91–100 of 133 posts
Honest question to Firefox dev's: I want to keep using firefox, but not the DRM thingy. I'd rather not see any video on the web, to be forced to use DRM technology. Do you plan to support a DRM-free version?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have local malware that changes the GMP DLLs thereafter, the malware might as well change Firefox itself. Well hopefully firefox itself is signed. This is exactly what signing is designed to prevent.
For software that runs as non-admin, authenticode is very much about checking delivery -time integrity. If you have admin-level malware, it can replace signed software (that gets run without admin privs and doesn't have UAC at launch) with unsigned lookalikes.
...you should reinstall your OS. Really, that shouldn't even be an "if" these days. Of course security doesn't matter if people can just execute random code on your machine.
Anyway, code signing is not about delivery time integrity. It's easy to check whether a given binary is code signed at any given time—without it you wouldn't be able to revoke bad certificates. The only reason you shouldn't sign is if signing has some cost (like in the Mac OS X ecosystem) or you can't trust a single root certificate anyway (at which point you might as well move to OpenBSD anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey Touche, I work on Firefox at Mozilla. We launched EME on Win32 (Vista+) first because that is by far the biggest share of Fx users. We will keep rolling out new platforms, the work will be long and hard. Streaming providers want to move off of Silverlight and Flash but will still support them for the foreseeable future, so content is still available.
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.
Your criticism is misguided; as soon as the W3C endorsed EME, it was all but a done deal that Firefox would have to support it. Microsoft and Google have no interest in keeping proprietary software out of their browsers, and the only alternative is for Firefox to fall behind in both standards compliance and market share. That serves nobody's interest.
If what you want is Firefox but without EME, then the answer is: Firefox. (Firefox doesn't require you to use EME). If you really want Firefox but without EME even available by default, then use Iceweasel[0].
[0] which is what I'm using to type this comment, FWIW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does EME being implemented finally mean that I can uninstall Silverlight for watching Netflix in Firefox in the near future?
I believe that now you can use the HTML5 player on Netflix if you're on OS X or Windows. Linux still can't however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If their only option is to produce content without "safeguards", they'll produce it without safeguards. Content will be pirated regardless of whether browsers have DRM.
It's not a question about the reality of the piracy situation, because that hasn't changed since the VHS copy protection days. Simply having some sort of protection there - no matter how ineffective - gives them legally-effective leverage to go after those bypassing it. You cannot, as a stakeholder (content producer, actor, etc), argue in good conscience for no protection whatsoever in a commercial venture. Yes, ther…
Use JavaScript, then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do think calling those plug-ins non-standard is a bit of a joke, given that Flash had 90+% market penetration for years Flash was also proprietary. It's closed-source, patent-encumbered, and has a single implementation. It's completely under the control of Adobe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > For those users, a lot of major sites still "don't work properly" today because of Apple's arrogance. As A…
Flash existed for Symbian OS (think Nokia smartphones) way before there was iPhones, and those devices naturally had even lower hardware specs. (I still agree that not supporting Flash was the correct choice for Apple, though.)
I'm well aware! I had an HP iPaQ "Pocket PC" for a long time, and you could run a stripped-down version of Flash on it. But it ran slowly, and it only really worked for simple animations. You couldn't use something like YouTube on it, and it's things like YouTube that were the killer app for Flash.
Can someone explain why Mozilla is not signing gmpopenh264.dll and now eme-adobe.dll? These are executed from AppData (a folder with read/write permissions). Executing dll's from AppData is generally a bad idea but if I'm going to allow it I at least want a Publisher rule attached. Google signs their CDM (WideVine) dll delivered with Chrome that executes from AppData, why isn't Mozilla?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well ... I have found that thepiratebay works flawlessly to deliver videos on any platform. It is sad that we are moving backwards. Right now I WANT to give netflix money for Daredevil ... and there is no legal way for me to do so ...
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.
Honest question to Firefox dev's: I want to keep using firefox, but not the DRM thingy. I'd rather not see any video on the web, to be forced to use DRM technology. Do you plan to support a DRM-free version?
1) Instructions for disabling the DRM bit without uninstalling it.
2) Instructions for uninstalling the DRM bit (and having Firefox never install it again).
3) A link to a version of Firefox 38 that doesn't have the DRM bits.
It's worth reading the whole blog post, but the tl;dr is https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm and http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/38.0/wi... (with the latter sadly not as user-friendly as it might be).
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...)