Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 38 released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: Firefox 38 released

#71

Post by chimeracoder »

_lce0 wrote: post #54

Honest question to Firefox dev's: I want to keep using firefox, but not the DRM thingy. I'd rather not see any video on the web, to be forced to use DRM technology. Do you plan to support a DRM-free version?

> I want to keep using firefox, but not the DRM thingy. I'd rather not see any video on the web, to be forced to use DRM technology.

> Do you plan to support a DRM-free version?

Iceweasel (the version of Firefox shipped with Debian) will always be DRM-free, as per the Debian policies on free software. It's almost the exact same as Firefox, except the logo and the name - all the other functionality is identical.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#72

Post by duaneb »

hsivonen wrote: post #64
nominated1 wrote: post #52

Can someone explain why Mozilla is not signing gmpopenh264.dll and now eme-adobe.dll? These are executed from AppData (a folder with read/write permissions). Executing dll's from AppData is generally a bad idea but if I'm going to allow it I at least want a Publisher rule attached. Google signs their CDM (WideVine) dll delivered with Chrome that executes from AppData, why isn't Mozilla?

Firefox checks SHA-512 hashes at download time. If you have local malware that changes the GMP DLLs thereafter, the malware might as well change Firefox itself.

> If you have local malware that changes the GMP DLLs thereafter, the malware might as well change Firefox itself.

Well hopefully firefox itself is signed. This is exactly what signing is designed to prevent.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#73

Post by conductor »

hsivonen wrote: post #64
nominated1 wrote: post #52

Can someone explain why Mozilla is not signing gmpopenh264.dll and now eme-adobe.dll? These are executed from AppData (a folder with read/write permissions). Executing dll's from AppData is generally a bad idea but if I'm going to allow it I at least want a Publisher rule attached. Google signs their CDM (WideVine) dll delivered with Chrome that executes from AppData, why isn't Mozilla?

Firefox checks SHA-512 hashes at download time. If you have local malware that changes the GMP DLLs thereafter, the malware might as well change Firefox itself.

It can't change Firefox itself if it has no administrative privileges but it can change anything in the user's directories.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#74

Post by yarrel »

javaun wrote: post #26
Touche wrote: post #7

> Mac OS X: Implemented a subset of the Media Source Extensions (MSE) API to allow native HTML5 playback on YouTube HTML5 > Implemented Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) API to support encrypted HTML5 video/audio playback (Windows Vista or later only) HTML5 > Automatically download Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module (CDM) for DRM playback through EME (Windows Vista or later only) :( Notice which OSes are left o…

Hey Touche, I work on Firefox at Mozilla. We launched EME on Win32 (Vista+) first because that is by far the biggest share of Fx users. We will keep rolling out new platforms, the work will be long and hard. Streaming providers want to move off of Silverlight and Flash but will still support them for the foreseeable future, so content is still available.

You should be ashamed of doing the work of adding EME to Firefox.

Please don't add it to other platforms. Remove it from Windows.

If the work will be long and hard there are better uses of your time than working to ensure that "streaming providers" can oppose Mozilla's vision of an open web.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#75

Post by yarrel »

nominated1 wrote: post #52

Can someone explain why Mozilla is not signing gmpopenh264.dll and now eme-adobe.dll? These are executed from AppData (a folder with read/write permissions). Executing dll's from AppData is generally a bad idea but if I'm going to allow it I at least want a Publisher rule attached. Google signs their CDM (WideVine) dll delivered with Chrome that executes from AppData, why isn't Mozilla?

Firefox is now a malware installer?

Awesome!

Re: Firefox 38 released

#76

Post by dolske »

aroch wrote: post #16
gear54rus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They removed the ability of a site maker to tell user if they should use password manager on their website. A much needed feature aka 'no, I do not care about password for your stupid site'.

IMO, what's even more annoying are sites that detect whether you've used a password manager to fill your credentials and then 1) won't log you in, 2) frequently require you to clear your cookies and 3) sometimes make you change your password.

Do you have examples of such sites? I'd be interested in seeing what they're doing, and how we can fix password manager to avoid that.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#77

Post by crwll »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #47
Silhouette wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your frustration, but I think you're complaining that you didn't get an option that was never realistically on the table in the first place. Your respect for the W3C matters a lot less to them than millions of people being able to watch content produced by a billion dollar industry, which much of that industry simply isn't willing to make available without DRM-style safeguards at the present time. Yes, w…

> I do think calling those plug-ins non-standard is a bit of a joke, given that Flash had 90+% market penetration for years Flash was also proprietary. It's closed-source, patent-encumbered, and has a single implementation. It's completely under the control of Adobe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > For those users, a lot of major sites still "don't work properly" today because of Apple's arrogance. As A…

Flash existed for Symbian OS (think Nokia smartphones) way before there was iPhones, and those devices naturally had even lower hardware specs.

(I still agree that not supporting Flash was the correct choice for Apple, though.)

Re: Firefox 38 released

#78

Post by portaljacker »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #22
portaljacker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does EME being implemented finally mean that I can uninstall Silverlight for watching Netflix in Firefox in the near future?

Don't do it. I've been using the non-silverlight Netflix in Safari and it's such a nightmare I switched back. Constantly fails to load content.

Well that`s annoying. At least the newer version of the Silverlight player supports HD, didn't appear to before. That was my main reason for wanting the HTML5 version.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#79

Post by portaljacker »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #22
portaljacker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does EME being implemented finally mean that I can uninstall Silverlight for watching Netflix in Firefox in the near future?

Don't do it. I've been using the non-silverlight Netflix in Safari and it's such a nightmare I switched back. Constantly fails to load content.

At least you have the option. My girlfriend`s Mac supports the latest version of OSX and Safari but not HTML5 playback.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#80

Post by maccard »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #51
leeoniya wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand your frustration, but I think you're complaining that you didn't get an option that was never realistically on the table in the first place. Your respect for the W3C matters a lot less to them than millions of people being able to watch content produced by a billion dollar industry, which much of that industry simply isn't willing to make available without DRM-style safeguards at the present time. I do…

If their only option is to produce content without "safeguards", they'll produce it without safeguards. Content will be pirated regardless of whether browsers have DRM.

But they'll always have the alternative option of providing content through iTunes/their own crappy locked down system.
Post reply on HN