91–100 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Chrome profile is current infected with malware due to Google's laissez-faire attitude towards their app store. I consider myself a pretty tech savvy user and still managed to get infected. A bit of vetting for add-ons is probably a good thing in the long run.
Is it something you can't uninstall?
Mozilla get scummier every year. Might be time to move to Pale Moon, I think.
Already have, and as time goes on it's looking like I made a better and better choice. At least PM actually follows through with the concept of user freedom.
It's funny to read this and the previous articles about the loss of freedom in Firefox, then see the description on its download page ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ ): "Download Mozilla Firefox, a free Web browser. Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to putting individuals in control online." I find the "appeal to security" argument that's being increasingly popular these days as nothing…
It's funny to read this and the previous articles about the loss of freedom in Firefox, then see the description on its download page ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ ): "Download Mozilla Firefox, a free Web browser. Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to putting individuals in control online." I find the "appeal to security" argument that's being increasingly popular these days as nothing…
It seems like you haven't read the article. Users are still allowed to install any extension from outside the garden they want.
My startup, that shall go nameless, provides a service used mainly by the tech illiterate. Early in our first beta we determined we needed to log client side errors since there is quite a lot going on in there, so we quickly implemented a system that phones homes for every uncaught exception and error. Since we didn't filter the source, immediately after we were getting flooded with third party javascript errors. But…
With each passing day, Mozilla tries harder and harder to get me to stop using their browser. If not for Chrome being the only viable alternative, they would have long since succeeded. Wreck the address bar algorithm? Ugh. Move the tabs on top? Ugh. Force me to keep download history? Ugh. Bury all the configuration options (like JS features) into about:config? Ugh. Turn the UI into a poor Chrome imitation? Ugh. Turn…
With each passing day, Mozilla tries harder and harder to get me to stop using their browser. If not for Chrome being the only viable alternative, they would have long since succeeded. Wreck the address bar algorithm? Ugh. Move the tabs on top? Ugh. Force me to keep download history? Ugh. Bury all the configuration options (like JS features) into about:config? Ugh. Turn the UI into a poor Chrome imitation? Ugh. Turn…
I upvoted you to get you out of the grey because I didn't feel like your comment was too inflammatory and did bring up specific issues which are relevant in a big picture view to this change. That said, the CEO comment was a bit unproductive. One thing I would like you to consider is that Firefox has to maintain a certain marketshare in order to continue to serve their mission. Which includes fighting for web standar…
That doesn't make it untrue. He was a bigot, and good riddance to him; I hope his reputation remains sufficiently sullied for the foreseeable future.
Instead of a walled garden approach, why cant they do a "Verified by Mozilla" badge for each plugin, with warnings if one doesn't have it BUT still giving the user control and choice of whether to use a plugin. I a made a quick and dirty plugin for chrome a month ago only to find out i need to undergo an anal exam and give over credit card information to Google, fuck that! is that where Mozilla want to endup?
I know that people love to reflexively bash anything that Mozilla does (and I'm critical more often than not myself), but this seems positive overall. As a savvy user, I can always manually install a plugin just as I can side-load an Android app that isn't on Google Play. However, my mom and other casual users who probably shouldn't be installing plugins at all have a somewhat more curated experience. I'm a bit skept…
Mozilla are using 'security' in the same way oppressive politicians use terrorism and/or "Think of the children!".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I don't think people who aren't capable of or interested in downloading a developer edition should be installing unsigned extensions. If there's an unsigned extension you really can't live without, just download Iceweasel - problem solved. It's not like this will be that hard to get around for people who know what they're doing, so I'm not too worried about this change.
I don't completely disagree, and I know computer users have always been treated as separate groups based on skills. That said it's unsettling to me to see a group like Mozilla officially treating users this way. Software freedom is for everyone and, IMHO, treating one group differently than another with regards to this freedom just legitimises the walled garden concept further. As the article said, it's hard to call…