i completely agree in spirit.
Features of an application are not subject to whimsy. "We felt like now was a good time to take away or bastardize this thing - Oh and we are going to force it on to users or else they get screwed by some hacker." The bug discussion they had is unimportant. They have the power to change things, but the question is do they have the _authority. This is the crux. They believe they do. Users disagree.
Until recently it didn't matter, so what if the new version of Word has ugly goofy top bars, screw em. Don't upgrade. But now 'security' is tied into every change, and you're left out to dry unless you accept the 'security' updates, which just happen to come with a pile of 'we just felt like it, open wide' changes.
>, but the question is do they have the _authority. It's their software. They're the ones doing all the work. I can't think of who else would possibly have the authority. As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
That said... BOOO! I use compact mode pretty much anywhere I'm not on a huge 4k screen. Which admittedly isn't often these days, but I do plan to get my laptop running again eventually.
I'm more amused by the kind of thinking that goes into "you can't tell me what to do". If people who do open source didn't have the authority over their own code, what would that mean for the longevity of the movement? Baby-bathwater-browser.
As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
Oooh. Watch that assumption. A significant percentage of Firefox users donate some money and/or time to Mozilla. It's a community, supposedly.
I've think that's been a load of crap for years, but that's why you see posts like this. It used to be the case -- all you had to do was offer a little time or money -- but some people haven't figured out that they don't matter to the mission any more.
That might buy you influence, but not authority. It's right there in the name: donation. And generally I think it's treated more as "keep up the good work", particularly if you don't include any requests or commentary along with with your donation. You've generally got to be kind of explicit when buying influence, especially when you're only responsible for a drop in the bucket.
As a developer I can completely understand why they'd dump some esoteric feature that very few people use. It still has to be tested every release and in these modern days there may even be an automated test that has to be maintained.
Of for fscks sake, someone just take Firefox out behind the woodshed and put it out of its misery. Mozilla has been slowly strangling it for years and we can all see where it's headed, it's just taking forever to get there. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, one freeze frame at a time.
userContent.css (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla can just fuck right off. They're pulling this shit at the same time they're planning on removing userContent.css support.
I completely agree in spirit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>, but the question is do they have the _authority.
It's their software. They're the ones doing all the work. I can't think of who else would possibly have the authority. As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
That said... BOOO! I use compact mode pretty much anywhere I'm not on a huge 4k screen. Which admittedly isn't often these days, but I do plan to get my laptop running again eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more amused by the kind of thinking that goes into "you can't tell me what to do". If people who do open source didn't have the authority over their own code, what would that mean for the longevity of the movement? Baby-bathwater-browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - especially ironic from people who are busy telling other people what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
Oooh. Watch that assumption. A significant percentage of Firefox users donate some money and/or time to Mozilla. It's a community, supposedly.
I've think that's been a load of crap for years, but that's why you see posts like this. It used to be the case -- all you had to do was offer a little time or money -- but some people haven't figured out that they don't matter to the mission any more.
Re: (Score:2)
That might buy you influence, but not authority. It's right there in the name: donation. And generally I think it's treated more as "keep up the good work", particularly if you don't include any requests or commentary along with with your donation. You've generally got to be kind of explicit when buying influence, especially when you're only responsible for a drop in the bucket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)