5 ms·

I really try my best to stick with Mozilla, but their changes in the last year or two have been more then dissatisfying. Like the author said, they have added c

by r3bl 11y ago

I really try my best to stick with Mozilla, but their changes in the last year or two have been more then dissatisfying. Like the author said, they have added completely unnecessary things and reduced the customization ability in a several occurrences. I have written a rant about Mozilla a couple of months ago that I still think is relevant: https://blog.r3bl.me/en/mozilla-dissatisfaction/ https://blog.r3bl.me/en/mozilla-dissatisfaction/ Although I'm all up for supporting free and open source software, the situation with Mozilla has became shady enough that I just want to move away from it. Unfortunately, I have nowhere to go. Midori is still not completely usable, I just can't convince myself to switch to Chrome or Chromium because I genuinely feel uncomfortable using them, IE/Edge are only available on Windows so they're practically useless to me, Firefox forks are really nothing groundbreaking, Vivaldi is not open source...

heinrich5991 11y ago
From your rant: Mozilla doesn't actually make money from integrating Pocket with Firefox.
- listic 11y ago
  This is the most unbelievable and I heard it before: when an open source software starts including proprietary bloatware like that, one might think there is money involved...
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > including proprietary bloatware like that No matter how many times it's disproven, this meme just never ends, does it? The Pocket client code is free and open source, just like Firefox itself[0]. If the user uses the Pocket feature, that code makes HTTP requests to another server, which runs a mixture of FOSS and proprietary code. If the user does not use the Pocket feature, it does not. Remember that we are talking about a web browser, the primary function of which is to do exactly that: make HTTP requests to another server that may be running proprietary code[1]. [0] Pocket's client is arguably more free than Firefox is, if we look at the fact that Iceweasel is distributed with the Pocket logo included whereas Debian cannot include the Firefox logo for its patched builds. [1] Unless you only use your browser for accessing http://fsf.org http://fsf.org, but at that point you're probably using Lynx or Seamonkey anyway.
    - mbrutsch 11y ago
      > No matter how many times it's disproven, this meme just never ends, does it? I can tell you from personal experience that trivial things like facts or proof have no bearing on popular misconceptions, and trying to change the narrative is unrewarding at best, and counterproductive at worst. Tilting at windmills, and all that.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >Remember that we are talking about a web browser, the primary function of which is to do exactly that: make HTTP requests to another server that may be running proprietary code[1]. // So IYO Firefox should modify the UI to add a button to integrate every website? Adding a product logo for another (presumably for profit) company in a major browser is probably worth millions of dollars as past of a marketing effort - doing it for free is even more strange. Presumably as an open organisation Mozilla have a meeting report somewhere detailing the people who made the decision and their rationale? Adding company logos by dictat to the browser when there's a perfectly good addon system needs a clear argument from a company that supposedly champions freedom in software. They also re-added the logo on the next release IIRC (or was that the chat to debacle).
      - sangnoir 11y ago
        > Adding a product logo for another (presumably for profit) company in a major browser is probably worth millions of dollars as past of a marketing effort - doing it for free is even more strange Saying "no money changed hands" does not make it any better. If anything, it makes the decision for Pocket integration by Mozilla less Lawful Evil and more Chaotic Evil[1], which is scarier. Edit: clarified that I'm referring to the decision, not Mozilla itself 1. I don't think Mozilla is evil, but the alignment system is my best explanation of my understanding of the bizarre decision
    - developer1 11y ago
      There's a reason nobody believe there is no money exchanging hands: if there is no profit for Mozilla in including Pocket, then there is no explanation as to why it is included. It's useless bloatware. I could "understand" if Mozilla was selling us out and being paid to do this. If they are not, nobody is benefiting, and it should be removed. Even if there is no actual money being funnelled to Mozilla itself, that does not mean there isn't a financial kickback behind the scenes to upper executives that is not on the books, or other incentives not being handed over in cold cash. Just because the Mozilla Foundation itself is a non-profit, does not mean that the people at the top of the food chain are not the same scummy types you find in any for-profit corporation.
- r3bl 11y ago
  Yup, I'm aware of that now, but you can't blame me for thinking that it did a few months back.
- mahouse 11y ago
  They are either lying or really stupid. Any person in his right mind would have known what was going to happen. Imagine a "Share to Instagram" button when you right click an image. Or maybe that Firefox automatically detected phone numbers in webpages and offered you to install Skype to call them (sort of what the Skype plugin does). What the hell were they thinking about? So since I'm sure there are competent guys inside Mozilla, I'll say that they are lying.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Their financial statements are public, they can't just hide the money coming in.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
listic 11y ago
That's why I am switching to ESR branch of Firefox: to only have to deal with the new crap Mozilla introduces, once a year. I think I'll also need to create a script to run after installation or something like that, which will set the defaults right for me. It is a good idea for Ubuntu and some other programs too, anyway.
awqrre 11y ago
If Mozilla would bring back useful Firefox customization options that were removed for no good reason, it would be great... maybe they are getting like Google and have to many engineers... a budget cut could help with that. But for the record I still use Firefox as I think that it is still the best option.

by r3bl 11y ago

heinrich5991 11y ago

From your rant: Mozilla doesn't actually make money from integrating Pocket with Firefox.

listic 11y ago
This is the most unbelievable and I heard it before: when an open source software starts including proprietary bloatware like that, one might think there is money involved...
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > including proprietary bloatware like that No matter how many times it's disproven, this meme just never ends, does it? The Pocket client code is free and open source, just like Firefox itself[0]. If the user uses the Pocket feature, that code makes HTTP requests to another server, which runs a mixture of FOSS and proprietary code. If the user does not use the Pocket feature, it does not. Remember that we are talking about a web browser, the primary function of which is to do exactly that: make HTTP requests to another server that may be running proprietary code[1]. [0] Pocket's client is arguably more free than Firefox is, if we look at the fact that Iceweasel is distributed with the Pocket logo included whereas Debian cannot include the Firefox logo for its patched builds. [1] Unless you only use your browser for accessing http://fsf.org http://fsf.org, but at that point you're probably using Lynx or Seamonkey anyway.
  - mbrutsch 11y ago
    > No matter how many times it's disproven, this meme just never ends, does it? I can tell you from personal experience that trivial things like facts or proof have no bearing on popular misconceptions, and trying to change the narrative is unrewarding at best, and counterproductive at worst. Tilting at windmills, and all that.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    >Remember that we are talking about a web browser, the primary function of which is to do exactly that: make HTTP requests to another server that may be running proprietary code[1]. // So IYO Firefox should modify the UI to add a button to integrate every website? Adding a product logo for another (presumably for profit) company in a major browser is probably worth millions of dollars as past of a marketing effort - doing it for free is even more strange. Presumably as an open organisation Mozilla have a meeting report somewhere detailing the people who made the decision and their rationale? Adding company logos by dictat to the browser when there's a perfectly good addon system needs a clear argument from a company that supposedly champions freedom in software. They also re-added the logo on the next release IIRC (or was that the chat to debacle).
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      > Adding a product logo for another (presumably for profit) company in a major browser is probably worth millions of dollars as past of a marketing effort - doing it for free is even more strange Saying "no money changed hands" does not make it any better. If anything, it makes the decision for Pocket integration by Mozilla less Lawful Evil and more Chaotic Evil[1], which is scarier. Edit: clarified that I'm referring to the decision, not Mozilla itself 1. I don't think Mozilla is evil, but the alignment system is my best explanation of my understanding of the bizarre decision
  - developer1 11y ago
    There's a reason nobody believe there is no money exchanging hands: if there is no profit for Mozilla in including Pocket, then there is no explanation as to why it is included. It's useless bloatware. I could "understand" if Mozilla was selling us out and being paid to do this. If they are not, nobody is benefiting, and it should be removed. Even if there is no actual money being funnelled to Mozilla itself, that does not mean there isn't a financial kickback behind the scenes to upper executives that is not on the books, or other incentives not being handed over in cold cash. Just because the Mozilla Foundation itself is a non-profit, does not mean that the people at the top of the food chain are not the same scummy types you find in any for-profit corporation.
r3bl 11y ago
Yup, I'm aware of that now, but you can't blame me for thinking that it did a few months back.
mahouse 11y ago
They are either lying or really stupid. Any person in his right mind would have known what was going to happen. Imagine a "Share to Instagram" button when you right click an image. Or maybe that Firefox automatically detected phone numbers in webpages and offered you to install Skype to call them (sort of what the Skype plugin does). What the hell were they thinking about? So since I'm sure there are competent guys inside Mozilla, I'll say that they are lying.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Their financial statements are public, they can't just hide the money coming in.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

listic 11y ago

That's why I am switching to ESR branch of Firefox: to only have to deal with the new crap Mozilla introduces, once a year. I think I'll also need to create a script to run after installation or something like that, which will set the defaults right for me. It is a good idea for Ubuntu and some other programs too, anyway.

awqrre 11y ago

If Mozilla would bring back useful Firefox customization options that were removed for no good reason, it would be great... maybe they are getting like Google and have to many engineers... a budget cut could help with that. But for the record I still use Firefox as I think that it is still the best option.