4 ms·

I think you misunderstood. I don't want to review the damn source code. I don't have time to do that. I am pretty sure the Mozilla developers are all better dev

I think you misunderstood. I don't want to review the damn source code. I don't have time to do that. I am pretty sure the Mozilla developers are all better developers than I am as well, so my contributions there would be a complete waste of time. However, when you decided that the source code I could review would be installed on my computer without my consent, then I do object. It's my computer. It runs things that I choose to run on it, not things your marketing/sales department thinks my computer should run. Additionally I find your rant about "open source is for all of us to contribute and if you don't shut the fuck up" wholly ridiculous.

ubernostrum 9y ago
You chose to install Firefox, and you chose not to participate in the process that creates it. What happened next was not "without your consent". What happened absolutely had your consent. You consented by deciding that the whole messy process of producing the software was going to be someone else's problem, and you just wanted the sausage without having to see or take part in how it got made. You consented by delegating to the people who actually did the hard work of making and shipping the software. If you now decide you don't want to run that software anymore, that's perfectly fine and is your choice to make. But arguing that you didn't have an opportunity to know what was going on or review code before it landed on your computer, when you installed Firefox by your own choice, when you decided not to take advantage of the radically transparent and open way it's built, is just not going to fly. You had a million and one opportunities to "review" the code you were going to download and run. You just chose to do other things instead. You seem to regret that, but you also seem not to have learned any lesson from it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wux 9y ago
  Actually, according to comments on one of the Bugzilla reports about this issue (#1424977), the original bug implementing the feature is: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1423003 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1423003 As you'll see, this bug is marked as private (at least as of writing this comment). So, as a matter of fact, it does not appear that even the most diligent user had the option of reviewing what's going on. So far, it has not even been disclosed who among the Firefox peers signed off on this change; that information appears to be private as well.
  - acqq 9y ago
    Correct. Even when logged in, the normal user gets: "Access Denied You are not authorized to access bug 1423003."
- gorbachev 9y ago
  Again, I did not have a chance to review whether or not the add-on would be installed and run on my computer, because you installed and ran it without my consent. This is not hard. Don't automatically install stuff on your users' computers. You're defending something every other software company has found themselves in trouble for previously. I really don't understand why. The fact that Firefox is open source in no way excuses it.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    because you installed and ran it without my consent I didn't install and run anything on your computer. I don't work for Mozilla. And you installed a piece of open-source software whose source code you could have audited at any time, but you chose not to. You delegated the auditing to someone else, and now you're upset at what they chose to do with the power you gave them. You're free to complain that you don't like what they did, and not to trust them in the future, but you don't get to say that you had no chance to give input or to see what would run. You had plenty of opportunities for that and did not do it.
    - gorbachev 9y ago
      Is it reasonable to expect a software vendor, open source or not, to not install adware on your users' computers without consent? Yes or no? If yes, then why would it be necessary for me to audit anything? If no, then PLEASE elaborate on why?
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        Your original comment complained that you didn't get to review the software. My point has consistently been that you did have a chance to review it, and chose not to. What you think about what it did, or what I think about what it did, doesn't matter, and "what it did was bad" is not a counterargument to "you had a chance to review it and chose not to". This isn't the first time a piece of software, open source or not, has released a new version that did something users didn't expect or were angry about. The sole difference is that, in the case of open source software, you have the chance to review what it will do by looking at its source code prior to running it. The fact that you didn't review it doesn't mean it was impossible to (that would be the case with a proprietary browser like Chrome).
- muraiki 9y ago
  > You had a million and one opportunities to "review" the code you were going to download and run. You just chose to do other things instead. False dichotomy. I chose to opt into USER STUDIES because I trusted Mozilla. I use Firefox specifically because I do not want to use a browser from a company that makes its money off of advertising, meaning Chrome. I trusted Mozilla to hold to their word regarding what opting in to user studies meant, and they instead gave me exactly what I didn't want: advertising. If your solution to this is to completely throw away my trust in Mozilla, replacing it with having to spend an extraordinary amount of time reviewing every wiki change, mailing list post, commit, and bug, then you're being ridiculous and showing extraordinary contempt for users -- especially the many users who aren't programmers. Firefox is supposed to be a browser that respects users, but this case shows that it doesn't. Finally, I have both donated to Mozilla and helped resolve a bug, so I absolutely have participated in the process.

ubernostrum 9y ago

You chose to install Firefox, and you chose not to participate in the process that creates it. What happened next was not "without your consent". What happened absolutely had your consent. You consented by deciding that the whole messy process of producing the software was going to be someone else's problem, and you just wanted the sausage without having to see or take part in how it got made. You consented by delegating to the people who actually did the hard work of making and shipping the software. If you now decide you don't want to run that software anymore, that's perfectly fine and is your choice to make. But arguing that you didn't have an opportunity to know what was going on or review code before it landed on your computer, when you installed Firefox by your own choice, when you decided not to take advantage of the radically transparent and open way it's built, is just not going to fly. You had a million and one opportunities to "review" the code you were going to download and run. You just chose to do other things instead. You seem to regret that, but you also seem not to have learned any lesson from it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wux 9y ago
Actually, according to comments on one of the Bugzilla reports about this issue (#1424977), the original bug implementing the feature is: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1423003 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1423003 As you'll see, this bug is marked as private (at least as of writing this comment). So, as a matter of fact, it does not appear that even the most diligent user had the option of reviewing what's going on. So far, it has not even been disclosed who among the Firefox peers signed off on this change; that information appears to be private as well.
- acqq 9y ago
  Correct. Even when logged in, the normal user gets: "Access Denied You are not authorized to access bug 1423003."
gorbachev 9y ago
Again, I did not have a chance to review whether or not the add-on would be installed and run on my computer, because you installed and ran it without my consent. This is not hard. Don't automatically install stuff on your users' computers. You're defending something every other software company has found themselves in trouble for previously. I really don't understand why. The fact that Firefox is open source in no way excuses it.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  because you installed and ran it without my consent I didn't install and run anything on your computer. I don't work for Mozilla. And you installed a piece of open-source software whose source code you could have audited at any time, but you chose not to. You delegated the auditing to someone else, and now you're upset at what they chose to do with the power you gave them. You're free to complain that you don't like what they did, and not to trust them in the future, but you don't get to say that you had no chance to give input or to see what would run. You had plenty of opportunities for that and did not do it.
  - gorbachev 9y ago
    Is it reasonable to expect a software vendor, open source or not, to not install adware on your users' computers without consent? Yes or no? If yes, then why would it be necessary for me to audit anything? If no, then PLEASE elaborate on why?
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Your original comment complained that you didn't get to review the software. My point has consistently been that you did have a chance to review it, and chose not to. What you think about what it did, or what I think about what it did, doesn't matter, and "what it did was bad" is not a counterargument to "you had a chance to review it and chose not to". This isn't the first time a piece of software, open source or not, has released a new version that did something users didn't expect or were angry about. The sole difference is that, in the case of open source software, you have the chance to review what it will do by looking at its source code prior to running it. The fact that you didn't review it doesn't mean it was impossible to (that would be the case with a proprietary browser like Chrome).
muraiki 9y ago
> You had a million and one opportunities to "review" the code you were going to download and run. You just chose to do other things instead. False dichotomy. I chose to opt into USER STUDIES because I trusted Mozilla. I use Firefox specifically because I do not want to use a browser from a company that makes its money off of advertising, meaning Chrome. I trusted Mozilla to hold to their word regarding what opting in to user studies meant, and they instead gave me exactly what I didn't want: advertising. If your solution to this is to completely throw away my trust in Mozilla, replacing it with having to spend an extraordinary amount of time reviewing every wiki change, mailing list post, commit, and bug, then you're being ridiculous and showing extraordinary contempt for users -- especially the many users who aren't programmers. Firefox is supposed to be a browser that respects users, but this case shows that it doesn't. Finally, I have both donated to Mozilla and helped resolve a bug, so I absolutely have participated in the process.