101–110 of 315 posts
EDIT: It passed the automated review, but my point stands. If I wrote the code, then you can be damn sure I trust it.
Just like HSTS I can't turn this off and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Were originally I considered firebox to be a browser for power users, now I'm not too sure any more.
https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/01/29/putting-users-i...
"Users should have the choice of what software and plugins run on their machine."
https://blog.mozilla.org/theden/2014/12/15/introducing-a-sma...
"Firefox is dedicated to putting users in control of their online experience"
More recently:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/06/02/firefox-puts-you-in...
"Firefox Puts You in Control of Your Online Life".
The slogan, as found on https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ , is now "Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to putting individuals in control online." I believe it used to be "users" - see above - but was silently changed. I suppose these "individuals" are the people at Mozilla...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't we teach people the don't understand so they can make informed choices instead of preventing it entirely?
Because that's been such an unqualified success for the last 30 years we've tried it.
Literacy took much longer, but the benefits are clear today.
And slowly, freedom everywhere was destroyed in the name of security.
This is deeply disappointing. Two details: the extensions need to be signed by Mozilla , and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement. The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software etho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they assume that to program enough to write an extension, you need to learn English. I’ve met people here in Argentina who say that. My view is that, even if that is the status quo ante (and I’m not sure it really is) it’s a status quo we must disrupt, not ossify.
Wise words, kragen. With the excuse "you need english because" a new form of imperialism is on the making. And what is worse, is that this attitude is often self-imposed.
Why would using the lingua franca that everyone agrees on be imperialism?
This is deeply disappointing. Two details: the extensions need to be signed by Mozilla , and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement. The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software etho…
I think it's just another battle in The War on General Purpose Computing. I like to keep this quote in mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Nobody innately wants to be evil; these are still * mostly * engineer driven companies. But when it comes to an extensential crisis of revenue vs freedom, there is no real choice.
So thanks guys. We had a good run with open browsers, but it is quickly drawing closed because you just couldn't stand the ANNOYANCE of seeing ads next to your content. It's been fun, and now back to the darkness we go.
It's little more than a year ago that Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla by an ugly orchestrated cabal. When I read Mitchell Baker's vapid blog post [1] on the decision, filled with polite backstabbing and politically correct buzzwordery I understood that Mozilla has been taken over by politicians and that its decline is just a matter of time. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...
I know that some Mozilla supporters will justify that huge difference by saying, "but unhappy people will always complain and happy people won't say anything", but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Here we have Mozilla's own stats saying that a lot of their users are extremely unhappy with Firefox.
Clearly something is very wrong for the disapproval rating to be so high, and the satisfaction rating to be so low. In other situations, such a high disapproval rating would be met with extreme concern, immediate retrospection, and panic.
Even in the case of US presidents, where people don't have an immediate alternative like they do with web browsers, and where people's emotions run rampant, it's very rare to see an approval rating under 40%. The very worst approval ratings still are around 25%.
So something is seriously wrong for Mozilla's products to consistently have an approval rating of only 10%, or even 20% if we're being generous.