Earlier quoted context omitted.
Functionality that involves invoking a command line for a web browser isn't.
I'm not on Linux, but don't they allow you to create shortcuts with command line options like Windows?
They do.
Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
61–70 of 77 posts
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#62There is an unintuitive takeaway from this. The reason Firefox is allowing this is that browsers and operating systems produced by nonprofits acting in the public interest don't have enough market share to resist being dictated to by for-profit corporations. Imagine FirefoxOS had the market share of Android and Debian had the market share of Windows. Would we still be having this conversation? The free software peopl…
I'm surprised to realize this: Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Shouldn't be so surprising in retrospect (like many things), but I never fully got that before. Power comes from being chosen by end users. Firefox needs power to be able to resist this kind of crap. In this case, they didn't quite have enough power (probably because they let memory bloat get away from them a fe…
A rather large part of Chrome's growth came from marketing. Pushing users of both Internet Explorer and Firefox to download it directly from the Google.com homepage, online ads, offline ads, etc. Firefox has never had access to that kind of marketing.
And don't underestimate all the bundleware installs, too. Even today, when upgrading your version of Java in Windows, it still tries to trick you into installing Chrome.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#63Well, I'm a 1. web developer, 2. independent filmmaker, and 3. work in media full-time, and this doesn't really bother me. I want to be able to rent any movie for streaming. For better or worse, that means some kind of DRM is inevitable. I'd rather Mozilla and the standards advocates have a seat at the table, where they can be a moderating influence, than pretend the table doesn't exist.
Is DRM really inevitable for streaming video ? I can listen to my music as much as I want, unrestricted, without DRM, through deezer. And that's a premium service. They seem to be doing just fine. Besides, spotify uses flash for their webplayer, probably for DRM as well. Yet there exists an open source spotify client, despotify, that probably would make it very easy to download the music as MP3. In the end, DRM just…
What do you mean, without DRM? Does Deezer provide you with mp3 files to put on your devices (ipod shuffle or similar)? Can you send a file to a friend? Or does Deezer forces you to be online and/or use Deezer's own app to listen to your music?
There are a lot of ways to engineer DRM in a system, I think you just don't see that you're actually using a DRMed system to play your music.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#64I expect this to be downvoted soon as the folks here plainly seem to prefer to be able to consume visual junk food via netflix rather than opt or push for open standards. Don't come crying back later when netfucks change the standards again, and the WC3 roll over and blindly accept it, and your computer becomes an expensive locked down media player.
A locked down media player is more useful than an open paperweight.
An open media player is more useful than a locked down paperweight.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#65Well, I'm a 1. web developer, 2. independent filmmaker, and 3. work in media full-time, and this doesn't really bother me. I want to be able to rent any movie for streaming. For better or worse, that means some kind of DRM is inevitable. I'd rather Mozilla and the standards advocates have a seat at the table, where they can be a moderating influence, than pretend the table doesn't exist.
Is DRM really inevitable for streaming video ? I can listen to my music as much as I want, unrestricted, without DRM, through deezer. And that's a premium service. They seem to be doing just fine. Besides, spotify uses flash for their webplayer, probably for DRM as well. Yet there exists an open source spotify client, despotify, that probably would make it very easy to download the music as MP3. In the end, DRM just…
Deezer uses DRM. they mention it right in their developer API terms of use: http://developers.deezer.com/termsofuse
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#66If this sandbox enables Firefox to safely host DRM malware, it could very well be used like a generic "Docker for the client", right? People could write high-performance code blobs in native chunks for things like online games, and Firefox would just load them without endangering the user's system or data. Maybe someone with in-depth knowledge of the sandbox could weigh in about its actual security, I'd be interested…
[deleted]
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised to realize this: Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Shouldn't be so surprising in retrospect (like many things), but I never fully got that before. Power comes from being chosen by end users. Firefox needs power to be able to resist this kind of crap. In this case, they didn't quite have enough power (probably because they let memory bloat get away from them a fe…
It's not about being the best browser, opera has long been the best browser as almost every innovation got copied from opera. It still failed to get a global market share and only came to lead some local markets. Besides chrome didn't get its market share on technical merit alone, but mostly by paying for its installation and targeted PR.
What is your criteria for declaring Opera the best browser? I tried it a few years ago, but found it awkward and slow. I'm sure I did not give it a fair chance by reading about its features ... I merely tried it briefly and went back to Firefox.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately Firefox has 5x the code exploit bugs vs Chrome. If we just take 2014 Firefox had 13x code exploits over Chrome. http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?v... http://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?... Until that number changes I'm not switching to back to Firefox.
Unfortunately Chrome is a google product. I'm not using chrome ever, why would I voluntarily install spyware ? One that bundles itself with many freeware. Firefox sucks a lot (no usable UI integration, missing many basic modern features, changes stripping user of choice, and more) but chrome sucks to infinity and is automatically disqualified, I would consider Iron but not chrome. Now my hopes are for vivaldi, I'm wa…
You can use Chromium and have all the supposed "Spyware" removed. Although there is no spyware in Chrome.
Also Chrome doesn't bundle itself with anything other than a special more secure version of flash which you can turn off. If you got a version bundled with something else that was a fake install by a 3rd party. The same thing happens to firefox
Here's a search for chrome. First 3 links are fake installers made by a 3rd party that likely installs a virus/trojan/rootkit
http://i.imgur.com/RpXy3bz.png
Here's a search for firefox. first link is also a fake installers made by a 3rd party that likely installs a virus/trojan/rootkit
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were dying for most uses, but not for DRM-based video streaming. It is a tautology that DRM-based video streaming is going to use some kind of DRM. The point is that if several major platforms provide no support for any form of DRM then DRM will be removed from video streaming. The idea that video providers are going to give up a majority of their customers because their devices support no DRM is not reasonabl…
Lol, no. If every web browser said "no DRM in video, freedom or death!" then the movie studios would say ..... OK. We'll ask users to download an app instead. Or use Apple TV/Xbox/PlayStation to watch things rather than their browsers. And consumers would. End of story. Browser makers don't have some crippling monopoly power over how computers work that they can use to force submission on an entire industry (thank go…
> OK. We'll ask users to download an app instead.
At which point they'll be losing customers. And if the operating system doesn't support apps with DRM, what then? Ask the user to buy a new device?
> Or use Apple TV/Xbox/PlayStation to watch things rather than their browsers.
At which point they'll be losing more customers. And if the dominant console is also something that doesn't support DRM, what then?
> Browser makers don't have some crippling monopoly power over how computers work that they can use to force submission on an entire industry (thank god).
No, but customers do. Which is why customers should choose browsers and operating systems that do what customers want.
> The idea that the movie industry will give up on something they view as a fundamental requirement for them to earn money, just because browser makers throw a hissy fit, is not reasonable. The movie industry will find a way because they believe their industry must, or else it will wither and die.
This is just meaningless rhetoric. It is possible to make money without DRM as proven by the fact that many people are doing it. Piracy does not exclude profitability as proven by the fact that there are more Disney movies on The Pirate Bay than there are in the Disney store and Disney is still making tons of money.
The people who think the movie industry would disappear without DRM are idiots. The harder we make it for those idiots, the more share they'll lose to people who know better and the fewer idiots will remain.
It's not even like this is a fight. It's just widespread misunderstanding. DRM is bad for the movie industry. It locks customers into closed platforms which put the companies that control those platforms between the studios and their customers. It causes viewers to derive less value from DRM-encumbered content, which causes them to consume it less often and not be willing to pay as much for it. It causes piracy to increase because it has zero effect on the experience of downloading from The Pirate Bay and a negative effect on the experience of paying customers. The studios have been sold a bill of goods.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#70There is an unintuitive takeaway from this. The reason Firefox is allowing this is that browsers and operating systems produced by nonprofits acting in the public interest don't have enough market share to resist being dictated to by for-profit corporations. Imagine FirefoxOS had the market share of Android and Debian had the market share of Windows. Would we still be having this conversation? The free software peopl…
I'm surprised to realize this: Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Shouldn't be so surprising in retrospect (like many things), but I never fully got that before. Power comes from being chosen by end users. Firefox needs power to be able to resist this kind of crap. In this case, they didn't quite have enough power (probably because they let memory bloat get away from them a fe…
> Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission.
Does caving in to commercial pressure and adding unpopular (for its core audience) features like DRM advance it in that direction, or in the opposite direction? I believe "more of the same" isn't going to help it pull ahead, it needs distinctive features such as more privacy, fewer ads, or even a strong anti-DRM stance.
As a (former) large-ish website owner I have to disagree with your assessment. Even browsers with 5% market share (Firefox has 15-20%) have the power to influence design decisions and thus counter browser-based DRM adoption, except strong de facto monopolies (like Google, youtube) that can make or break browsers by supporting or excluding them (youtube has even more influence than Google search currently because of its unique content). It's true that Firefox was simply too bad to use for a couple of years (cue conspiracy theories about Google being their main source of income and desperately trying to push Chrome), but it still had power due to its large user base.