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

Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#111

Post by steve-howard »

firasd wrote: post #18

This trend of Firefox increasingly bundling more services and features is an interesting paradox considering that Firefox started as a quiet project to make a slimmed down, no frills browser in comparison to the main Mozilla browser. I’ve recently resumed using Firefox as my main browser partly driven by support of the project but also because Chrome was taking too much RAM and causing performance issues. Of course,…

I use Firefox because Tree Style Tab[1] is such a useful interface for me that I'm willing to put up with the annoyances. I had the same thought about the new widgets popping up, though. There is really no reason at all that Pocket can't have been shipped as an extension, at worst a pre-installed one (but why exactly was that necessary to begin with?).

I want a browser that does what I want, supports the add-ons I prefer, and stays out of the way. Hopefully Firefox doesn't continue to make me remove "features" with every update.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#112

Post by azakai »

weaksauce wrote: post #110
azakai wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both features have near-negligible overhead if you don't use them. But having them in the product makes them accessible to the wide userbase, many of whom don't know what addons are or how to install them. Therefore it seems reasonable to add them to Firefox.

I'd much prefer them to improve the memory and performance reporting features over adding some features that goes against their core values. right now I have a firefox that uses tons of ram and slows down to a halt very frequently but there are no decent tools to diagnose what addin/plugin/webpage/bug might be causing trouble. it's very, very frustrating. edit: I am talking about multiple gigs of memory for firefox a…

There are a lot of people working on performance - it's just less press-worthy than new features, so less noticed I guess. But bugs do exist, of course. Do you see anything odd in about:memory that can help diagnose your specific issue?

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#113

Post by azakai »

xg15 wrote: post #78
dblohm7 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello is just a thin wrapper around WebRTC. That's why Chrome can receive Hello calls without an extension. There's barely anything to add on in that case.

Not many resources perhaps, but a lot of additional UI surface, which clutters up the menus with irrelevant options.

I wouldn't say a lot, it's just one button.

Is there a cost to adding even a button? Yes. But that has to be weighed against the benefit. And a significant amount of users benefit from having the button.

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#114

Post by JonathonW »

yellowapple wrote: post #82
m45t3r wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wouldn't work, the majority of users don't read so they would blame Firefox either way. And showing message box every damn time one site has Javascript/SSL (and considering that almost every site nowadays has one or another) would infuriate the users that really want to use this feature. It's a lose-lose option. I think it's fine to have these options as extensions or even inside about:config, where the user wou…

> This wouldn't work, the majority of users don't read If they don't read, then they wouldn't be using Firefox, since all web pages (barring a few exceptions) would be gibberish to them :) > And showing message box every damn time one site has Javascript/SSL That's not what I'm advocating in that particular recommendation. I'm more advocating for some sort of heuristic analysis when Javascript is disabled. There are…

> If they don't read, then they wouldn't be using Firefox, since all web pages (barring a few exceptions) would be gibberish to them :)

Not can't read; don't read. See http://blog.codinghorror.com/teaching-users-to-read/, http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000062....

Users don't read material that's put in front of them. Modal dialogs get dismissed without reading, non-modal dialogs (Firefox's doorhangers, Chrome/IE's notification bars) get ignored completely or dismissed.

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#115

Post by gluxon »

pc2g4d wrote: post #86

The Bugzilla ticket has been closed and people are instead being pointed at a corresponding post on the Mozilla Governance mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.governance/2... That's probably the most productive place to directly contribute to the official conversation. BUT it also seems that the Pocket integration wasn't previously discussed on that mailing list. At least, that's what my cur…

It was brought up in the Firefox Dev mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/firefox-dev/B3jJq_kU...

I do agree that the discussion should have been in the Mozilla Governance mailing list though.

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#116

Post by jasonlotito »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #93
xg15 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also assumed the Pocket integration was a paid placement, in which case I was fine having to spend the time removing the button and disabling it in about:config, since I saw it as a cost of actively developed free software Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but I'd argue this would be questionable even if it were an openly announced partnership like with Yahoo. Yes, Mozilla is free software and is doing some e…

But installing stuff users don't want is working so well for SourceForge why would Mozilla not want to follow such a great lead /s.

Works for Google and Apple. They've been doing it for years.

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#117

Post by gcb0 »

MisterWebz wrote: post #5

It is so unlike Mozilla to introduce something like that, I ran a virus scan and checked what programs had been installed recently -- I assumed it had been put there in the same way that IE users used to get the Ask Toolbar installed. Exactly how I felt. What the hell were they thinking? I'm generally very supportive of Mozilla, I even supported their initiative to put advertisements on Firefox's start page. But bund…

that hits home. because there was a malware that distributed itself as a mozilla add-on. even sent in patches because it affected a bank i used.

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#118

Post by browser »

jtgeibel wrote: post #101
browser wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, they need to reverse course 180 degrees on things like Pocket and Hello, or it will be the beginning of the end for Firefox. Firefox is a niche product that appeals to the privacy-consciuos. Stuff like Pocket and Telefonica/Hello basically eliminates its reason for being. I have Firefox as my main browser now, but I won't keep it around for long if I have to swat down new marketing integrations in every n…

I'm not as concerned with the Hello integration. With both features, I'd like to know more on the technical details. For Hello, I think Mozilla (but actually unsure who's servers?) is only involved in initial discovery and, if needed, WebRTC NAT traversal. In terms of code bloat, I think Hello is just a bit of extra javascript on top of functionality already built into the web platform. But I admit I haven't look tha…

Hello uses Telefonica servers. My guess is that Mozilla's partnership with Telefonica is the reason why Hello was added to Firefox.

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#119

Post by gluxon »

MisterWebz wrote: post #5

It is so unlike Mozilla to introduce something like that, I ran a virus scan and checked what programs had been installed recently -- I assumed it had been put there in the same way that IE users used to get the Ask Toolbar installed. Exactly how I felt. What the hell were they thinking? I'm generally very supportive of Mozilla, I even supported their initiative to put advertisements on Firefox's start page. But bund…

The "Mozilla Manifesto and Pocket" email thread in the Firefox Dev mailing list gives some insight from the developers. [1]

To paraphrase: it seems they wanted a reading list feature but found it pointless to re-implement an existing solution with many desired features. (Work which was started but appears to have been scrapped.) This rationalized piggy-backing on Pocket. It gives Firefox a reading list for its users without Mozilla having to maintain it.

My personal problem with this has more to do with the anti-competitive nature of integrating services rather than Pocket's closed source.

[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/firefox-dev/B3jJq_kU...

Re: Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration

#120

Post by derefr »

gluxon wrote: post #119
MisterWebz wrote: post #5

It is so unlike Mozilla to introduce something like that, I ran a virus scan and checked what programs had been installed recently -- I assumed it had been put there in the same way that IE users used to get the Ask Toolbar installed. Exactly how I felt. What the hell were they thinking? I'm generally very supportive of Mozilla, I even supported their initiative to put advertisements on Firefox's start page. But bund…

The "Mozilla Manifesto and Pocket" email thread in the Firefox Dev mailing list gives some insight from the developers. [1] To paraphrase: it seems they wanted a reading list feature but found it pointless to re-implement an existing solution with many desired features. (Work which was started but appears to have been scrapped.) This rationalized piggy-backing on Pocket. It gives Firefox a reading list for its users…

It somewhat makes sense. If they want it that badly, though, maybe Mozilla should buy Pocket so that they can put it under the aegis of their license/philosophical charter. "Reading List" is currently right up there with "Web Browser" and "Email Client" as major programs that I would like to be neutrally owned by a public foundation.
Post reply on HN