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

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Firefox 38 released

#121

Post by cpeterso »

contingencies wrote: post #120
JohnTHaller wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't criticize Mozilla. The users have spoken and the vast majority don't care about DRM on streaming media. They just want to watch YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, etc in their browser and have it work. Google, Apple et al put their full weight behind DRM and patent-encumbered formats, so Mozilla has to go along with it to stay relevant. If you don't want EME on principle, an alternate version of Firefox without EME is av…

The users have spoken and the vast majority don't care about DRM on streaming media. {{citation-needed}} They just want to watch YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, etc in their browser and have it work. YouTube works fine now. Netflix is a temporary aberration most of the world has never heard of or used. It's not the browser's job to support broken, predatory businesses. We spent 15+ years waiting and just achieved flashless…

> YouTube works fine now.

YouTube cat videos work fine without DRM, but YouTube is expanding into pay-per-view content that relies on Google's own Widevine DRM.

> Google, Apple et al put their full weight behind DRM and patent-encumbered formats, so Mozilla has to go along with it to stay relevant.

Mozilla tried to hold out on H.264, waiting for Google to fulfill their promise to drop H.264 from Chrome. Google broke their promise and Firefox lost many users in the meantime. If Netflix doesn't work in Firefox or YouTube is "best viewed in Chrome", then Mozilla will lose users and relevance in guiding future web standards and privacy.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#122

Post by omeid2 »

hsivonen wrote: post #82
conductor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your scenario already has the malware running with the user's privileges. This means that the malware already has more privileges than sandboxed GMPs in your scenario.

While that is a valid point, it doesn't changes the fact that the more attack surface the more likely to break through.

Sometimes you have few limited vulnerabilities that can add up to complete systems compromise.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#123

Post by CHY872 »

hobarrera wrote: post #98
coldpie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm? What OS do you run? Netflix works great on the Linux version of Google Chrome. Yes, you have to use proprietary software, but it does work.

Proprietary software and live in a select group of countries and pay a fee that isn't cheap for everyone.

Countries yes. Proprietary software, probably not a good argument. For example, I use Firefox for my web browsing, and Safari for Netflix - Safari uses EME so it's a much smoother experience.

Fee that isn't cheap for everyone, I also doubt. Where I live, Netflix costs like £6.99. That is legitimately cheap for everyone. In Britain, you pay less for Netflix than the cost of a TV license.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#124

Post by hsivonen »

nominated1 wrote: post #97
hsivonen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm approaching it like this - I need to execute unsigned binaries from a location that does not have execute permissions. How can I manage this? The lack of a signature is at best an administrative burden and at worst an attack vector depending on how the Admin handles it ("let's just add a wildcard exeception"). Mozilla should recognize this and sign the dll's. I still haven't seen a reason for NOT signing them. We…

Please open a bug report and CC :hsivonen

Re: Firefox 38 released

#125

Post by kasabali »

hobarrera wrote: post #100
xixixao wrote: post #15

So I got momentarily excited that there are new "tab preferences" (like having new tab open next to the current one), but unfortunately it's just a UI revamp of the settings pane, which since I'm on OS X I cannot care for much (the UI is a bit too flat and generally not as familiar as the native box, although who cares...)

I fail to see why Mozilla chose this direction. Firefox now looks more alien on all platforms with no real functional benefit.

Because this way you recognize Firefox everywhere when you see it, that's their reasoning. There was a presentation about it few years ago but I'm too lazy to hunt after the link right now.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#126

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #18
ramy_d wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the syntax is really confusing though. Duplicating characters? I thought it was hard to follow what would end up where https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/03/ruby-support-in-firefox-de...

The syntax isn't that bad. It's written in a style that gracefully degrades: strip out the HTML tags, and it's perfectly readable, but the furigana shows up inline rather than above. Portions are duplicated to ensure graceful degradation. You type 振り仮名(ふりがな) (with tags demarcating the sections, of course), repeating the り, so it'll show up properly if the browser lacks ruby text support. But if the browser does have…

Oh wow, I screwed that up. I meant to type this:

  ふ　がな
  振り仮名
Furigana is a pronunciation guide for kanji, not the other way around. ;)

Re: Firefox 38 released

#127

Post by socceroos »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #88
yarrel wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't criticize Mozilla. The users have spoken and the vast majority don't care about DRM on streaming media. They just want to watch YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, etc in their browser and have it work. Google, Apple et al put their full weight behind DRM and patent-encumbered formats, so Mozilla has to go along with it to stay relevant. If you don't want EME on principle, an alternate version of Firefox without EME is av…

That same 'vast majority' also don't seem to care about the erosion of liberty in western countries, but that doesn't make it right or good, does it.

Re: Firefox 38 released

#128

Post by cpeterso »

hsivonen wrote: post #124
nominated1 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm approaching it like this - I need to execute unsigned binaries from a location that does not have execute permissions. How can I manage this? The lack of a signature is at best an administrative burden and at worst an attack vector depending on how the Admin handles it ("let's just add a wildcard exeception"). Mozilla should recognize this and sign the dll's. I still haven't seen a reason for NOT signing them. We…

Please open a bug report and CC :hsivonen

I filed Firefox bug 1164948 for this issue:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164948

Re: Firefox 38 released

#129

Post by abroach »

anonbanker wrote: post #105
yarrel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is now a malware installer? Awesome!

Your post may seem snarky, but I upvoted you for truth. Many of us consider Adobe's DRM software to be nothing but malware.

It's easy to remove (see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm); or, if you don't want it at all, you retain that option: http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/38.0/wi...

Re: Firefox 38 released

#130

Post by Lost1337 »

Uninstalled. I have enough of you guys copying Chrome and turning Firefox into a DRM and social media browser. Get lost!

At least the Seamonkey guys know that advanced users also have the right to have their Options inside of the browser's code, something what you Mozilla guys are unable to understand these days!

What is good for Chrome is not equal as good for Mozilla Firefox!

Post reply on HN