via market forces, as it was with o…
Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge. Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store, but had a problem: they needed to have the music from Amazon play on devices from Apple, or else people wouldn't shop at Amazon's music store. Since Apple probably wouldn't license Apple's DRM (since, after all, it would be for someone to break Apple's market position), the only option left was DRM-free. And lo and behold, Amazon became the first big music store with major-label music available DRM-free. And once there was one DRM-free store, it became hard to argue, from a market perspective, that there should be any that weren't. So Apple's ended up DRM-free too!
Market forces. Not people taking stands on principle.
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be)
And here we are, back at the assertion that anyone who differs from your position by even a tiny amount must actually be 100% your enemy in every way. This is the kind of thinking that the twentieth century taught us to be very careful around, because it tends to lead to lots and lots and lots of dead bodies, all of them people who were "guilty" of being insufficiently perfectly compliant with the stated ideal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people? This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're sayin…
>>This is not hyperbole yes, yes it is The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc.
Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damn, I am commenting right now from 57.0b4 and it's so, so fast. It properly recovered the 50 or so tabs I had open from the prior version, and even as I rapidly clicked from tab to tab Firefox didn't skip a beat. I never left Firefox though, it's been my primary browser for ~12 years. Fuck Chrome! I can say without a doubt that 57.0b4 is more performant than any Chrome / Chromium version that I've begrudgingly used…
Fuck chrome? Whoa what did Chrome do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most firefox UI code is lazy loaded, and the pocket extension was a pretty simple thing that hit an endpoint. I doubt you could speed things up by removing it.
of course you speed things up, it takes a bit of time to go through the process of removing the icon and disabling it on a fresh install. when you have several install to do, it quickly adds up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share your views and I am as angry as you are, but I think you are idealizing the Mozilla of the past. I always felt that Mozilla was just forced in a role it never really wanted. If you remember Mozilla was a child of the browser wars and my guesss is that if Netscape wasn’t cornered by MS it would still be closed source today. Even today you can see that business is still in their DNA, the for-profit subsidiary.…
Actually mozilla means Mosaic Killer as their sole purpose was to replace NCSA mosaic browser to become the n°1 browser. It was the internal codename and user-agent for netscape and became the name of mozilla a reminder that their objective is to be the number 1 browser and the new target to replace had been IE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Duo is certainly not "failed"; it's actually doing very well internationally. It has the best video quality at the least bandwidth. If I launched an app that got over a hundred million downloads and had many millions of monthly users I certainly wouldn't call that a failure!
Duo is an MFA. Whatever GOOG did that's called Duo failed because I don't know what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"small subset"?! Most Firefox users don't install addons at all . The number of people who want to install addons from random untrusted places is really tiny. Developer Edition is not alpha.
Well, you're wrong. Developer is taking the place of aurora/alpha as the below quote from https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Developer_Editio... shows, >Firefox Developer Edition replaces the Aurora channel in the Firefox Release Process. Like Aurora, features will land in the Developer Edition every six weeks, after they have stabilized in Nightly builds.
the point is, they're so confident in the stability of the "alpha" they're offering it as something to be used by, well, all developers. And they should be confident. In the last year or so, Nightly only broke for me once.