Leaving Mozilla

What a losing attitude. Nobody forced them to do anything. They chose it.

I would argue that Firefox is what held back DRM from becoming more common. Even if 20% of users were not supported, that was significant. Even if it was inevitable, they should have done the right thing and refused to directly support DRM at all. It's not like there was any economic pressure on them. The whole point of non profit organizations is that they can afford to be principled. That was their one job. And instead they stabbed us in the back, over some hypothetical userbase that didn't exist.

> It would not, it would have killed them overnight. 99% of the population doesn't give a shit, they just want to watch Netflix (etc.), and they'd stop using Firefox the day Netflix (etc.) stopped working. That's true even of most Linux users which is the only population that might would care whatsoever.

That is your problem. You are hyperfocused on people who don't care what browser they use, and just want to watch TV. That is a terrible strategy.

You will never ever win those people over. Ever.

I don't think it is worth ruining everything that makes you special just to be popular.

I'm so glad they didn't try to out Microsoft Microsoft in 2006.

They are completely ceding to these corporations and letting them make the rules. How can any headway be made like that?

> XUL extensions were horrifically insecure and often caused terrible memory leaks that got blamed on Firefox - they also prevented proper sandboxing and multiprocess functionality from being implemented.

The lost functionality from removing XUL has not been restored. Firefox remains less useful than it was.

Blamed? Why are you so concerned about branding?? What world are you living in?

And again, on a macro level, the UX is worse now because it is less functional. Am I supposed to care that Tree Style Tabs is gone, but at least it performs better? That's not an upgrade. Instead, effort should have been diverted to improving the existing model.

There was a lot of room for compromise that they didn't use.

> Although your defense of Flash and Silverlight leads me to believe you don't care much about security.

No, I have using sandboxing in one form or another for over a decade. Are you? Maybe Mozilla should have focused on making sandboxing more accessible.

It isn't exactly hard on Linux.

> You're delusional if you think that anything good would come of that. If that's how you feel, why wait? Go build something now.

https://www.palemoon.org/

Proud supporter. It actually has a future.

Defund Mozilla.

> the opposite would have gotten you a nice balance of polite and rude

You are transferring some or all of the responsibility of "choose not to be rude to strangers on the Internet" onto the recipient, who received rudeness only once others had already made that choice. How dare you say that we can blame the recipient of abuse for the choices of others to be abusive. You have no right.

If you choose to be rude to someone else on the Internet, you alone are fully responsible, without regard for any extenuating circumstances whatsoever. If you are having a medical event, seek in-reality medical attention and prepare an apology when your medical treatment has progressed far enough. If you didn't mean to be abusive, apologize, and then demonstrate over time that you're becoming less accidentally abusive. If you thought that the shield of anonymity on Twitter would protect you from being caught, you're no different than someone who throws bricks into people's windshields on the highway. No circumstance whatsoever sets aside your personal responsibility for the words you produced on the Internet.

It doesn't matter what they did, what their employer did, what their software did. It doesn't matter if they could be perceived as being abusive to you. None of that matters at all. There is absolutely no room for blame-sharing or blame-transfer here. There are no excuses for choosing to be abusive in this way. You simply cannot transfer one iota of responsibility here. That decision terminates at you, and you alone.

ps. I don't know if you're abusive or not, and I honestly don't care. This isn't about you, whoever you are. This is about your attempt to transfer the responsibility for abuse in part or in full from the abusers to the recipient of their abuse. That attempt, and my detailed refutal, is the sole focus of my comment. The English word "generic individual target within a plural set" is, unhappily, "you". Some confusion may occur, and I don't have the English skills to mitigate that at this time. No doubt someone will chime in with a better way to phrase this. I endorse whatever corrections are necessary to resolve the tense difficulty here.

Like for accessing abou:config sigh