91–100 of 267 posts
This is one thing they could have done better in partnership with someone whose main business is hosting and transferring files. I said it yesterday: Mozilla and Dropbox should talk. Alone they will perish, united they’ll be a real alternative to FAANG.
Too bad. I really enjoyed using it while it was up. The code is open source, and they have docs on how to set it up for self hosting. I wonder if there is a chance some active forks might live on? https://github.com/mozilla/send https://github.com/mozilla/send/blob/master/docs/deployment....
There's https://send.vis.ee/
I really don't understand it. - Content was used to spread malware/illegal content - It was not profitable How are those two things something you find out after the fact? What was the reasoning for launching the product in the first place?
It's almost as if Mozilla does not understand how the Internet works!
This is due to people sharing malware: https://www.techradar.com/news/mozilla-suspends-firefox-send... The content can't be scanned server-side because uploaded files are encrypted
That is, it's an issue with the file transfer services as a class that can be managed, but Mozilla decided against wasting time/resources on that and just nuked it instead.
I really don't understand it. - Content was used to spread malware/illegal content - It was not profitable How are those two things something you find out after the fact? What was the reasoning for launching the product in the first place?
Meanwhile their core product lost around 10 percentage points of market share (from 15% marketshare to 5%):
1) Nobody works on Firefox any more. From 1000 people in Mozilla and how many working on Firefox? 50? and 950 doing various (useless) side projects?
2) they don't understand their own product and its user base: they killed extensions, killed ability to customize anything. Basically they rebranded to a "worse Chrome".
3) They dont care about quality and ship a half baked product. Recently they shipped Firefox for android that feels like alpha version. It is even unclear why did they ship it, they could have waited.
4) Countless bugs and problems caused by their own decisions (e.g. all extensions need to be signed - they forget to sign them so they stopped working..)
5) Not caring about the product at all because some people inside are stubborn dinosaurs. Firefox didnt have proper installers for business, just because someone inside didnt want to provide them. It's like sabotage.
Their tech savy user base gets alienated every day: no more extensions, no more customization, constant broken workflow (changes for the sake of doing changes, while old things are never repaired - greenfileds are easier). At some point you start to wonder, why use a Chrome clone that is worse than Chrome?
I expect that the marketshare will go from 5% to 0.% What will be terrible for everyone. We are already losing the address bar due to Google AMP. [on a sidenote: when Chrome pushed for Google AMP, Firefox didnt capitalize on it - in fact Firefox also changed the address bar as if the Firefox team wanted to secretly support AMP..]
Those teams probably know very well that Firefox is a sinking ship, since development teams are not working on core product; but they dont care, they will jump. Meanwhile those few who worked on Firefox are left holding the bag, while they were "paying" for all those side projects, that just siphoned money / development time from core product that is Firefox.
This is due to people sharing malware: https://www.techradar.com/news/mozilla-suspends-firefox-send... The content can't be scanned server-side because uploaded files are encrypted
I had a file slightly too large to email last night and thought I'd try FF Send for the first time ever, only to be greeted with `Service Unavailable`.
It's a real bummer this is going away, and I hope this isn't a sign of more to come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wish it had chrome style profiles Could you explain what you mean by this? Firefox does have profiles, and more than one can be active at a time. (There's also the newer containers feature which allows further compartmentalization.)
Chrome style profiles that are a 1st class feature; that isn't accessed with a secret url, doesn't require multiple instances of Firefox in my dock, can be toggled between profiles easily, can be easily identified with a icon in the top corner of the browser. I heavily use the firefox containers feature which is awesome.
I think Firefox can do at least these three. You can permanently enable the profile manager on application startup (it's not in an about: page). You can also make shortcuts on your desktop / taskbar / etc directly to a profile with "firefox -p ProfileName". All Firefox instances are grouped into the same icon on the taskbar for me (Linux / KDE).
Granted, it could certainly be more user friendly, but it's proved rock solid for me for years now.
I really don't understand it. - Content was used to spread malware/illegal content - It was not profitable How are those two things something you find out after the fact? What was the reasoning for launching the product in the first place?
I assume they expected some use to spread illegal content, but the ratio of illegal use to accepted use was far different than their expectations. Presumably the reason to launch it was to advertise Firefox by providing a useful tool that encourages linking to others.
Advocates of freedom of speech & from government oversight could argue that this sort of service is a good thing regardless. As in, yes people will share illegal content but enforcement of that should happen outside of the encrypted transfer, and the right to encrypted transfer for everyone should be protected. I assume this is broadly what Mozilla believe.
They may have miscalculated their ability to ideologically separate the service from the content, legally or in popular opinion.
I really don't understand it. - Content was used to spread malware/illegal content - It was not profitable How are those two things something you find out after the fact? What was the reasoning for launching the product in the first place?
Nearly all their "side projects" look like greenfields used by the project teams to boost their CVs so they can land better jobs. Those teams know very well that those projects have no use case, but they dont care. Foundation does not care either, since it is busy with increasing own remuneration and politics. Meanwhile their core product lost around 10 percentage points of market share (from 15% marketshare to 5%):…
Apart from extensions requiring whitelisting, how is it worse than the old mobile FF?
I didn't notice any new bugs and it fixed the issues I had with the address bar hiding being fickle.