4 ms·
LOL, I love the guys filing that bug report with Mozilla... Had to have cost some overtime for their network admins. xD The way I see it, this - along with mos
by kgbme 9y ago
LOL, I love the guys filing that bug report with Mozilla... Had to have cost some overtime for their network admins. xD
The way I see it, this - along with most of things - when you place the mechanisms there, people will use them and abuse them.
20 years ago, a browser had 3 MB and today they're 30 and 60 MB large, with much better compression of the installer.
Why do we need this-and-that service integration within the browser, to "follow trends" of the likes of Adobe, Microsoft?..
I don't think so. Cut it all out. Someone wants to watch a video: install a codec. Their service uses different coding? Tough luck, get with the (popular, useful) standard(s), or gtfo.
What the hell do I care about your corporate policy of "creating new jobs" and "advancing development", all you're doing -anyway- is peddling your products. In my browser. On my hardware, which I paid for, meh. Introducing 1000&1 vulnerabilities, where there should be none.
Right, wrong? Know what I mean?
- gruez 9y ago>Someone wants to watch a video: install a codec. [...] Introducing 1000&1 vulnerabilities, where there should be none I'd rather use a codec maintained and updated by Mozilla every 6 weeks than some "community maintained" codec that I installed years ago and has to be manually updated.
- drdaeman 9y agoYMMV, but I'd rather prefer browser vendor to work on a browser, rather than try to become an operating system, with its own libraries and update channels. A web browser shouldn't normally bundle image decoders, audio or video codecs, on-screen keyboards or printer and video card drivers. Obvious exceptions apply, of course - e.g. if OS doesn't have built-in image decoder for a specific format it totally makes sense to bundle one. But this is really getting off-topic.