4 ms·

Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be? Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mo

Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be? Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-rights-management-and-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r... Chrome's had it since v 42 https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808 https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808

Endy 10y ago
Because, with the recent decisions re Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind aren't getting better - they're actually getting worse. Also, EFF has been running articles about DRM lately. It's not that we're only stoking the fire now... It's that they are writing about it again.
- Aloha 10y ago
  background?
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind That's not remotely close to being true.
  - HalcyonicStorm 10y ago
    some examples, por favor?
    - BoysenberryPi 10y ago
      Vivaldi?
      - scholia 10y ago
        Vivaldi is (a) new; (b) based on Chromium; and (c) not actually open source. (I use both Vivaldi and Firefox, but not Chrome.) Historically, Firefox has been the main user-entered browser, but not the only one. Especially if you include forks.
        Endy 10y ago
        Vivaldi also shares a design lineage with Opera 12 and previous, in terms of who the designers are/were. When we lost Opera, I think we lost the open web in a lot of ways. As much as Opera was a closed-source proprietary engine etc. browser, it stood out against the background of the larger Web giants. When they folded and gave in to Google, I was horrified. Still, the loss of a Community Firefox is a bad thing.
    - JetSpiegel 10y ago
      elinks?
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  As a long-time FF user I should be flattered, but it seems like a tough claim to back up. I don't see any design emphasis in Firefox on 'intelligent' users; 'free' is a little easier to believe, in the sense that the other major browsers are very tightly bound to certain OSes and/or their creators (IE/Edge on Win, Safari on OSX, Chrome on, well, lots of things). Chrome seems just as likely to appeal to the intelligent user (if their smarts run toward fast browsing), though given all its telemetry (e100.net etc.) it isn't perhaps the most free...
nwah1 10y ago
Mozilla fought harder against EME than any other browser vendor by far. As a user concerned about the open web, using Mozilla products is a way to bolster it.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  You make it sound like other browser vendors fought it at all, the EME spec was written by Google, and supported by microsoft and apple. This is not a case of the w3c "forcing standards" upon innocent browsers. The people writing w3c standards work for these companies.
  - bzbarsky 10y ago
    To be fair, there were specific people at Google who _did_ fight the EME spec, including in the W3C discussion; the spec was written by the "youtube" part of Google, and the people who were more in the "open web" part of Google didn't necessarily agree with it. But yes, Google as a whole sure didn't object and didn't exactly delay implementing in Chrome...

Endy 10y ago

Because, with the recent decisions re Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind aren't getting better - they're actually getting worse. Also, EFF has been running articles about DRM lately. It's not that we're only stoking the fire now... It's that they are writing about it again.

Aloha 10y ago
background?
twblalock 10y ago
> Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind That's not remotely close to being true.
- HalcyonicStorm 10y ago
  some examples, por favor?
  - BoysenberryPi 10y ago
    Vivaldi?
    - scholia 10y ago
      Vivaldi is (a) new; (b) based on Chromium; and (c) not actually open source. (I use both Vivaldi and Firefox, but not Chrome.) Historically, Firefox has been the main user-entered browser, but not the only one. Especially if you include forks.
      - Endy 10y ago
        Vivaldi also shares a design lineage with Opera 12 and previous, in terms of who the designers are/were. When we lost Opera, I think we lost the open web in a lot of ways. As much as Opera was a closed-source proprietary engine etc. browser, it stood out against the background of the larger Web giants. When they folded and gave in to Google, I was horrified. Still, the loss of a Community Firefox is a bad thing.
  - JetSpiegel 10y ago
    elinks?
blacksmith_tb 10y ago
As a long-time FF user I should be flattered, but it seems like a tough claim to back up. I don't see any design emphasis in Firefox on 'intelligent' users; 'free' is a little easier to believe, in the sense that the other major browsers are very tightly bound to certain OSes and/or their creators (IE/Edge on Win, Safari on OSX, Chrome on, well, lots of things). Chrome seems just as likely to appeal to the intelligent user (if their smarts run toward fast browsing), though given all its telemetry (e100.net etc.) it isn't perhaps the most free...

nwah1 10y ago

Mozilla fought harder against EME than any other browser vendor by far. As a user concerned about the open web, using Mozilla products is a way to bolster it.

throwaway2048 10y ago
You make it sound like other browser vendors fought it at all, the EME spec was written by Google, and supported by microsoft and apple. This is not a case of the w3c "forcing standards" upon innocent browsers. The people writing w3c standards work for these companies.
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  To be fair, there were specific people at Google who _did_ fight the EME spec, including in the W3C discussion; the spec was written by the "youtube" part of Google, and the people who were more in the "open web" part of Google didn't necessarily agree with it. But yes, Google as a whole sure didn't object and didn't exactly delay implementing in Chrome...