7 ms·

That's as a bit unfair conclusion. I just believe that if Firefox dies then for sure "Open Web" will die. But, yeah, of course I am not happy with Pocket. But

That's as a bit unfair conclusion. I just believe that if Firefox dies then for sure "Open Web" will die. But, yeah, of course I am not happy with Pocket. But it still better than using Chrome.

jopsen 9y ago
Curious what is the concern with pocket?
- noncoml 9y ago
  It's troubled past and weird current state, doesn't make me comfortable with sharing any info that Mozilla shares with them.
  - nnethercote 9y ago
    Mozilla acquired Pocket a while back. So "shares with them" really means "shares with itself" :)
    - syshum 9y ago
      1. It was 7 mos ago, I do not consider that "Awhile Back" 2. Mozilla Inc acquired it as a Commercial Proprietary Venture, not as a Open Source project under the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit 3. While it is Owned by Mozilla Inc, it of operated as a Separate Commercial Company separate from the Non-Profit so no it is "shares with it self" 4. The integration occurred long before the acquisition
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Here are some examples: Proprietary, got integrated into firefox for no apparent reason (hard to disable), had a security breach and privacy issue, got bought by mozilla for an undisclosed sum (millions), promises to open source have only been promises so far, acquisition turned to have been more a bout buying the 10 millions user base to get into mobile and 1 billion entries to feed to the upcoming recommendation engine.
  - gkya 9y ago
    This is basically an anti-vaxx-ish comment. Open sourcing propritary software is not easy, and IDK how you come to that last conclusion if yours that you're pushing all over the place. When pocket first appeared in FF, I was mad, but when Mozilla bought it I thought I could finally use the thing.
Karunamon 9y ago
At the risk of huge levels of snark, if the "open web" dies because Firefox dies (already a bit player in the browser wars, 11%ish), it was suicide, not murder.
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
One of the big issues I have with Pocket isn't even the privacy problem, it's the integration. Firefox would (IMO) be better served by having such things as extensions included in the default distribution. They could even make a separate tab in the extensions dialogue for them, perhaps hidden behind an about:config preference. That way anyone who doesn't want them could disable them and speed the browser up. There was some discussion of doing things this way back when it was still called Phoenix. The Seamonkey suite was bloated and slow, Phoenix was the stripped-down browser that just did web browsing but had an extension system to add in extra features. But instead of adding features through the extension system the Mozilla team decided to add them into the base.
- Manishearth 9y ago
  Most firefox UI code is lazy loaded, and the pocket extension was a pretty simple thing that hit an endpoint. I doubt you could speed things up by removing it.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    of course you speed things up, it takes a bit of time to go through the process of removing the icon and disabling it on a fresh install. when you have several install to do, it quickly adds up.
    - Manishearth 9y ago
      I'm talking about the GP's comment that disabling Pocket will speed up the browser.
syshum 9y ago
I believe the Open Web died as soon as they Caved to MS/Google on DRM, and choose to oppose the EFF in their battle to prevent DRM in becoming a standard. Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom. They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people? This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms). So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
  - AndrewCHM 9y ago
    And strengthening the stranglehold of copyright holders, doesn't help them ruin lives in a similar way through court systems?
bigbugbag 9y ago
Turns out there are alternatives to chrome other than firefox. even open source ones.

That's as a bit unfair conclusion. I just believe that if Firefox dies then for sure "Open Web" will die. But, yeah, of course I am not happy with Pocket. But it still better than using Chrome.

jopsen 9y ago

Curious what is the concern with pocket?

noncoml 9y ago
It's troubled past and weird current state, doesn't make me comfortable with sharing any info that Mozilla shares with them.
- nnethercote 9y ago
  Mozilla acquired Pocket a while back. So "shares with them" really means "shares with itself" :)
  - syshum 9y ago
    1. It was 7 mos ago, I do not consider that "Awhile Back" 2. Mozilla Inc acquired it as a Commercial Proprietary Venture, not as a Open Source project under the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit 3. While it is Owned by Mozilla Inc, it of operated as a Separate Commercial Company separate from the Non-Profit so no it is "shares with it self" 4. The integration occurred long before the acquisition
bigbugbag 9y ago
Here are some examples: Proprietary, got integrated into firefox for no apparent reason (hard to disable), had a security breach and privacy issue, got bought by mozilla for an undisclosed sum (millions), promises to open source have only been promises so far, acquisition turned to have been more a bout buying the 10 millions user base to get into mobile and 1 billion entries to feed to the upcoming recommendation engine.
- gkya 9y ago
  This is basically an anti-vaxx-ish comment. Open sourcing propritary software is not easy, and IDK how you come to that last conclusion if yours that you're pushing all over the place. When pocket first appeared in FF, I was mad, but when Mozilla bought it I thought I could finally use the thing.

Karunamon 9y ago

At the risk of huge levels of snark, if the "open web" dies because Firefox dies (already a bit player in the browser wars, 11%ish), it was suicide, not murder.

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago

One of the big issues I have with Pocket isn't even the privacy problem, it's the integration. Firefox would (IMO) be better served by having such things as extensions included in the default distribution. They could even make a separate tab in the extensions dialogue for them, perhaps hidden behind an about:config preference. That way anyone who doesn't want them could disable them and speed the browser up. There was some discussion of doing things this way back when it was still called Phoenix. The Seamonkey suite was bloated and slow, Phoenix was the stripped-down browser that just did web browsing but had an extension system to add in extra features. But instead of adding features through the extension system the Mozilla team decided to add them into the base.

Manishearth 9y ago
Most firefox UI code is lazy loaded, and the pocket extension was a pretty simple thing that hit an endpoint. I doubt you could speed things up by removing it.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  of course you speed things up, it takes a bit of time to go through the process of removing the icon and disabling it on a fresh install. when you have several install to do, it quickly adds up.
  - Manishearth 9y ago
    I'm talking about the GP's comment that disabling Pocket will speed up the browser.

syshum 9y ago

I believe the Open Web died as soon as they Caved to MS/Google on DRM, and choose to oppose the EFF in their battle to prevent DRM in becoming a standard. Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom. They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 9y ago
So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people? This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms). So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
- AndrewCHM 9y ago
  And strengthening the stranglehold of copyright holders, doesn't help them ruin lives in a similar way through court systems?

bigbugbag 9y ago

Turns out there are alternatives to chrome other than firefox. even open source ones.