TechRepublic: Mozilla 'Is Desperately Needed to Save the Web' (techrepublic.com) 317
"I can't remember the last time I cared about Mozilla," writes Matt Asay at TechRepublic. "I also can't remember a time when we needed it more."
An anonymous reader quotes TechRepublic:
Mozilla's Firefox is almost a rounding error in desktop market share, and nonexistent in mobile browser market share. It offers a few other services, like Pocket, but largely gets ignored... This is a mistake. Our world is increasingly mediated by the internet, and that internet has just a few gatekeepers, collecting tolls as we browse. As Python guru Matt Harrison put it, "Vendors control the default browser which 99.9% of people use." Those vendors are happy to sell us access to information. Nothing about it is free. You are most definitely the product.
On mobile, where the majority of the world's content is now consumed, Google and Facebook own eight of the top 10 apps, with apps devouring 87% of our time spent on smartphones and tablets, according to new comScore data. For that remaining 13% of time spent on the mobile web, Google and Apple offer the two dominant browsers... the majority of our time online is now mediated by just a few megacorporations, and for the most part their top incentive is to borrow our privacy just long enough to target an ad at us. Then there's Mozilla, an organization whose mantra is "Internet for people, not profit." That feels like a necessary voice to add to today's internet oligopoly, but it's not one we're hearing... We clearly need an organization standing up for web freedom, as expecting Google to do that is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Google does many great things, but its clear incentive is to sell ads. We are Google's product, as the saying goes.
The article applauds the Mozilla-sponsored Rust programming language as promising, "but not to save the web from the all-consuming embrace of Facebook and Google, especially as they wall off the experience in apps... "If I sound like I don't know what to propose Mozilla should do, it's because I don't. I simply feel strongly that the role Mozilla played in the early browser wars needs to be resurrected to save the web today."
On mobile, where the majority of the world's content is now consumed, Google and Facebook own eight of the top 10 apps, with apps devouring 87% of our time spent on smartphones and tablets, according to new comScore data. For that remaining 13% of time spent on the mobile web, Google and Apple offer the two dominant browsers... the majority of our time online is now mediated by just a few megacorporations, and for the most part their top incentive is to borrow our privacy just long enough to target an ad at us. Then there's Mozilla, an organization whose mantra is "Internet for people, not profit." That feels like a necessary voice to add to today's internet oligopoly, but it's not one we're hearing... We clearly need an organization standing up for web freedom, as expecting Google to do that is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Google does many great things, but its clear incentive is to sell ads. We are Google's product, as the saying goes.
The article applauds the Mozilla-sponsored Rust programming language as promising, "but not to save the web from the all-consuming embrace of Facebook and Google, especially as they wall off the experience in apps... "If I sound like I don't know what to propose Mozilla should do, it's because I don't. I simply feel strongly that the role Mozilla played in the early browser wars needs to be resurrected to save the web today."
Everyone knows what Mozilla needs to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
... except Mozilla.
Every release they make the browser worse. Their mantra is "just like Chrome, except slower and with more bugs." No wonder people switch to Chrome.
Firefox is supposed to be the browser that people use because they care - they want to customize, they want features, they want control. But with every release this slips a little farther away. Things constantly stop working, and it gets harder and harder for the extension makers to keep up.
Oddly, Android is the one place where Firefox is still actually better than Chrome - because it's got a real ad blocker. Sure, it's slow and crashes all the time, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
But at least there's Pocket! Oh yay.
Re:Everyone knows what Mozilla needs to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most extension makers have already given up. People who have been coding and maintaining extensions for decades are now retiring because Firefox kicked their extensions out. Running Firefox without extensions is just not an option. When all relevant Firefox extensions get disabled on November 14, I'll just try to stick with the last working version and hope there aren't too many exploits against it. But my enthusiasm for Mozilla is completely gone. I don't think they can "save the web" if they can't even keep their browser working.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Everyone knows what Mozilla needs to do... (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to hate Firefox on Android, even though it got a proper adblocker, simply because it was so slow and buggy that it was unusable. However, they recently released a new app Firefox Focus, and that is now my main mobile browser. It's faster than Chromium, it blocks ads and trackers by default, and it automatically removes cookies and so on when you close it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No that was the old Mozilla/Seamonkey suite. Firefox as a whole was the browser people chose because they did not care. FF scrapped a lot of good features and customization, offered nothing new, it was lighter weight for all of like three releases...
FF is where Mozilla started to go wrong! They should have re-branded the suite and fixed the performance issuers there at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is supposed to be the browser that people use because they care - they want to customize, they want features, they want control
Yep, and the less than 10% of internet users who care about that stuff actually use it. Don't confuse the general public with the desires of the Slashdot IT elite. Most people couldn't care less about customisation. A few of the general public care only enough to use something that allows them to install an ad blocker, but most don't even care about that.
They want simple, elegant, functional, and out of the way, not at all the browser that Slashdot envisages as ideal.
Re: (Score:3)
Continue to make these unfounded assertions
I take you you don't know or understand most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
they want to customize, they want features, they want control
just like Chrome, except slower and with more bugs
Did it occur to you that the former might be one possibly cause of the latter? Because the design goals of "Loaded with features that have a million different options and permutations that the user can control" and "performant and bug free" seem to me totally at odds.
Every new feature adds (usually) bugs, degrades (some) performance and (surely) consumes engineering resources that could be spent on stability. And then, you get to allocate testing resources to the new feature to find and polish it, testing r
Re: (Score:3)
Opera is a de-facto Chrome skin this days. A crying shame.
I run Chromium these days, and keep a close eye on Vivaldi. But it is not quite there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Firefox search partner codes"
"mobile marketing vendor"
"marketing campaigns"
Gaah. This ain't your father's Mozilla. And I really don't want "personalized recommendations" (read: customized ads). I want to do my own searching, with search terms I pick (which usually have nothing to do with buying anything).
I use Firefox because I have it very heavily customized with a lot of addons (some of which I've modified myself). I suppose I'm going to have to stay on the last working version of FF forever and hope
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Mozilla is too busy trying to be an inferior version of Google as evidenced in their attempts to convert Firefox into an inferior version of Chrome.
Mozilla lost its philosophy and soul during that period when it was subsidized by Google, and that's when everything started turning to shit for the company.
As far as wasting money on diversity programs and social justice instead of improving its products, well the latest financial report that emphasizes ruin talks for itself.
Forget about Mozilla, it's time to give some of the Firefox forks some support and attention. Mozilla has been corrupted by Google and its philosophy.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, the angry, stupid AC troll. You guys are real pieces of shit. Yes, I'm sure that Mozilla is having problems because they committed the awful, awful sin of trying to hire not all white guys., Go fuck yourself.
You mean mozilla is pushing for the hiring of people who have no fucking clue, and support people who implement codes of conduct in Rust in order to witch hunt people? Gee, I wonder why people would be annoyed at a company who's pushing that type of "diversity."
Fuck hiring the best, we're gonna hire the trans-black-lesbian-midget-transracial thingy with 23 made-up genders because it looks the best for our religion and we can show off to everyone just how progressive we are.
Their plan to save the web: Redesign FF UI again (Score:5, Funny)
The entire browser is going to be hidden under one giant hamburger button. No menus, no URL bar, no scroll bars, hell no rendering window. Just one giant hamburger button that crashes the browser when you click it.
You heard it here first, folks.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire browser is going to be... Just one giant hamburger button that crashes the browser when you click it.
No it won't crash the browser. It will get a a pack of hamburgers delivered to you together with a crate of cola. Don't worry about paying, it will debit you automatically. Then the hamburger button will be replaced by a theatre ticket button. And so on.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be working for Mozilla's team. :P
Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
...specifically since January 8, 2008, working to be as irrelevant, feckless, and misguided as they are now. The only positive and notable thing they've done for the web in that time is Let's Encrypt.
Two versions of Firefox from now, they will jettison what made their browser great: the extensions. Mozilla needs a radical change in direction to save itself.
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two versions of Firefox from now, they will jettison what made their browser great: the extensions.
Prove it. The extensions API is changing, that's all. I'm using the WebExtensions version of uBlock Origin (version 1.14.4) in Firefox 56 beta and it works fine. Tree Style Tab is another add-on people like and the WebExtensions version is in development [github.com].
Add-ons will either migrate to the new API or they won't. If WebExtensions APIs to support your pet add-on are missing, then get involved and add them. Mozilla wants you to [mozilla.org].
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
If WebExtensions APIs to support your pet add-on are missing, then get involved and add them.
Why the hell should we? Mozilla ignored what their users wanted and scrapped an extensions architecture that worked fine. Now you want us to reward them by putting work in to port stuff over? Hell no.
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:5, Informative)
scrapped an extensions architecture that worked fine
It didn't work fine. Firefox 57 is faster without it. Have you tried Firefox nightly? Alternatively, wait for 57 to move to the beta channel and try it then.
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought users were complaining that their 2015 era 8-core laptop was slower for web browsing than their 2-core 2009 workstation because using a fifth of the electricity meant lower single-threaded performance.
So they rewrote their extensions API because the old API couldn't easily be multi-threaded nor easily ported to Servo.
Progress...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. It's faster because of a months-long engineering effort to improve performance.
Proof: Fx57 still has the existing architecture, and ships with multiple extensions that use it. It's just us rubes that aren't allowed to.
Ctrl+Q will speed up your browser (Score:2)
Firefox works faster because when I accidentally press Ctrl+Q instead of Ctrl+Tab or Ctrl+W, it ends up using zero CPU because it quits, taking unsubmitted form data with it. I had used the Keybinder extension [github.com], but that will not be ported to WebExtensions. I would use the Disable Ctrl-Q and Cmd-Q extension [mozilla.org], but bug 1325692 [mozilla.org] makes the Disable Ctrl-Q and Cmd-Q extension do nothing on either of my machines (Xubuntu 16.04 at work, Debian 9 at home).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is not the API. It's that Mozilla no longer has the critical mass to encourage people to port old extensions to the new API, let alone make new ones.
Lots of authors are just quitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of authors are just quitting.
So? It's a good opportunity for new authors. Find some extension you like and offer to take over as the maintainer. It'll look good on your resume.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the API, at least for me and for many of the extensions I use that were written by other people. WebExtensions don't give the access necessary to write the type of extensions I write, so... I can't write them.
It's not an issue of critical mass. I'd port them if it was possible (if only so I could upgrade off of this ancient version of Firefox), but it's not.
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
If WebExtensions APIs to support your pet add-on are missing, then get involved and add them. Mozilla wants you to.
That's exactly the problem. Mozilla continues to head in the direction of a consumer shopping service and then they invite the tiny, tech-literate population to use extensions. Why doesn't Firefox have easily usable NoScript-type options? Why not block known 3rd-party trackers by default? Is it so radical to think people have a right not to be spied on? Instead they've hidden the script settings. They've hidden cookie settings, allowing 3rd-party cookies by default. They've hidden the status bar and encourage people to do all their browsing through a search engine.
The list goes on. A case could be made that those changes are for convenience, but when options are actually removed (like javascript settings) that's coercion, not convenience. As someone else said, they became corrupted by the Google money. Matt Asay wants to know how it can be fixed? Simple: Always design with the idea that you're serving the customer. In this case, make it as easy as possible to protect privacy and security. Don't assume everyone wants to shop or go to Facebook. Don't treat people like idiots. Everyone knows how to get to Google or Yahoo. There's no need to let those companies take over the address bar. Just be honest. The beauty of a non-profit is that you don't have to be popular. Remember?
At least someone that thinks like me :-) (Score:2)
I'm worried that there be so many spit before I found you. Most of the previous comments I read are just petty indeed :-D /. audience is becoming :-(
That's a concern about what
H.
(using FF on linux, pc and mac for everything
-quietly forgetting iCab, the first ad-blocking browser 10y before FF was born, because indeed FF is easier to set -and, well, I'm migrating everything on linux now)
Last year Jetpack, this year WebExtensions, next? (Score:2)
The impression that I get is "We just rewrote our extension in Jetpack months ago. If you require us to now rewrite our Jetpack extension in WebExtensions, we quit."
From Keybinder README [github.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
We just rewrote our extension in Jetpack months ago.
Jetpack 1.0 was released over 6 years ago [mozilla.org]. I don't have much sympathy for people who only rewrote to Jetpack a few months ago.
If you require us to now rewrite our Jetpack extension in WebExtensions, we quit.
Firefox's move to WebExtensions was announced over two years ago [mozilla.org] and you could start using WebExtensions over a year ago [mozilla.org]. The rate of change has hardly been rapid.
I'm probably going to move to Vivaldi or something, I guess.
Sure. That sounds rational.
Re: (Score:2)
FireBug was useful enough to be picked apart and integrated directly into the browser [...] though in a feature-reduced form
What's an example of something FireBug could do that Firefox DevTools can't?
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:5, Interesting)
On top of that, the new APIs will have only been out for a few months when the pull support for all "legacy" extensions.
WebExtensions have been available for over a year [mozilla.org]. Everyone's had plenty of time to port extensions and request changes.
remembered as the final blow to Firefox
Doubt it. It's a new beginning.
Re: (Score:3)
Time, yes. But the problem isn't time. The problem is that it's outright impossible to do lots of things with WebExtensions, because they just plain don't get the access to Firefox that they need (and if you try to work with Mozilla to get that access, they refuse to work with you, and instead accuse you of refusing to work with them).
No amount of time will help when the sandbox you're required to use just plain doesn't support what you need it to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it. It's a new beginning.
Err double doubt it. It's business as usual.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm willing to put $100 on Mozilla going bankrupt
But only willing to post anonymously. Seems a bit, well, cowardly.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they did give me a Bentley and it could rive on water, so I started relying on rivers and lakes to get to work. Now all of a sudden they are taking the Bentley away and giving me a new Bentley that has no steering wheel and can't drive on water anymore. So yes I'm going to complain.
Firefox lives and dies on ad revenue from users *using* firefox. So if they make it less useful, they'll lose users and lose money. So if they want to bring in money to continue their existence, they need to listen
Re:Mozilla has spent almost 10 years... (Score:5, Informative)
they will jettison what made their browser great: the extensions.
And that is why I am having to use the browser 'Pale Moon' in order to use the extensions I love such as Pentadactyl.
Since firefox have disregarded what was great about their browser, i.e. the extensions, they are effectively killing it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
they are effectively killing it.
How? Extensions still exist and Firefox 57 really is a whole lot faster. You should try out the nightly version now, or wait for 57 to move to beta.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for breaking records.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not possible with the old extension model.
This fact is refuted by dev builds. Thanks for playing the "lets attribute a casual relationship that doesn't exist" game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try Firefox 57. What's the matter? Afraid you'll like it?
Considering it's continuing down the path of failure the mozilla has pumped out ever since it's australis UI redesign? Note how that for many people was the beginning of the end? Have they seen a resurgence of people switching to them? Nope. Have they listened to people or just talk over them because "they know so much better what they want it to be instead of you." See that user decline when they decided to start becoming a political lobby? Yep.
There's a reason they've lost user marketshare hand over f
Re: (Score:2)
Because I'm afraid I'll lose unsubmitted form data when I accidentally press Ctrl+Q instead of Ctrl+W or Ctrl+Tab, and Firefox 57's extension architecture provides no way for extensions to override this.
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically mentioned a reason: Pentadactyl.
They've known for two years [github.com] that the new API was coming. Have they built a WebExtensions version or not? Tridactyl [github.com] is at least giving it a go.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't rewrite because the functions no longer exist that said extension uses. Absolutely fucking useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since firefox have disregarded what was great about their browser, i.e. the extensions, they are effectively killing it.
Disregarded them by providing a better frame work and a whole 2 year period for developers to port over? Let me help you: http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla actively refuse to provide same or similar feature to key extensions like classic theme restorer, or session manager, or anything that makes Firefox truly uniquely more powerful and customizable than Chrome. And you call it "a better frame work"? I heard they won't even let extensions touch settings in about:config anymore!
If you Firefox developers want to overhaul the UI again, go do it. It's not the first time and I was expecting classic theme restorer to save the mess when I don't like some pa
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me for not giving a shit that it doesn't allow you to change some elements of the theme.
Do you notice that, when you say a feature being deprecated is okay, you're actually agreeing with all the people saying they're abandoning Firefox due to it not having the features they want?
Those people want a browser with complete theme customization. Can we agree Firefox isn't the browser for them anymore?
By the way: I myself run Chrome, Firefox ESR 52.x, and Vivaldi (just testing it now). Once that ESR version stops being updated, the then new ESR will be basically equal to Chrome from an end user's pe
Re: (Score:2)
what distinctive features will Firefox have by that point, compared to Chrome, that would make using it worth the trouble?
It will play fewer videos formats out of the box. According to some mozilla fan boys, this is a "feature" and it sure is distinctive.
if they verified DNSsec... (Score:5, Interesting)
why not aim for a secure browser audience...
Ditch SSL Certificate authorities unless users trusted them and verify the DNS responses (DNSsec) present that information to the user
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be going from trusting a bunch of different CAs, to trusting a single domain name registry for your security.
Yes, the current CA system is bad, but having a single point of failure is even worse IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the current CA system is bad, but having a single point of failure is even worse IMO.
There's a difference between trusting the best out of 400 and the sum of 400.
Every single out of 400+ CAs can falsify a certificate. No matter if they're sloppy, broken into, operated by a bad government or susceptible to orders from a bad government -- all it takes is to get a single CA to cooperate against you.
On the other hand, with DNSSEC+DANE, you're trusting only a single TLD operator and a single registry. You even get to pick the latter arbitrarily, and get to pick the former if you're fine with c
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming we're talking DV certs here, then you're already trusting the domain name registry -- and without DNSSEC you have no way to even detect an MITM on it. Adding DNSSEC and then skipping CAs to get the identity info straight from the source would be a massive improvement.
EV certs are a different beast, of course. With those, the CAs are providing a useful identity verification service that verifies your identity separately from DNS.
Re: (Score:2)
DNSSEC alone is not enough. You want DANE for certificate validation.
Save the web from what exactly? (Score:2)
This whole argument looks like a lot of hand waving and FUD. The only rational argument I can see is that we need to Save the Web from the oh so horrible fate of being controlled by corporations whose "top incentive is to borrow our privacy just long enough to target an ad at us". Just what is wrong with targeted advertising? How would resurrecting Firefox prevent it in any way?
Why privacy (Score:2)
Have you ever looked at a product on Amazon, Target, or another online store, only to have banner ads for that product stalk you to other, unrelated websites? This is called "retargeting", and it's creepy, and it's powered by cross-site tracking.
Would you want an ad network or ad exchange to sell your browsing history, including websites about sensitive medical conditions, to your health insurer so that the insurer can raise your premiums based on the websites that you have visited?
Have you ever had an ISP
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, "retargeting" and unwanted video ads have happened to me. As a Firefox user. I don't really care about the former and there are blocker plugins for the latter. As for selling my browsing history to my health insurer, that sounds like a something for law enforcement to handle, not my browser. In any case, you're still just waving your hands really hard and not answering my question.
I don't always log into slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The type of comments we get are a nasty indication of how remote freedom is to many.
Not using Chrome and Edge are steps to at least claim back some of that freedom, Firefox and it's parent Mozilla were always at the forefront of that fight.
I've used Firefox so long that it's hotkey still is [Meta + N] and I see little problems with it, certainly nothing that warrants me trading in more of my privacy to Google Chrome.
Not long ago someone here asked for a listing of the privacy advantag
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I still use Mozilla's suite product, SeaMonkey, since I was always had been a fan of those since Netscape days. SeaMonkey hasn't changed its GUI frontend much like Firefox and others. It uses the older Firefox/Gecko versions. Its v2.48's user agent shows "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0 SeaMonkey/2.48". Upcoming versions will be relying on ESR versions.
Google & FB == new AOL & CompuServe (Score:3)
It's that simple. The open standards internet has been taken over by shiny services like a commercial Usenet with a web interface that Facebook is.
We need an entirely new set of services and protocols with finished implementations of working and well designed applications that support them. Firefox used to be the best usable browser. Then chrome came along and had a great fast JavaScript engine, a new platform people could build client side logic on. In many ways Chrome is the new Flash, which makes it so attractive.
We just had this issue a few weeks ago. The internet we all use needs a redo. Hard encryption and signing on the lowest app protocol layer and by default with no option out, independant namecoin DNS, asynch and offline capable base protocols and services, an interactive capable web replacement that does away with the HTML 5/CSS bloat of today and a useful optional binary app format including baked font rendering, 3D, audio and some other gadgets people want. All new email/Usenet/IRC would also build on top of said base protocols. Bye bye spam, bye bye NSA, bye bye Farcebook and WhatsCrap.
Maybe Mozilla should put some effort into that. ... Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard encryption and signing on the lowest app protocol layer and by default with no option out
How do you recommend that the operator of an internal server on a private home LAN obtain a certificate for said signing?
baked font rendering
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "baked font rendering", but how well will that work for people who use text-to-speech or a braille display to read documents?
Or Brave and Opera etc (Score:2)
There are many other options. Never touched Chrome... Google has been too big for a long time and I didn't want to feed it.
Mozilla's CoC is driving contributors away (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozilla's Code of Conduct is driving contributors away.
They should cherish their contributors who are voluntary spending their time trying to help.
Instead when you use a word like "guys", you get blocked. I'm just stupified by the bullying behavior of Mozilla's employees: https://mzl.la/2gu5521
Re:Mozilla's CoC is driving contributors away (Score:4, Informative)
Instead when you use a word like "guys", you get blocked. I'm just stupified by the bullying behavior of Mozilla's employees: https://mzl.la/2gu5521 [mzl.la]
Lol, that thread is freaking great. A contributor asked about the status on a two year old feature request and makes the mistake of using "guys" when referring to a collective group and get three responses about his use of "gendered language" and his responses marked as abusive and off-topic. And the icing on the cake is that guys is considered non-gendered by both Mirriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com] and Oxford [oxforddictionaries.com]dictionaries. As for the feature request itself, still in an unknown status. Honestly if that is how they react to every perceived slight, I can see why Firefox is struggling.
Internet for firefox developers, not users... (Score:2)
In regards to applauding Rust; I point to n-gate.com
* In America (Score:2)
Chrome isn't winning because it's better (Score:2)
That makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft was punished because of the way it abused it's position and power in the market place. Linux is *chosen* by companies because of it's qualities (technical and otherwise), Linus doesn't go around twisting companies' arms.
I really don't see who you would punish and how.
Re: (Score:2)
This is such an incredibly stupid post that it can only have been put here as a seed for debate. For a start, Linux is not a company, nor is it a single person or group in any shape or form. It has no headquarters. The most that can be said is that it is a diffuse group who have co-operatively created something. You cannot take it to court "much like what was done against Microsoft". In any case there is nothing to take it to court for. Linux does not control or attempt to control what people do; it doe
Re: (Score:2)
Now I keep a copy of Chrome around for sites that are broken in Firefox.
What's an example of a site that works in Chrome but is broken in Firefox?
Emoji uploading in Discord works in Cr not Fx (Score:2)
Emoji uploading in the chat site Discordapp.com works in Chrome and Chromium but not Firefox.
1. Log into your Discord account.
2. Switch to a "server" (Discord's name for a collection of channels that share the same user list) that you own or on which you have been assigned a role with the Manage Emoji permission.
3. Right-click the server's icon and choose Server Settings > Emoji.
4. Click Upload Emoji.
Chrome result: File chooser appears.
Firefox result: Button does nothing, and nothing appears in Console.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you asking an AC instead of the developer of Google Earth? Are you some kind of Mozilla shill or defender that can't deal with negativity?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the console (Ctrl+Shift+K in Firefox) is likely to contain script left error messages or console.log messages from the developer of Google Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:November 14 is when Mozilla dies (Score:4, Funny)
we need to stage a coup against Mozilla
Seems like a lot of effort.
Wouldn't be simpler to make your own browser? You can show everyone how it should be done and, because your browser is so good, you'll quickly gain the majority of browser market share. You'll rake in hundreds of millions of dollars in search engine deals. All other browser makers will fear you. Also, chicks will dig you.
So why not do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
show's
Argh. Why.
Re: (Score:2)
That's reader mode, which is indeed great. I was asking more about the use of an apostrophe to mean "watch out folks, there's an 's' coming up!".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if I didn't want Google snooping my browsing habits, I could live with FF.
I tried running FF on my Moto G 1st gen a few months ago. This is a very outdated phone by today's standards, but it's what I can afford here in Brazil. It has only 1 GB RAM, of which only about 220 MB available for user apps.
End result: the fully up-to-date Chrome managed to run fine, with the keyboard managing to run at the same time, while Firefox crashed at almost any heavier page, and even if it didn't crash, almost always caused my keyboard to crash, making typing into forms a challenge.
Needless to sa
Re:They dug their own grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla reminds me of people who profess a desire for world peace, but then get into petty feuds with their neighbors. They can't seem put what they advocate into practice on a small scale, which tends to undermine confidence in their capacity to advocate and execute their larger mission.
Mozilla has one project that really matters, and they employ a lot of people. Why Firefox isn't hands-down the world's best browser is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla reminds me of people who profess a desire for world peace, but then get into petty feuds with their neighbors.
Maybe their neighbors are being abusive, and they can't have peace while the abuse continues.
Re: (Score:3)
I do wonder about this sometimes. Hypothetically, suppose that Google and, say, Facebook make a Devil's Alliance to propose, on an ongoing basis, backward-incompatible de-facto browser extensions and technical requirements for plugins, etc., all in the name of worthwhile causes such as security, an open web, ease of interoperability, streaming, payment, etc., but at such a breakneck pace with convoluted requirements that it's all but impossible for a company without 10,000+ employees to keep up. If the "web
Re: (Score:2)
> but at such a breakneck pace with convoluted requirements that it's all
> but impossible for a company without 10,000+ employees to keep up.
Cool story bro. Mozilla seemed to be able to find resources to do not only a mobile app, but an entire mobile OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] And let's not forget developing a new programming language (RUST), Pocket, Hello, gratuitously changing the UI to Atrocious^H^H^H^H^H Australis, revamping/destroying their entire plugin architecture, etc, etc, etc. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could you know, shut up and just do their job instead of engaging in politicts?
But no, not mozilla. Because that's too logical for millenials.
Any time you have a disagreement involving three or more people, you've got politics. Pretending otherwise is childish, and willfully ignorant. Ignoring politics is how Texas just got screwed, specifically harmful politics in both zoning and environmental protection.
You know what's illogical? Pretending that things aren't happening.
Re: (Score:3)
... As long as you don't think any incorrect thoughts. Then you can't work there any more.
You can think whatever you want and nobody will ever know. But when you start doing things, people find out about your actions, by which you shall be judged. Not by god, but by anyone with a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
no search function for the PDF viewer, can't adjust the line width for Reader View
Firefox's PDF viewer does have a search function and you can adjust the line width in Firefox's Reader View. Maybe you're thinking of some other browser.
Re: (Score:2)
My credit union works great in pale moon. And so does eBay, which wasn't working correctly for me in Firefox. I literally copied over my profile, and I'm running all the same extensions, so that's clearly not the problem. I am using noscript and ublock origin, and I'm not allowing google-analytics, and that alone breaks a shitload of sites. If they are important to something I'm doing, I then load them in Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The person should openly persue their respective country's govt to ask Google,Apple,Microsoft to stop restrictive trave practices (like Google making it mandatory for vendors to install g-apps on thier phones).
It's never been mandatory to install Google Play Store or other Google apps on a device running Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Amazon's Kindle Fire tablet and Fire Phone run Fire OS, an operating system based on AOSP without Google Play Store or other Google apps.
Re: (Score:2)
> If they want to change their ways, they can start by apologizing
> to Brendan Eich, the father of Javascript, whom they ousted.
Brendan Eich should apologize for inventing Javascript.