Mozilla Responds To Firefox User Backlash Over Pocket Integration 351
An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Mozilla updated Firefox to add Pocket integration — software that lets you save web articles to read later. Over the weekend, some Firefox users began to voice their displeasure over the move on public forums like Bugzilla, Google Groups, and Hacker News. The complaints center around Pocket being a proprietary third-party service, which already exists as an add-on, and is not a required component for a browser. Integrating Pocket directly into Firefox means it cannot be removed, only disabled. In response, Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration and the integration code is open source.
so... (Score:4, Interesting)
ad block and no script baked in next?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can't. Google will ban them [techcrunch.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I believe they removed the Ad Block app because it removed ad from other apps.
Including ad block in Firefox would only effect Firefox, so it would probably be okay.
Re: (Score:2)
except Firefox for Android being in the Play store
Re:so... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Apped that for you!
Apps!
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful. They don't pay enough.
Apparently, the Mozilla foundation is in money trouble. They're baking ads in the new tab page. They switch to Yahoo cause Google won't pay them anymore. They "partner" with Telefonica to add Hello to Firefox, now they're "partners" with Pocket.
I'm guessing Firefox 39 will add Superfish integration to give me a more personalized web experience and justify it because it's already installed on millions of PC's.
Oh mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately Mozilla has been doing this for quite a while.
It used to be that firefox was the most userfriendly and at the same time most extendable browser with fairly good stability and fairly high resource use.
Now it is a lot less userfriendly, though still as extendable with better stability than before and while the resource use has not really changed the other browsers have started using more and more resources so by relative position it is very good in resource use.
What makes me gringe with each major update of firefox is how it gets more and more annoying to use, that is you need to tweak, install extensions and disable more and more to get it closer to a usable browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just learning from the developers of Gnome, systemd, and slashcode.
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? It works for Apple.
On a more serious note I've been a loyal Firefox user for the past 12 years however I'm getting rather upset with the direction it has taken the past couple years, however I don't want to use Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer or Edge (all of which are owned and maintained by large corporations) and since Opera has jumped on the WebKit bandwagon making it a glorified Chrome skin I'm thinking maybe it's time for a new open source browser. The only browser I can think of that isn't tied to some other browser is Konqueror but unfortunately I find KHTML to be somewhat awful and even if it wasn't Konqueror is *nix only.
tl;dr: Mozilla has become detached from what made early Firefox versions great and it's probably time for them to be replaced.
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps it's time for a community-driven, open--source reboot that will focus on producing a lean, mean, standards-compliant browser without all the politics and bloat, but which is very flexible and user-configurable.
Maybe we can call it, "Phoenix".
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we can call it, "Phoenix".
Hm. Well the "phoenix" name in computing is already taken by Phoenix Bios. How about "firebird"?
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is that those who like it won't complain
... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either.
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively. IT is a choice of providing 95% of what everyone needs, in a small easy to use package, or having 99.9999% of what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.
How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:4, Interesting)
How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?
I don't. I always have either Notepad++ or VIM installed on every machine so that I have a useful text editor. I haven't had to stoop to using Notepad/Wordpad for a very long time.
Re: (Score:3)
You make my point. While trying to be pedantic. :-D
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either
What they don't know doesn't affect them.
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink
You're assuming that it's what happened here. Dev time is costly, most companies try to avoid wasting it whenever possible. And please don't put software in the same boat as laptop manufacturers.
what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.
You know we are talking about a browser. Mozilla is far from being a burden for even the oldest computer I have in my office (7+ years old). I believe the google bar offered in almost every install package these days to be a bigger burden to most systems.
How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?
Are you suggesting n
Re: (Score:2)
What they don't know doesn't affect them.
The government must *love* you...
Re: (Score:2)
:)
I get what your saying but it's a little different here. The complaints here are more of "purist nature". It stems from the mentality that everything has to remain strip down to its minimal regardless of anything. My answer to that is always: "as long as there's a disable option".
I would have a different take if the browser was tailored for the tech users but instead it's tailored for everybody which means include the features that are important so the user doesn't have to figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink
Which gives rise to the software circle of life: when all the existing solutions are too overweight, a new lightweight competitor appears, and gradually bloats, until the cycle begins again. Browsers, Linux desktop environments, programming-languages...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see a word processor that uses forum code (BBCode)
Page length should be infinite, or quite a good length by default.
There'd be an optional hypertext feature that works as well as Microsoft QBASIC's help (or raw html).
Export to epub or html with some easy pretty-printing function (layout, backgrounds) you don't have to care about.
Really, why should every text program always have WYSIWYG on A4 pages with rulers, 40 default buttons and a hundred menus? It's always either that or a raw text editor (
Re: (Score:2)
You might look into using Markdown in your favorite editor. It's portable, being only text, but supports a good set of formatting. It's easy to convert to html, pdf, and other formats.
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively.
Which is the beauty of the Firefox addon system. The baseline browser as a framework is extensible in an almost unlimited fashion, which should allow them to keep the default web browser lean and focused on browsing the web. If someone wants add chat client or "read it later" functionality, users can choose to install that addon. Mozilla could even show a "suggested addons" page the first time a user runs Firefox that includes stuff like Pocket and the absurd Firefox Hello crap. For that matter, they could even bundle addons for things like Hello, making it easy for users to remove addons they have no interest in.
But no. Mozilla is filled with people hell-bent on destroying Firefox the web browser and and replacing it with Firefox the Platform. I'm just waiting for them to start decommissioning the addon framework, which they've already started by requiring all addons to be signed by Mozilla, or they won't be loaded. It's sickening.
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Funny)
So you've been stuck in the BIOS configuration screen for fifteen years?
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, companies implement whatever the manager (who was kicked in the head too many times as a child) thinks will be good, then insists to the users that they really wanted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they do it because they get money for including it from somewhere, user feedback be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience most companies do not implement features for fun. They do it because it's feedback they received from a large number of users. The fact that it can be disabled pretty much closes the case in my opinion but I guess some purist fanatics will complain.
And what would that experience be?
In which company did/do you work, which implemented features because of feedback received from a large number of users?
Re: (Score:3)
They do it because it's feedback they received from a large number of users.
Yeah, and that check that Read It Later, Inc handed over had nothing to do with it.
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
As much evidence as there is of this mass of "user feedback" asking them to integrate a shitty data-mining add-on into the browser core.
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Informative)
they did it based on popularity
Bollocks. It's got barely 10% of the users of the #5 app (Noscript), and about 1% of the #1 (ABP). It doesn't show up until the 4th page when sorted by popularity (#64).
Re: (Score:3)
It's entirely possible that they're being honest on that.
No, it's not. For starters, they already had Sync which did pretty much the same thing, sans monetized data mining, without having to integrate a 3rd party service with an intrusive privacy policy into the core browser.
That privacy policy should qualify as a "serious prohibitive quality" and the fact that you think it doesn't makes me question your honesty on the subject.
And first the claim was "user feedback" -- the mozilla feedback page shows that's clearly not true (the feedback, last time I looked, was
Re:Oh mozilla (Score:5, Informative)
I just stuck it into "Additional Tools and Features" like "Share this page," "Hello," and "Apps." I took "Forget" off the main toolbar, where it intruded one day, and stuffed it in the hamburger menu, as a feature that I rarely going to use.
Like everything they're adding, it inconvenienced me for all of three seconds.
Now, it does raise questions as to whether the Mozilla philosophy is still a "lightweight browser that you can customize with extensions," and including these features by default defeats the feeling that you have a choice of adding potentially unnecessary functionality by extensions. Lightweight does not seem to be the objective any longer.
For the people for whom this is an ideology, they are very irritated.
The statement (Score:5, Informative)
Quoth Mozilla from TFA:
Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and we’ve seen that users love to save interesting Web content to easily revisit it later, so it was an easy choice to offer Pocket as a service in Firefox and we’ve gotten lots of positive feedback about the integration from users.
All the code related to this integration within Firefox is open source and Pocket has licensed all the Firefox integration code under the MPLv2 license. On top of that, Pocket asked Mozilla for input on how to improve their policy, based on early comments from Mozillians. After that discussion, Pocket updated their privacy policy in early May to explain more precisely how they handle data. You can read Pocket’s privacy policy here [getpocket.com].
Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible. To disable Pocket, you can remove it from your toolbar or menu. If Pocket is removed from the toolbar or menu, then the feature is effectively disabled, though you can still find it again by accessing it in the Customize Panel. You can find detailed instructions here [mozilla.org].
The "removal instructions" are just to drag the button out of sight, but the bug report asking for actual removal [mozilla.org], quoth Manish Goregaokar [:manishearth]:
Pocket is just a bunch of API calls. Firefox UI code is lazy loaded. Put those two together, and yes, Pocket code is effectively "disabled". It will cause no extra baggage until viewed.
Re: (Score:2)
BUT there is a TON of pocket garbage in " about:config"
that is SET to ON and true
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is all good and fine from a technical standpoint. But look at the status bar fiasco. What was their response to that again? Oh, right, it can be brought back via a plugin. So do they want to move features into plugins or integrate plugins into the core code? Which is it, guys?
It's either blatant hypocrisy or there's some serious cognative dissonance going on inside Mozilla. Yeah, they're probably doing this to make money, but this one move simply invalidates all of their prior excuses for removing fea
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't they achieve the same thing by installing the add-on by default and letting you remove it? They went to all that effort to create an add-on framework.
Re: (Score:3)
Remind me, what did we lose along with the status bar? AFAIK everything either pops up as needed or was moved to the menu/toolbars.
I don't think interface changes or "bloat" are what slows down Firefox's adoption. I've used it since 1.x and I'm actually eager to see the search bar merged with the address bar, since I already do all my searches with engine keywords ("az" for Amazon, "/" for Google, "w" for Wikipedia though it's my default engine, etc...).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please no! Just yesterday I told a client, who uses IE, to go to a URL. They tried it and got a Bing search result. First I thought they used the search bar. But no, it turned out they mistyped something in the address bar, and so it decided "that wasn't a valid URL" and it ran a search instead. It would have been better if it said "server not found" or "hey, you can't have spaces in URLs" or "you forgot the colon after https." But since the default behavior is to run a search, it replaced what they ty
Re: (Score:2)
The malformed URL would've resulted in an error otherwise, with more or less the same result. That's why I leave out the scheme bit and just give them host/path, or mail them the URL. Non-technical users don't care for URLs (or anything with a precise structure), and figuring out how people fail is part of the art of user support (:
Re:The statement (Score:5, Insightful)
The malformed URL would've resulted in an error otherwise, with more or less the same result.
Yes, it would have resulted in an error, which is exactly what I needed. It was not "more or less the same result." It was a completely different result that obfuscated the actual problem. When they got the Bing page, I first had to determine if they typed it into the correct box. Then, I had to determine what they typed in and what was wrong with it. But since it erased what I typed, the user couldn't read back to me what they typed.
There is a compromise: If it gave them the Bing search result, but didn't change what they entered into the URL bar, and/or echoed back what they typed in, then I would not have lost valuable information.
I had to include the scheme in this case, and I couldn't mail them the URL because it was the URL to get to their mail. :-) Worse yet, it had a port number.
Re: (Score:3)
You may love it, but for others it is absolutely horrendous! The problem arises when you have an intranet, and wish to go to internal websites.
Having your address bar hijacked into a search bar so [random bunch of scum] can inspect your activity is only mildly intrusive, but getting error 4
Re:The statement (Score:5, Informative)
Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and...
Let's see if they were right about that. Most popular extensions [mozilla.org]
Adblock plus: 20 million users
Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
Firebug: 2 million users
.
.
.
Pocket: 257k users
It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list. [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and...
Let's see if they were right about that. Most popular extensions [mozilla.org]
Adblock plus: 20 million users
Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
Firebug: 2 million users
.
.
.
Pocket: 257k users
It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list. [mozilla.org]
To be fair, they didn't say how popular. Maybe they just mean that it has been accepted as opposed to brought out-of-the-blue (it's just above YouTube Unblocker and the Reddit Enhancement Suite), but I get your point - it sounds a bit like marketspeak.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pocket: 257k users
It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list. [mozilla.org]
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the "popularity" had to do with Pocket being in the stock portfolio of someone at Mozilla - or some other self-serving investment relationship... /cynical
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Adblock plus: 20 million users
Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
Firebug: 2 million users
A slight segue:
You do an indirect disservice by stopping the list at #3 when #5 is NoScript with 2.1M users -- proof that people who disable javascript are not out-of-touch aberrations. Web devs need to be more cognizant of this fact.
There is also a disservice as "Classic Theme Restorer" is on page two with 437,962 users. Therefore, more people are going out of of their way to restore the old look of Firefox than are using the "pocket" service. Don't see any effort to take care of those users who like the old UI either; other than the "fuck off or use an extension."
Re:The statement (Score:5, Informative)
This is a feature that violates Mozilla's own Manifesto.
This is not a core feature of a browser and as such it needs to be in a plugin. Even worse is that it relies on a proprietary solution that has a different privacy policy than FF. The company is VC funded and the PP states that "all your data are belong to us and also to whomever we sell out to".
Is that acceptable in an open source browser?
It is like they forgot what happened to Navigator when it tried to be a kitchen sink browser.
It is the same reason no one uses Seamonkey.
Stop trotting out strawmen and just admit you are a Mozilla shill, and a bad one at that.
New features are fine, when they make sense.
Seamonkey (Score:4, Funny)
Adblock is even more popular (Score:5, Insightful)
Ship that by default if you dare!
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. They'll work themselves out of their own 1% of the market :)
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost 100 times more popular, in fact.
The current Mozilla wouldn't dare to do that, but it would not be that different from when they implemented pop-up blocking. That annoyed advertisers, and also had some collateral damage. But it was very much appreciated by users. I think if adblock had been around back when pop-up blocking was invented, it too would have been built into the browser.
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory why is all this shit built into Firefox comment here. I don't even want the developer console, on some machines. It's just an annoyance when I accidentally pop it up. Why should I have features that bloat the install if I'm not using them? Make them all extensions. Wasn't that the point of the design? That it's a platform?
Re: (Score:2)
Time for Firefox to Fork Off.
more integration (Score:2)
Mozilla should also integrate facebook, twitter, gmail, yahoo mail, outlook, pandora, itune..... etc. After all we all users like tight integration, don't we? I am sure this partners can provide minimal client side software under MPLv2.
Seriously, Mozilla should pull this out immediately. It can maintain a site for recommended extensions but should not directly integrate it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What do you think the *social* options in about:config are about? Guess who "needs" the provided API.
Yeah I noticed it too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Initially thought it was a new mozilla-run service, but when i clicked through to learn more, it was clear that it was a 3rd-party proprietary service. That's when i removed the 'Pocket' icon from the toolbar: Hamburger --> Customize --> drag it down and out. Kind of annoying that the plugin code bloat remains, but guess that's just something I'll live with for now.
I've been a big user and supporter of Firefox, even through all the performance problems, mis-steps, yahoo search shenanigans, but this is the first time I feel they blatantly went against their philosophy of an open web. Tsk tsk Mozilla.
Firefox Has Always Been Bloat (Score:4, Interesting)
As it is Seamonkey download is 31MB and Firefox is 38MB. I personally like the old suite and all its options, but I also like that it feels faster.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Why Firefox is losing market share (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why Firefox is losing market share. At one time, I could add whatever add-ons I felt was necessary to make Firefox look like what I wanted it to, and/or what I needed. However, for some time, Mozilla has been adopting a kitchen sink approach, where Firefox will have everything, and instead of being a lean browser, will be as bloated as IE.
Vote with your feet (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not like what the Mozilla Foundation is doing with Firefox, and they don't seem to care what you think - join the millions of us who've already switched to a different browser.
I was a loyal Firefox user for many years, but somewhere along the way Mozilla lost its focus. The things I used to need Firefox for (DOM Inspector, JavaScript debugging, Ad Block) are readily available with other browsers. So I bid adieu to their political agendas and bloated infrastructure (seriously - how much money do you need to develop a web browser?) and moved on.
Re: (Score:3)
how much money do you need to develop a web browser?) and moved on.
Less than Jimmy Wales needs to run a wiki, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Both take in way more money than they need, is the point.
Re:Vote with your feet (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, what's our options here?
There's Chrome, which is owned by an advertising company. There's Chromium, which I've never been clear on what it's for. There's Firefox (which we have two stories today about bloat). There's Opera, which is essentially Chrome. Apple abandoned Safari on Windows quite some time ago.
So, what's left that isn't either a) a marketing/ad platform, or b) full of bloat?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not happy about the addition of the Pocket code, but mostly because it's a proprietary service.
I suspect that if you actually measured disk, network (download), or memory use for the Pocket code, "bloat" claims are going to look wildly exaggerated.
Pocket aside, Firefox is still my favorite browser, and one of the least bloated available. Compared to Chrome: smaller download, smaller install, uses considerably less RAM when displaying the same set of tabs, faster startup, faster JavaScript, and I can ru
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't a single good browser any more.
All the FF forks suck in various ways.
Seamonkey blows and is under control of Mozilla.
Chrome is nothing but spyware.
IE sucks as always doesn't run on anything but Windows. Anyone else remember the Linux IE version, now that was bad!
Maybe the new browser from the old CEO of Opera won't suck but I am not holding my breath.
Voting with your feet and moving to a different browser is like voting in an election, all there is on the ballot is various levels of evil and inc
Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Let's see if their "Submit Feedback" add-on works... (menu icon -> question mark icon -> Submit Feedback)
Re: (Score:3)
It works [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3)
91% unhappy?
They might as well pipe those to /dev/null.
It has the same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
admittedly, this is also true for all feedback [mozilla.org].
How many? (Score:4, Interesting)
What, they asked like 5 users if they liked it?
I'm betting more people do not care/do not want it than those who do.
If I want to save a web page, I'll use a damned bookmark.
Instead of putting this shit in the browser for the small fraction of people who care, how about we leave it as an add-on and those people who want it can add it themselves.
Why must Mozilla keep filling up Firefox with shit that most people have no interest in? Stop wasting my fucking memory with crapware I don't need.
Who the hell is in charge at Mozilla these days? I bunch of guys from marketing?
I hope someone is going to fork it and throw this crap out so we can have a simple web browser, not some swiss-army knife with crap in it we don't care about.
Clearly (Score:2)
Mozilla is in the pocket of Big Pocket.
Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration...
Maybe Mozilla should stop telling users what they want, and start giving users what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like a handjob from a 1977-era Farah Fawcett, please.
Hello! (Score:2)
There is a precedent with the "Hello" webrtc calling functionality, which also relies on a proprietary service. I wish Mozilla had invested in writing a decent WebRTC server, it's really something that is missing from the WebRTC ecosystem. Currently we only have MCUs (where all the media goes throught the server) and hosted services, but no good P2P WebRTC service.
This looks like another tracker. (Score:4, Insightful)
The short version (Score:5, Interesting)
>> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
>> Mozilla: F*** you. Here's some bloatware chasing down some rarely used media extensions.
>> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
>> Mozilla: F*** you. Here's a Mozilla "operating system."
>> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
>> Mozilla: F*** you. Here are some built-in ads.
>> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
>> Mozilla: F*** you. Here is some built-in crapware from Pocket.
>> Users: No, f*** you. We already switched ourselves and everyone we know still running Firefox to Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
PaleMoon offers a fork of Firefox without all the recent non-sense. I use it with all the extensions I collected from my days of using Firefox and it does a much better job of living up to Firefox's original goals than Firefox has in the last few years.
Sucks if you WANT pocket, too! (Score:4, Informative)
(UN)Suprisingly it also sucks if you WANT pocket and you were registered with them and you have an account and all.
How? They said FF extension won't be supported anymore because Pocket is already in Firefox. Well, the "integrated" version just sends you to Pocket web page when you want to see what you want to read! It is nothing more, just a bookmark (it even shows under Bookmarks button).
While the extension would show your reading list directly, you could dismiss pages without going to pocket web page and so on. MUCH BETTER!
Re: (Score:2)
The degradation of Firefox continues (Score:4, Interesting)
Using Firefox has become like that relationship that used to be perfect and then out of nowhere your partner starts cheating on you and each time swears its going to be the last time.
And you keep falling for it.
Re: (Score:3)
For me, installing every new Firefox release starts with a web search for the new Firefox "features" to disable - sigh. (Social, Hello, Pocket, telemetry, health reporting, beacon, etc...)
What a waste (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like bookmarks or Save Page functionality hasn't existed for more than a decade.
If mozilla cares about userbase (Score:5, Interesting)
They would do an ask slashdot about how they've been treating the browser lately.
"save web articles to read later" (Score:2)
Isn't that called bookmarks?
Bloat Spyware (Score:2, Insightful)
Chome = Spyware
Firefox = Bloat
I'd rather deal with bloat than spyware.
h264 (Score:3)
I use Pocket (Score:2)
I use Firefox and have been using Pocket (from a bookmarklet) for ages. So I guess that makes me one of the FF users that likes Pocket. However even I don't think it's in the slightest bit appropriate to integrate the service into the browser.
As it happens, I have my FF UI so heavily customized (menus and status bars forever, man) that I don't see any visible trace of Pocket and didn't know it had been added in this way until this article popped up.
Mozzila strategy in a nutshel (Score:2)
Keep adding some features coming from some pet projects of the most vocal developers that a great part of the user base doesn't care... while products that gets bloated, slower and buggy at every interaction. Somehow this doesn't seem like a good business strategy.
Personal experience: Changed to Chrome about 3 months ago... since I learned to live with the definitively less advanced tab management, everything has been better. Much faster and less buggy.
How to disable pocket for the lazy (Score:5, Interesting)
1.about: config
2. Find browser.pocket.enabled preference and change its value to ‘false’.
3. To remove Reader view, change reader.parse-on-load.enabled preference value to ‘false‘.
4. Restart the browser to see the changes.
-S
What users like this? (Score:3)
>"Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration"
I don't know any such users. In fact, most people I know agree that Mozilla needs to stop this trend of adding things to Firefox; it goes completely contrary to the Firefox mission (or what I thought it used to be, anyway)- to be small, open, cross-platform, and fast.
So please remove it. And then remove Hello. In fact, remove the developer stuff too (which 99.999% of users never use). Please use Addons/Extensions for these things. And while you are at it- LISTEN TO YOUR USER BASE who want full control over the UI options (Should I mention tabs-on-bottom? Or status panel? Or traditional file menus?). Stop trying to be Chrome!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And here it is, the reality of popular open source software. People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.
"You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)
Re: (Score:2)
But open source is supposed to be about what the users want. Firefox lately seems to be more about how many more millions Mozilla can make off their users and they care little about users (since they pay $0).
So Firefox is less of a free sort of software, rather it is has become a commercial product with revenues from ads and other commercial deals with for-profit companies.
Re:Fuck you Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
But open source is supposed to be about what the users want
Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want, and if the 'user' happens to have developer skills he can make it what he wants. Which open source projects are the ones that do what the users (vs developers) want?
Re:Fuck you Mozilla (Score:5, Informative)
"You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)
Firefox has been forked already. More than 53 people are very happy about it.
Pale Moon [palemoon.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, fine, some number* of people are very happy about it.
* some number that is insignificantly different from 53
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, political affiliation has EVERYTHING to do with a web browser. Must be those damned socialists and their damned feelings. How dare someone have empathy for humans?! anyway, what were we talking about? Oh right Firefox! THANKS OBAMA.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently it does, look what happened to their former CEO Eich.
Re:I'm not sure I get this (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is, it gets saved in the cloud, and your data can be sold to third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the lawsuits now....