171–180 of 243 posts
Is there a list of Web extensions APIs that are also compatible with Chrome?
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Br...
Found there were About three words laid out in the Column so I flipped My phone for a less Arduous reading Experience but there Was just more padding And I found the eye Tracking experience Exhausting so I stopped reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nice but the fact that you can never delete a message in your feed means that it doesn't really work as a social media protocol. Some people see that as a feature since it is theoretically uncensorable, but that's not how humans like to interact.
I have been using patchwork[1] as my main social network client for scuttlebutt. In my current experience, the fact that messages are not removable makes me more careful when writing and has led to much better and more meaningful interactions on the network. Also remember that a message being in the feed doesn't mean it is displayed. Scuttlebutt is quite flexible, there are clients that have support for "chess messag…
Note that erasure of the data is required, not just its display.
IANAL, but the above appears to be contrary to GDPR.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
As a technical user who values choice and customisability, I am totally fine with their choice of disabling tab hiding until you flip a bit in the configs. It's the best of both worlds: customisability for power users and security for regular folks.
Or it would be if it stayed this way. It was this way for a while with extensions. You could install extensions you wanted freely. Then there was a config bit to make it so you could install extensions without Mozilla approval. Then they decided grandma was more important and completely removed the ability to install extensions not approved by Mozilla. The only way around it is to run a beta version or use the unpack…
Because any extension or sufficiently capable malware on your system can change about:config values, meaning that if Mozilla ever makes a mistake in the extension approval process and lets a malicious extension slip through, or you get such malware on your PC, then that extension/malware would be able to flip that config bit and open the flood gates for all malicious extensions. Mozilla would also not be able to change that config bit back in any trivial way, if they notice that they let a malicious extension through.
Only moving that configuration to the compilation step is able to prevent this for sure and most definitely is the sensible choice not just for Granny, but for most tech-savvy users as well, as even only a fraction of those care about unsigned extensions.
Months of public discussions have been held on if this can be done in a more (power-)user-friendly way without comprising security for the vast majority of users, who really do not care for unsigned extensions either.
Yes, these discussions would have concluded differently, if those 0.1% users who actually care about unsigned extensions made up 80% of Firefox users, but acting like this decision with a motivation that goes well beyond just wanting to not do as much maintenance is somehow indicative of how much Mozilla cares for its power users, is just ridiculous.
And just look at the malware fest that is the Chrome Store. This is what Mozilla was able to prevent by requiring extensions to be signed.
Lastly, specifically because they now have a functioning way of controlling malware, they can actually be a bit more liberal in what they allow to be configured via about:config and there is now no real use case anymore where it would make sense to move an about:config value to a compile flag.
I hope FavTab will be able to work again. That is the one thing that has really messed up my usage of Firefox (I'm using AutoPinTab to pin everything as a replacement, but it causes flashing when it overlaps the favicon bookmarks I have to the right of the tabs and makes Ctrl-w not work).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
browser.tabs.warnOnClose = true, browser.showQuitWarning = true, DO NOT SET "Show my windows and tabs from last time"
> browser.showQuitWarning I tried setting this (and only this) to true, but ctrl+q still quits without a prompt.
That option literally prevents the prompt from happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. What do you use for tab management on the OS level?
It's almost certainly not what OP is using, but if you're interested in tabbing of arbitrary windows as a built-in OS feature, I'd suggest you have a look at how BeOS used to do that. You can still try it with Haiku[1]. I'm also fairly certain that functionality could be implemented with a handful of scripts in awesome (in a floating way instead of using pre-existing tiling WM features). [1]: https://www.haiku-os.org…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it would be if it stayed this way. It was this way for a while with extensions. You could install extensions you wanted freely. Then there was a config bit to make it so you could install extensions without Mozilla approval. Then they decided grandma was more important and completely removed the ability to install extensions not approved by Mozilla. The only way around it is to run a beta version or use the unpack…
The config bit for allowing unsigned extensions was temporary from the start. They did not later redecide that they wanted to remove it, they knew from the beginning that it did not offer the security that they wanted to achieve. Because any extension or sufficiently capable malware on your system can change about:config values, meaning that if Mozilla ever makes a mistake in the extension approval process and lets a…
I get that Mozilla's response is, "Don't let the door hit you." But it can't pretend to still be for power users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it would be if it stayed this way. It was this way for a while with extensions. You could install extensions you wanted freely. Then there was a config bit to make it so you could install extensions without Mozilla approval. Then they decided grandma was more important and completely removed the ability to install extensions not approved by Mozilla. The only way around it is to run a beta version or use the unpack…
The config bit for allowing unsigned extensions was temporary from the start. They did not later redecide that they wanted to remove it, they knew from the beginning that it did not offer the security that they wanted to achieve. Because any extension or sufficiently capable malware on your system can change about:config values, meaning that if Mozilla ever makes a mistake in the extension approval process and lets a…
If such a malicious extension or other malware got installed, it could already do anything another malicious unsigned extension could, so I don't see how having this setting weakens security under the assumption that there's already malicious code running.
If we assume a system is compromised, it may as well install other malware as normal binaries instead of a Firefox extension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hell does the prefix have to do with user rights? This is a matter of convenience, not capability. You want arbitrary protocols? The prefix is available to you. You want blessed protocols? The non-prefix is available to you. There's no restriction in place. And anyways, given OSS, you can bless your protocol with a custom build. But just because you want it blessed doesn't mean it should be forced onto everyone e…
I follow Stallman’s school of thought that software should never restrict the user in ability. A user should not be protected from themselves, if a user wants to install an addon to intercept paypal:// requests for whatever reason, that should be their choice. And it should not require the user to do custom changes to the system.