41 ms·

Firefox is on a slippery slope

• rgrieselhuber 9y ago
  I got massively downloaded about a month ago for complaining about the direction that Firefox was going. I was hoping I'd be wrong about the general direction they seem to be taking in this article doesn't give me much hope for that prospect.
  • pessimizer 9y ago
    Just post and damn the internet points. There are hundreds of firefox employees browsing every firefox thread, and a far larger proportion of them are going to downvote than would a more representative group of technologists or firefox users. Bad PR for firefox could potentially financially affect them personally, so it's totally understandable and human (though annoying.)
• junkscience2017 9y ago
  Mozilla has taken on all of the worst qualities of a modern University...ostensibly for the "public good", but really just a vehicle for the whims of a few "enlightened intellectuals" who will "save us all" (from ourselves apparently) but hey, Mr Robot uses Kali Linux (they only show us this about twenty times per episode) so he should be fine
  • gator-io 9y ago
    I thought he used Mint.
• natch 9y ago
  Did they actually acknowledge that it was a paid advertising campaign?
  • outsidetheparty 9y ago
    I’m not sure if there was an official announcement, but: > We didn't make any money off of this; it was intended as an easter egg in Firefox for fans of the show. https://www.metafilter.com/171227/Your-Reality-Is-Driven-By-Marketing#7265127 https://www.metafilter.com/171227/Your-Reality-Is-Driven-By-...
    • empath75 9y ago
      That’s even dumber then.
• vim_wannabe 9y ago
  Has there ever been a desktop browser you could buy instead of using these ad supported/os bundled ones?
  • sogen 9y ago
    iCab http://www.icab.de http://www.icab.de Theres also a nice iPhone app with tons of functionality
  • Cshelton 9y ago
    I had completely forgot about Netscape in a box! I like that business model. Something that just works, no ads, nothing. The sublime text model is good too. I will happily pay a one time license for a browser for $100 if it meant no ads and they gave me some cool functionality for it, maybe additional customizations? Then add a solid built in password manager that I know is provably secure that they sync between my devices for me while allowing me to have my own backup, I’d pay $5/month for that through Firefox.
  • tcd 9y ago
    Even if you could buy a browser do you seriously believe that would change _anything_, like even in the slightest? These days they still track you whether you buy or not, the data is simply too valuable to ignore.
  • smhenderson 9y ago
    Opera?
    • vim_wannabe 9y ago
      Thank you, interesting. >Up to this point, Opera was trialware and had to be purchased after the trial period ended. Version 5.0 (released in 2000) saw the end of this requirement. Instead, Opera became ad-sponsored, displaying advertisements to users who had not paid for it. Later versions of Opera gave the user the choice of seeing banner ads or targeted text advertisements from Google. With version 8.5 (released in 2005) the advertisements were removed entirely and primary financial support for the browser came through revenue from Google (which is by contract Opera's default search engine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)
• mnd999 9y ago
  Given they'd just one a lot of people back with 57, this was a pretty dumb thing to do.
  • nayuki 9y ago
    *one -> won
    • mnd999 9y ago
      Yes. Oops.
  • djsumdog 9y ago
    I gave it a good strong shot when 57 came out (I had been on Vivaldi for a while). The performance was way better for sure, but it still wasn't quite there. I also hate how default zoom level still requires a plugin and isn't built into the browser.
    • buu700 9y ago
      Same, I had it as my default browser for a few weeks and it was a huge improvement, but ultimately I had to switch back to Chrome. No default zoom or pinch-to-zoom were my biggest pain points, then performance (mostly comparable with Chrome, except videos consistently spike the CPU above 100%), and the last straw was the ridiculous number of OS X kernel panics I was getting. Beyond that, a lot of little enhancements would make a huge difference, like support for pasting without formatting, support for whatever clipboard APIs Google Docs needs, U2F support, and top-level await in the console. I generally love the new Firefox and got my configuration in a state where I was sad to leave the UI/UX for Chrome's, but there were too many downsides to the point where it was becoming an obstacle to doing my job. Really hoping these issues can all be sorted out relatively soon.
      • seba_dos1 9y ago
        Sorry, but how are kernel panics related to userspace software? Isn't it just the indicator that your operating system is somehow broken?
• pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Unfortunately I've not had time to do browser research, what are people switching to?
  • weberc2 9y ago
    I've been using Opera since Mozilla shoved out Eich and Google fired Damore. As far as I know, the Opera folks aren't particularly authoritarian. Opera works pretty well; I actually like it better than Chrome. EDIT: I wonder if the downvoters are more upset that I use Opera or that I'm critical of authoritarianism?
    • hbosch 9y ago
      Opera can’t be considered trustworthy as of this event (cribbed from Wikipedia): On 18 July 2016, Opera announced it had sold its browser, privacy and performance apps, and its name to Golden Brick Capital Private Equity Fund I Limited Partnership (a consortium of Chinese investors including Qihoo 360) for an amount of $600 million USD.
      • mynewtb 9y ago
        Why does a new owner make them untrustworthy?!
        • foepys 9y ago
          Because it's impossible to run a >$600 million US-Dollar business in China without involvement from the Chinese government. The same government that heavily spies on its citizens and blocks access to the internet with a huge firewall.
      • weberc2 9y ago
        Can you elaborate on the concern? Not challenging your point, just trying to understand how concerned I should be.
    • ygaf 9y ago
      Not a downvoter, but I wouldn't change browser over those things, the browser is too important to any real computer nerd. An alternative browser would have to be open source, maintained by a major group, and have functionality that even the big two only achieve via third party addons.
• HugoDaniel 9y ago
  Fork it ?
• macawfish 9y ago
  Damn. This sound like the actions of a few inside Mozilla... Cause it's definitely not in line with the organization's stated goals. So where's the accountability? The people who made these decisions should be held accountable. Also, even since 57, this week Firefox ("stable" build) consistently gets hung up with just one tab open and spins 100% CPU on one thread. I hope it isn't trying to invert the word "robot" when the thread gets stuck.
  • jeremyjh 9y ago
    It does not matter how few they are, if they are the ones making the decisions then they represent Mozilla. Unless dramatic change occurs immediately, we can only conclude that Mozilla is shoveling crapware into Firefox.
    • ams6110 9y ago
      Ultimately, and I don't say this as an excuse but as reality: if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer. Yes Mozilla is a foundation and gets a lot of donations but you'd have a much stronger leg to stand on if you paid for the browser. Are you willing to pay $50 or more for a web browser so that there's no temptation for the vendor to sell out to advertisers?
      • mediocrejoker 9y ago
        If it was a one time payment of $50 then the answer is yes, of course. How many people would need to pay that to fund the Firefox team for the next five years though? My guess is: not enough.
      • lanstin 9y ago
        How about if I pay for pretty Apple hardware? Also I just used lynx yesterday and it was fine.
      • makecheck 9y ago
        Yes, actually. At the same time though, we see examples of trust eroded even with payment (cable companies, or the latest Windows 10 crap). I suspect that it’s no longer enough to merely pay for such things; you need a way to verify trustworthy behavior top to bottom.
• TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  > updates have been known to re-enable it if you turn it off ... But it doesn’t matter - you’re going to re-enable it on the next update. It's surprising how ... trustworthy Chrome is in this regard. My default search engine is set to DDG and through countless updates Chrome has never once attempted to reset it to Google.
  • dpwm 9y ago
    My default search engine is set to DDG on Firefox and through countless updates Firefox has never once attempted to reset it to whatever Mozilla are taking money to promote now.
  • CodeWriter23 9y ago
    I know it’s kind of the opposite action, but I lost trust in Chrome over it persistently and repeatedly deleting my extensions. Searching for help reveals I have to “sign in” to keep my extensions. When a browser built by an advertising company wants me to sign in, the only conclusion I can make is they want to track my browsing behavior. I probably consented to that through the click wrap agreement, or maybe not. Who knows? I’m not about to spend a whole day reading 10 miles of legalese to find out.
    • nasredin 9y ago
      Try Firefox 24 in a VM It's insecure, slow, but it's the last good version of Firefox. Anything after 24, has Australis, which is the beginning of the end of Mozilla IMHO.
      • digi_owl 9y ago
        Or go Pale Moon, as it forked off from around that point but has gotten security fixes etc.
      • whoopdedo 9y ago
        You'll have to deal with warnings from websites that you're using an "insecure" browser. And eventually it will stop working at all because it lacks features that web developers assume everyone has.
• ar0 9y ago
  And the article doesn’t even mention the Cliqz controversy [1]. How can you try to promote your browser as the privacy-oriented, user-first alternative and at the same time run into shitstorms like this all the time? Shouldn’t there be someone who can properly judge the effect of decisions like this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421708
  • naner 9y ago
    They're ruining their brand image. It's hard to be considered trustworthy when it appears like you compromise your values due to financial hardship. It reminds me of the Ubuntu Amazon integration thing as well. One of the Cardinal rules of free software seems to be don't sell your users by forcing 3rd party integration nobody asked for.
    • rdtsc 9y ago
      It's always interesting how this happens. Is it new executives how come to power and they never realize what the brand meant to users but see a short term stunt to get some extra profit and go for it. It happened to Lenovo and other laptops when they started installing spyware (Superfish) on their machines. They basically ruined the brand image that took years to build up.
      • mulmen 9y ago
        In the case of Lenovo the brand was sold by IBM to a third party who immediately drove it into the ground.
        • digi_owl 9y ago
          funny thing is that none if the issues have ever been found on the thinkpad libe, only the ideapad line.
          • rdtsc 9y ago
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• scrollaway 9y ago
  Watching the whole thing unfold has been heartbreaking. Most mozillians do not support this. This Twitter thread is one insight into it: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/941709048529014784 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/941709048529014784 Firefox 57 gained a ton of good will from a lot of users, and they pull this crap right after. They absolutely should know better. They should have known better with Pocket; they should have learned from Pocket. "Fork it" is not an acceptable answer. The problem is not with Firefox, it's with Mozilla. Mozilla is a good company at heart and they're an important pillar of the web. Losing them to stupid stuff like this sucks, we should fight for them. There's tons of Firefox forks, none of them get the point though, you might as well use Chromium. If Firefox disappears and the fork remains, the fork dies because maintaining a web browser is work that needs a corporation's backing behind it (or a government's). Mozilla's role goes beyond the web browser as well. Its mission was to "keep the web open", "keep the web free". This goal was reflected in projects such as Firefox OS, Hello and Persona (and to some extent, Thunderbird)... but atrocious management made those projects a waste of time and money. It's not Firefox you need to fork, it's Mozilla.
  • Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago
    The trouble is, it costs money (or a lot of time from talented people) to support a project the size of a browser. I would imagine getting some funding helps keep things afloat. You even say, "maintaining a web browser is work that needs a corporation's backing behind it (or a government's)". I suppose we should expect the goodwill of corporate sponsorship, but this relationship can quickly turn into the "sponsor" asking for things in exchange for donations. This situation exposes a weakness and requires the recognition of the fragility of the open source model (at least for larger-scale projects). We've seen weird corporate-backed things in NPM projects before. It happens, but what is the better alternative? How do we prevent it? Most corporations only support open source projects out of self-interest: that is, they have a stake in seeing a particular project succeed because their stack may depend on the software.
    • pmlnr 9y ago
      Everyone keeps coming with the money problem. But... how about they maintain a browser, with browser functions only? No PDF-JS, no Pocket, no Hello, etc. Just core browser functions and features. Yes, it might mean scaling back, which is one of the swear words in a growth-oriented belief, but that way, the money should be enough - it was enough for a decade, what changed?
• darrmit 9y ago
  Mozilla must believe that privacy conscious users make up a small percentage of their user base. There's no other explanation for moves like this and their "differential privacy" fiasco from August. Between that, broken U2F support in FF57, and pages that are broken in FF but work fine in Chrome (I assume due to devs catering to the huge market share) it's becoming increasingly difficult to stick with Firefox.
  • TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    Or that the privacy conscious people don't bring in revenue. As soon as the foundation/corporation split happened, some people warned that the end game would be the corporation seeking profits at all costs.
    • skinnymuch 9y ago
      Seeking profits at all costs is a bit much. Mozilla isnt great here or in several past instances, but they are still above many other corporations.
• jaequery 9y ago
  Being able to switch between Google accounts in Chrome is so huge to me now that I can't use anything else.
  • foepys 9y ago
    You can do that in Firefox, too. Use this [1] addon and you can create as many containers as you'd like and log into different Google accounts. 1: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
• kpwagner 9y ago
  Does anyone know if the Developer Edition was affected?
  • cridenour 9y ago
    Nightly was, so I assume any with experiments turned on.
  • foepys 9y ago
    I run Nightly as my daily driver and I don't have this addon installed. Edit: Apparently some have: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424977#c0 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424977#c0
  • Sylos 9y ago
    Define "affected". The extension might have gotten installed. The extension did not actually do anything, though, if you did not enable its function via about:config.
• digdigdag 9y ago
  I think it's time there was a legitimate, organized fork of Firefox. None of this Iceweasel nonsense, but a proper, mature, organized initiative to diverge from Mozilla's codebase. They've made it very clear with the addition of Pocket, suggested sites, and now this addon that their calling has been diluted in pursuit of sustaining their own existence.
  • jjawssd 9y ago
    It is impossible to fork Firefox and survive. If you destroy Mozilla all the users will migrate to Chrome. There is no successful financial model for browser development. Browser development is a financial black hole and requires alternative revenue streams for developers to put food on the table.
    • onli 9y ago
      A real fork might be impossible, but a soft fork that just disables features like this should be possible.
      • Pete_D 9y ago
        Indeed, this is how IceCat works: by taking the Firefox ESR release and sed'ing out things like EME and telemetry. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzilla.git/tree/makeicecat https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzilla.git/tree/makeicec...
    • squarefoot 9y ago
      "It is impossible to fork Firefox and survive" Pale Moon did this a while ago and is still around, although in need of donations as many other volunteer-driven projects. https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/
      • AsyncAwait 9y ago
        Pale Moon would sink in a week if Mozilla closes, it does not have the resources to implement or influence new standards.
• Yoric 9y ago
  So, people are angry because of an easter egg in Firefox? It did not collect any data, it did not have any effect on the browser (unless you turned on the preference) except look spooky if you look at your list of add-ons. So yeah, it was spooky, and it could certainly have been done better, but come on, it was an easter egg dedicated to a spooky tv series.
  • moxious 9y ago
    Well it's probably not fair to call it an Easter egg if it had a commercial tie-in and presumably resulted in money for Firefox. Those are called ads. No matter how whimsically they're packaged But yes, people do like to get up in arms about free code bases that they don't pay for. People need to keep in mind the Facebook rule -- that when you don't pay for a service, you aren't the customer, you are the product.
  • clouddrover 9y ago
    I wouldn't call this an Easter egg. about:mozilla is an Easter egg. Installing a strange, unexplained add-on is not.
  • ineedasername 9y ago
    Yeah, that attemp at positive spin won't fly here, not with this audience. Silent sideload of a paid-placement extension that changes headers and page content is not an easter egg. Maybe if it were activated by a ctrl sequence, but even then... this is a hole in perimeter security. It's the sort of thing that makes me reconsider my institution's security policy to sanction Firefox as a supported and authorized browser. Not cool Mozilla, we can get by with chrome and IE / Edge... MS might not be bleeding edge in browsers but at least they understand this sort of Enterprise requirement. MS might pull some ad placement bs on windows home, but they were smart enough to avoid it with pro.
    • Sylos 9y ago
      Well, thankfully the extension did not actually do anything at all. You would have had to manually enable it in about:config, before it would have done what you described.
• pmarreck 9y ago
  Firefox devs need to eat. Chrome is sponsored by one of the largest companies in the world. How will a free open-source project ever compete with that? Of course they’re trying to make money.
  • the_common_man 9y ago
    > Firefox devs need to eat. This is just greed.
    • crummy 9y ago
      how do you reach that conclusion?
  • lccarrasco 9y ago
    They didn't make money off of this making this argument invalid.
  • hellcow 9y ago
    Mozilla silently injecting ads into the content of websites through the browser is unacceptable. Full stop. This is the same type of scummy shit that ISPs have been pulling for years. But unlike ISPs, there's competition in the browser space. Mozilla must hold themselves to a higher standard if they want to survive.
    • sfink 9y ago
      The article was misleading here. Zero people unexpectedly had content change as a result of this. The only way that could happen is if you edit an undocumented config option. That is not what the controversy is about. It's about Firefox adding an addon with a name that sounded suspicious to many, and whose purpose was marketing-related and did not provide any functionality benefit to the user. Present or not, enabled or not, it didn't actually do anything without explicit user action. But that's not the point, for people whom this bothered.
  • lottin 9y ago
    Many FOSS projects compete with proprietary software without compromising their FOSS principles. There's nothing wrong with Mozilla wanting to make money, but if Mozilla is indeed a for-profit enterprise then they should clearly say so, so users know what to expect. Deceiving the public about their real intentions, that's not acceptable.
• ben0x539 9y ago
  It would be cool if someone with insight into the mozilla community's structure could elaborate on how consensus to deploy experiments like this is established. I know that mozilla is very open, but as a fairly huge community it's still somewhat opaque to outsiders like me and I wouldn't know where to start looking. Are there pertinent mailing lists? Are things like this hatchd out on bug comments filed against the Shield product on bugzilla?
  • lucideer 9y ago
    I'm pretty curious about this as well. I sent an email to their governance list[0] a number of months ago that never got any reply. As someone who's not involved in day-to-day, it would be extremely entitled if me to expect my views to be automatically taken on board, but the absolute silence (and general low level of activity) gave me the vague impression there must be discussion taking place elsewhere. I've also tried lurking on a few IRC channels, which were similarly lacking in content on this (beyond idle chat, or helping out beginners new to the channels). If the answer is that I need to email some individual to get into some private group to participate in (or even just to observe) discussion on governance, then that really isn't very transparent. Certainly public mailing lists I've checked don't seem to contain enormous amounts of contextual content on these kinds of things. [0] https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/mozilla.governance https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/mozilla.governance
  • Sharlin 9y ago
    Mozilla Corporation is, well, a corporation. There was almost certainly not any sort of community governance process involved. The marketing department presumably got a "cool" idea and had someone implement it. How they got the OK to deploy it to everybody is another question but that process doesn't involve the greater community either.
• voidmain 9y ago
  It's really an astounding accomplishment to make a browser developed by a non-profit less trustworthy in this respect than the one developed by the world's largest advertising company.
  • wolco 9y ago
    I don't think firefox is spying on you in the same way. Let's remember the bigger picture.
    • Karunamon 9y ago
      No, they just show less respect for me.
  • skinnymuch 9y ago
    People in this thread are really overdoing it. Mozilla and Firefox are still nothing close to what major tech companies do with user privacy.
• kgraves 9y ago
  Agreed, I now NEVER trust any company or startup anymore with my data. Everyone is involved with spyware of some sort. I thought Mozilla was an exception, Oh well. :/
  • Roritharr 9y ago
    What do you use to browse the web? A self compiled version of curl? wget?
    • yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      May I suggest dillo where possible, and icecat everywhere else?
  • kowdermeister 9y ago
    Good luck in the jungle. I suggest to download the Primitive Technology channel first from YouTube.
• singularity2001 9y ago
  "Not only are these experiments enabled by default, but updates have been known to re-enable it if you turn it off." are you kidding me? Mozilla risks our opsec and I did't even know?
• torstenvl 9y ago
  I am deeply disappointed in so much software lately, especially by the folks who once championed software freedom, privacy, and quality. A lot of people thought the Mr. Robot stunt meant that they had been hacked. Well, you know what? They were hacked. Someone installed software on their systems without their knowledge or explicit consent. (Side note: I also discovered last night that Firefox Quantum does not use or support userContent.css - maybe this is a Stylo thing but it really annoyed me.) (EDIT: per the below, my experience with userContent.css doesn't seem to be shared. I may have messed it up on my end. Will report back when I get a chance.)
  • mrec 9y ago
    I'd never used userContent.css before, but just tried it and it works fine. 57.0.2 (64-bit) on Win7. I'd suggest raising a bug.
  • Sylos 9y ago
    > Someone installed software on their systems without their knowledge or explicit consent. Auto-updating software has been the norm for a while. This is nothing new, just because it was put into an extension instead.
    • Karunamon 9y ago
      Except this wasn’t an auto update - it’s a completely different infrastructure pushing stuff into the browser without affirmative consent or even knowledge. And in true malvertising fashion, this system is both opt-out and turns itself back on sometimes.
      • SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
        Also auto-update has a changelog. Users can get an idea of what changed, what the new buttons do, etc. This was unannounced and hidden from users.
    • electrograv 9y ago
      Auto-update doesn't carry the implicit moral right to install anything company behind it wants. Auto-update is a consensual agreement with the user. If you use auto-update to deploy something that a vast majority of your users do not want and did not expect, and intentionally so (refusing to roll back a 'mistake'), then you have broken that agreement or moral code. You cannot use the excuse of "oh well if they don't like it they can uninstall it and use another product" to condone this bait-and-switch behavior. Just because the behavior is legal does not make it moral. This behavior is absolutely immoral and must be condemned.
• elmalto 9y ago
  I am trying to switch from Chrome to FF, but FF is making it really hard. Some sites freeze regularly. Facebook the other day was trying to open a YouTube link. 30 seconds of complete unresponsiveness. Google products work unreliable as well (inbox freezes, black tab on google maps). Just very frustrating overall and I keep finding myself back on Chrome until I realize what I am doing and conscientiously switch back
• wolco 9y ago
  I'm I the only one who thought the little easter egg was interesting. I am a fan of the show.
  • loopbit 9y ago
    I haven't seen the series, but I also find the idea of ARGs interesting. What it's being discussed here is not if the addon is interesting or not, it's the fact that Mozilla, a supposedly freedom and privacy advocate has installed something in all of our computers, without our knowledge or permission as a publicity stunt for a different company and, when found out, the best explanation we've received is "Oops! You guys shouldn't have seen that".
    • floatboth 9y ago
      I don't agree with the "without our permission" thing. You installed Firefox — you gave them permission.
      • scott_karana 9y ago
        If they roll out the "Firefox user affluence survey" and start reading all your bank account balances (or do whatever you would find objectionable) I'll make sure to remind you of this post.
  • Sylos 9y ago
    Personally, I'd much rather have them make money through these sort of small tidbits than rely entirely on Google money. If they actually were on a slippery slope and selling out user privacy or whatnot for profit, I'd also not think of it to be acceptable, but to me there's always a clear distance from that slope in anything that Mozilla does, by ensuring that no privacy violations or anything along those lines happen. Specifically with things that people will spin conspiracy theories about and bring out the pitchforks, they always go the extra mile to ensure that really nothing is actually bad about it.
• ohazi 9y ago
  How many years of work did it take to get to the surge in good will around Firefox 57 in recent months? All that can disappear overnight if they're not careful. Don't fuck this up, Mozilla.
  • kuschku 9y ago
    For the first time since monthly browser usage statistics exist, Firefox is not the #1 browser in Germany anymore. CliqZ alone has cost them 5% of the market share – 15% of Firefox users – within of 2 months. This, too, will just accelerate that.
    • jeltz 9y ago
      And this despite the push for Firefox 57, meaning the loss was probably even higher.
• madez 9y ago
  I've been looking for some time now for an alternative to Firefox. The integration of Pocket was the big red flag that made me start to doubt Mozillas intentions. - My focus is not on performance or compatibility, but usability, privacy and security. - The interface must be graphical. - Native cookie management. I can't fathom how bad FireFox is at that. - Support for JavaScript is not necessary. It's mostly used against my interest anyways. - I don't want want my Browser to make any unsolicited access to check for updates or metrics or anything of that sort, at all. - Of course, it must be free software. Any ideas?
  • pmlnr 9y ago
    Midori maybe?
  • thriftwy 9y ago
    Dillo was awesome last time I have checked.
  • Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    I linked this in the article, but the browser I use now is qutebrowser: https://qutebrowser.org https://qutebrowser.org It's not something I suggest for muggles, but for the HN audience it's probably suitable. I love it.
  • digi_owl 9y ago
    Pale Moon. A fork of Firefox from back when Mozilla going off the rails.
  • Sylos 9y ago
    I personally don't see a problem with what Mozilla is doing, but I really don't care what browser people are using, as long as it's not from a for-profit, so: https://otter-browser.org/ https://otter-browser.org/
  • LeoPanthera 9y ago
    Forks seem to be the best option right now. Fork of Firefox: https://www.waterfoxproject.org https://www.waterfoxproject.org Fork of Chrome: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
• bitL 9y ago
  That's what you get when technologists no longer run companies, but trendy "cool gals/guys". Mr. Robot is on decline as well; maybe one Mozilla exec knows another at Mr. Robot production and decided to return a favor? Can't wait to get Watchdogs 2 on WebAssembly playing in Firefox next...
• solomatov 9y ago
  That's horrible. When I saw pocket suggestions, I thought, that it's made by Firefox, and it's a new feature which preserves my privacy, and not a commercial company. I removed Firefox, from my computer, and returned to Chrome.
  • Sylos 9y ago
    Mozilla owns Pocket...
    • solomatov 9y ago
      Then, I was wrong.
• electic 9y ago
  The show Mr. Robot rails against corporate greed, corrupt government officials, and other unethical practices that's rife in our society. In a twist of fate, in one episode someone at E Corp gets arrested for secretly installing malware in products without the user's knowledge. He is prompted arrested by the FBI after a tip-off from Elliot. They create a global revolution over this behavior. To do what's just. For the people to have a say once again. It is highly ironic that USA Network and Mozilla did the exact opposite of what the show is all about and promoted it this way. In fact, Mozilla's principles about creating a no-fuss browser runs counter to this very behavior.
  • digi_owl 9y ago
    As Lenin put it, the capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him with. Basically big media will produce all kinds of "anti-establishement" entertainment, carefully tailored to be just this side of risky. Damn it, they managed to sanitize and mainstream punk!
    • merpnderp 9y ago
      Lol yeah the capitalist will give you a choice on if you want a rope. The progeny of Lenin’s ideology had one rope for everyone and no choice.
    • angel_j 9y ago
      You can't manage, sanitize, nor mainstream punk; you can name something managed, sanitized, and mainstreamed, punk, but that doesn't make it punk
• adventured 9y ago
  I've been an overly faithful Firefox user since the first versions, through all of its performance problems and lagging behind Chrome. 12+ or whatever years of daily use. I was thrilled with the quantum update, finally Firefox was competitive again. I agree with the article. Whoever signed off on this obvious user abuse, should be immediately fired. It's inexcusable. I use Firefox so I don't have to use Google's Chrome as my primary browser. If Mozilla keeps behaving badly, I have no reason to use Firefox, it's that simple.
• codeisawesome 9y ago
  How disappointing:(
• madez 9y ago
  With the new Privacy Regulation in the EU, and since Mozilla is distributing FireFox globally, would there soon be a way to sue Mozilla in the case of privacy invading updates?
  • oatmealsnap 9y ago
    How is this a privacy invading update?
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • AsyncAwait 9y ago
    I'm not sure depleting their budget would achieve the desired result, but in any case, I don't believe this would make for a very strong case. It doesn't compromise privacy, you're probably already accepting auto-updates, it's just not a way to go about things if you respect your users.
    • madez 9y ago
      Auto-updates can not do data collection without new consent, under the new regulation. Consent must be given for each collection and purpose individually. Service cannot be denied for refusing to give consent. I'm not saying sueing Mozilla is what should be done. But I'm very much interested if it will be possible.
      • AsyncAwait 9y ago
        I don't think this addon did data collection. The backslash is about pushing unwanted code onto the user's machine, not about the addon itself doing something malicious.
        • madez 9y ago
          But FireFox is on a slippery slope. So, I think it is very much interesting if there are limits one can enforce legally, or not.
• nkkollaw 9y ago
  I've given money to FOSS projects before (last time $5 for a really basic color picker for elementary OS). I'm sure people would give something if Mozilla asked--kind of like Wikipedia do it with a message on their site. Why can't they just do that? It doesn't look like it could hurt more than this.
  • pryelluw 9y ago
    I don't think the problem is sourci g individual donations. It's more of a predictable revenue model they can make decisions on. Crowd funding the expenses of a whole corporation seems a difficult process to take on every year. Sustainability is something that plagues every open source project.
    • nkkollaw 9y ago
      Well, I don't think the add-on promotion/spam was funding the expenses of the whole corporation. Perhaps they can augment their business model with donations instead of crazy initiatives that alienate their users? I also wonder if--once they figure out what percentage of users donates--donations couldn't be predictable. By basing their business model on donations (at least in part), their focus would shift to getting more users (or making existing users like them more), which would in turn mean creating a better product. I don't see how that would not be a huge gain for everyone. DISCLAIMER: I have never run a corporation though, so I have no idea :-)
      • pryelluw 9y ago
        Those a good points. These sort of experiments seem to be them trying to find a revenue model that works. The way they are handling it sends a signal of desperation. Which should be the question here. Why does Mozilla need to do this? Why dowe the tech community praise open source in one hand and abandon it on the other?
        • nkkollaw 9y ago
          They probably are, desperate. The phone project has been a pretty bad hit for them. They so seemed to be able to be successful again with FF 57... I guess it was luck.
• Asdfbla 9y ago
  Very strange to see that. Are the managers responsible at Mozilla not aware that a significant part of the appeal of Firefox is user autonomy and privacy? No reason to gamble away your reputation by violating user trust like that. I understand they need money to develop a browser, but surely there must be better ways to promote partnerships. I personally probably wouldn't have a problem with Firefox asking me to opt-in to ads and promotions in the new tab page at first startup to support Firefox, for instance.
• dbatten 9y ago
  What makes this really stupid is that Mozilla is compromising user trust for what is undoubtedly a tiny payment from Mr. Robot. At least Google and friends are the wealthiest companies the world has ever seen as a result of their data shenanigans...
  • AsyncAwait 9y ago
    Apparently, there wasn't even any payment involved, which is probably even worse, since it's pushback for nothing.
• interfixus 9y ago
  Last time I took a peek at Chromium (yeah, not even Chrome. Chromium!) I was still getting pummelled with nonsense about the need for me to open some sort of Google or AppStore (or whatever they call it) account. I'm not joining that universe. So where to go? At the moment I'm happy with my Waterfox. And there's the somewhat similar Basilisk-project from the Pale Moon camp. But I realize these are overwhelmingly likely to be dead ends in the slightly longer run. There'll come a day when recent uMatrix et alia will no longer work. And a day when the dev-teams themselves throw in their towels. The FF57-thing is just depressing in its own right, even without this added round of Mozila idiocy. They couldn't offer us just the option of an extra toolbar, or any customization worth the name, really. Firefox of ten years ago had vastly better UI than this latest, dumbed-down iteration. But I suspect I shall sooner or later have to return. [Edit: typo]
  • shak77 9y ago
    Chrome pushes you to create a Google account to sync. Firefox pushes you to create a Firefox account to sync. You'll tell me where the difference is. At least Google does not also push you to create a Pocket account... ;^)
    • interfixus 9y ago
      Chromium pushed (and kept pushing) me to open an account in order to install addons. I never used the Mozilla sync-feature, but have no problem with it announcing its availability once in a new install. And likewise for the Google-browser, if that's what it does.
      • shak77 9y ago
        I use Chrome (not Chromium) and it has never asked me to create an account to download addons. :/
        • propogandist 9y ago
          using Chrome means you've embraced the botnet and with the browser phoning home constantly, they know which account to associate your browsing behavior with, no account creation required ;)
• dmh2000 9y ago
  if they don't do this, how do they make any money? (just asking)
  • Sylos 9y ago
    Taking money from Google, which people dislike as well. Basically Mozilla is supposed to develop a browser that's faster than Chrome, more customizable than anything out there, doesn't allow even the vaguest conspiracy theory of something being privacy-infringing even if it's not, and do all of that without money.
    • kuschku 9y ago
      So, you know, basically the same as every other open source project in existence, from Wikipedia to Linux, the countless distros and Linux desktops to Krita, GIMP and Blender. Completely Impossible /s
      • Karunamon 9y ago
        This. And if Mozilla cant develop a browser with $500M a year from Google, their problem is inefficient allocation of capital (I.e squandering it), not cash flow. 500M will employ a lot of developers.
      • Sylos 9y ago
        Wikipedia is completely different, because pretty much any user can contribute at any point in time. There's very little money involved for actually developing it, they mainly just need to maintain the infrastructure. And well, Linux is not different at all, it really isn't, as there's just as well a shitton of money going into Linux. Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE, Google, Facebook, heck even Microsoft, they all put a lot of money into Linux. Krita, GIMP, Blender, and the Linux desktops do not have anywhere close to the same need for development velocity, as there's much less competition in the space and as a result of that, but also just as a result of the things that they do, there not being as rapidly shifting requirements.
        • 9y ago
• shak77 9y ago
  Mozilla died the day they forced Eich out.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • bobthechef 9y ago
    But Eich dared to hold a view that went against the Church of Liberal Progressivism. A heretic heading Mozilla? Unthinkable.
    • toxican 9y ago
      Dared to be a bigot. How brave.
      • clackanon 9y ago
        Oh? Because anyone has an opinion that doesn't agree with the hive mind is a bigot. Got it.
        • toxican 9y ago
          No, anyone who would discriminate or support discriminating against someone based on something as irrelevant as sexual orientation is a bigot. Got it?
          • shak77 9y ago
            You keep using that word as an insult. :) Please be more respectful of other people's opinions and try to learn about their points of view.
            • eropple 9y ago
              "I don't believe that your friends and loved ones deserve the same rights I have" is not a point of view I am particularly worried about learning about. It is prima facie unacceptable and should be rejected by organizations that care about being decent; digging into the disaster represented by that hidebound bigotry (and it is an insult in the company of decent parts of humanity) just cements it.
• vesak 9y ago
  Is this malevolence or incompetence?
  • tomcooks 9y ago
    I assume incompetent marketing focusing on EPIC MEMES du jour instead of focusing on what users want, but these PR deals when your browser is at ~6% usage worldwide really smell like corporate agreements.
• 659087 9y ago
  Mozilla does seem to be trying very hard to make those of us who have been trying to lead people away from Google/etc and onto their browser look like hypocrites.
• bshimmin 9y ago
  I am reminded of when Apple stuck U2 into everyone's iTunes library (though I actually think this is weirder and worse). It seems like an inviolable, cardinal rule is "don't push things on me that I didn't ask for".
• overgard 9y ago
  Gah, the worst part of this is Firefox 57 is good enough that I want to switch to it. I wish they would at least issue a "that was dumb we won't do it again" statement or something.
• jimrandomh 9y ago
  At this point, I think we should all slow down and wait until Mozilla does their internal investigation and makes some sort of statement. It's clear that a screwup occurred, but not clear precisely what the screwup was. From the outside, it looks like something that was unfinished and supposed to be opt-in was accidentally rolled out to everyone, which suggests a problem with release management or code review process, combined with human error. But this is speculation. Whatever happened, scaring people with something that looks kinda like malware and having a PR shitstorm was clearly not the intent.
  • hellcow 9y ago
    Mozilla's CMO already defended their behavior in a statement to Gizmodo [1], claiming in effect that the malware they silently injected into people's browsers didn't harm people's privacy, and thus was OK. Mozilla's CMO believes that Mozilla did nothing fundamentally wrong. That shows a cultural disconnect between Mozilla's management and Firefox users. Privacy is one important feature, but trust is what was violated here. [1]: https://gizmodo.com/mozilla-slipped-a-mr-robot-promo-plugin-into-firefox-1821332254 https://gizmodo.com/mozilla-slipped-a-mr-robot-promo-plugin-...
    • hayyyyydos 9y ago
      > claiming in effect that the malware they silently injected into people's browsers It's not malware - please stop calling it that.
      • anonymousab 9y ago
        It does some arguable unwanted things with text and is rather underperformant in doing so. a It is "off by default" except for some users reporting it as not (and except for nightly?), which is once again pegged as some vaporous bug that we will likely see no followup on. It is unfortunately like much modern software in that vein. Not quite malware, but very undesirable.
      • 0xffff2 9y ago
        Can you give a reasonable definition of malware that doesn’t include this plugin?
• r1b 9y ago
  I still don't understand why this is such a big deal - here's what it reads on my `about:studies` page: looking-glass-2 Active • MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT THAN YOURS. Looking Glass is a collaboration between Mozilla and the makers of Mr. Robot to provide a shared world experience. Are you a fan of Mr. Robot? If so, join the hunt for answers! Participating in this shared world experience requires explicit user opt in. If you are not actively participating in the ARG no modifications will be made to firefox. https://support.mozilla.org/kb/lookingglass https://support.mozilla.org/kb/lookingglass --- Here's more about shield studies: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield It also lists some previous studies that ran on my browser. I have never noticed any of these.
  • detaro 9y ago
    a) It was rolled out appearing as a normal plugin, out of the blue, without the additional context information, so many people assumed it's malware. Don't make your users panic for no good reason. b) It's using a mechanism intended for helping improve the browser to roll out advertisements. Even those that were aware of the studies did consent to Mozilla pushing out changes to help them study improvements, they did not consent to Mozilla using this permission to roll out ads. c) For many users, this is the first time they realize Firefox has these things turned on by default, instead of them being opt-in. Opt-in for unnecessary data collection is privacy design 101, privacy being a large part of Mozilla's advertising. (The ad in specific does not collect data, but the mechanisms it directed attention to do) d) Mozilla running advertisements for a Comcast-owned product is somewhat at odds with #NetNeutrality messages.
  • kowdermeister 9y ago
    Me neither. It could have been communicated / written better, but it does not equate them to Nazi Germany like some people paints them because if this.
  • r1b 9y ago
    On my `about:addons` page under `Extensions` I see an entry for `Looking Glass`. It has no icon. If you click it, it expands to read: Looking Glass By PUG Experience Group (list of names) <a contact email> MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT THAN YOURS. Looking Glass is a collaboration between Mozilla and the makers of Mr. Robot to provide a shared world experience. Are you a fan of Mr. Robot? If so, join the hunt for answers! Participating in this shared world experience requires explicit user opt in. If you are not actively participating in the ARG (Augmented Reality Game) no modifications will be made to Firefox. https://support.mozilla.org/kb/lookingglass https://support.mozilla.org/kb/lookingglass --- I do think they should have added an icon and NOT used the extensions as a delivery channel but I also don't think it screams malware. There is a contact email and a link to a page explaining the extension.
• alkonaut 9y ago
  Did anyone actually see this extension run rather than just be downloaded? When the article says “it was sideloaded without consent [...] this is what it looks like” etc - does that mean that’s what it looks like to users that did not opt in? I get that just having it listed is creepy and wrong, but I fail to see why we’d scream about forking Firefox unless anyone actually had an extension do anything without their consent. I don’t want unwanted extensions downloaded either but as long as they aren’t being run I’m not switching back to Chrome over it.
  • JackC 9y ago
    For me (beta channel FWIW) the extension was installed and enabled. Apparently the code wouldn't modify page contents unless an additional setting was set, but yes it was installed and run without permission.
  • cpeterso 9y ago
    The Looking Glass extension doesn't do anything unless the user manually sets an about:config flag.
  • hitekker 9y ago
    No. It was "enabled" in the add on menu but you would actually need to muck around in about:config to get it to "run". Fear and hatred has erased those distinctions in the mob's mind however.
  • simooooo 9y ago
    The fact that it even got as far as "Mr robot Easter egg extension? Great!" boggles the mind
• beerbaron23 9y ago
  Waaaay too much false information (or lack of) by the author and respondents here.If people would read before installing things they would be aware of this. It is right out in the open in plain comprehendbale wording (not bunched together like a legal doc). So anyone that took the time to read the small paragraph would be fully aware of what's going on, or at least know they will be guinnea pigs for testing out the new tech... #1 If you download the Developers Edition, Beta or Nightly edition, you agree to share crash data, new feature rollouts and participate in sheild test (which you can still opt out of). They tell you flat out these things will happen by participating in these previews (Which what this addon was part of and was tested by a measy 1% of the user base) #2 By the screenshot provided, this user has "Legacy Extentions" enabled, which means they have to be using a Nightly build, as that is the only way you can still enable this feature. Hence they did not read the details on the possible trials they might be joined in. If they were part of say the Electrolysis trial I doubt there would be concern like this. #2 In a full public release you are opted out of these by default, but can opt in if you wish. #3 If you download the official release you are not subjected to any of this unless you decide to manually opt-in. It's not hidden, it's on the privacy page in the main preferences. For the pioneer experiments you have to go manually download a full extention to opt-in. #4 If you downloaded the beta to check things out, then when 57 rolled out and you decided to stay on the release channel, you would have to manually go and switch the experimental pioneer off manually or refresh your profile as it keeps all your custom profile data. Same if you shared a single profile between all your installs instead on creating multipile profile. #5 Firefox keeps a list of which experiements are on the way, details about it and you can see which ones you are taking part in in your about:support and also in about:studies Info about this study taken from their study page: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vu2n2llbfyyyv1x/Screen%20Shot%202017-12-16%20at%201.10.07%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/vu2n2llbfyyyv1x/Screen%20Shot%2020... Info detailing how to opt-in: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sk48o3fgookin4i/Screen%20Shot%202017-12-16%20at%201.06.47%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/sk48o3fgookin4i/Screen%20Shot%2020... Proof of my default settings on Nightly which opts me in my default: https://www.dropbox.com/s/blar0u0jdrzw37b/Screen%20Shot%202017-12-16%20at%201.03.11%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/blar0u0jdrzw37b/Screen%20Shot%2020... An finally proof you are opted out by default on the public release of 57: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3zpwunknngy71pw/Screen%20Shot%202017-12-16%20at%201.01.26%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3zpwunknngy71pw/Screen%20Shot%2020...
• danso 9y ago
  > Mozilla and Fox Entertainment did a “collaboration” (read: promotion) for the TV show Mr. Robot This is just a side issue (I agree with the OP's main point) but Jesus, how do you make an error like this in the beginning of the post? Mr. Robot is from USA Network, which is owned by NBC Universal. Fox has nothing to do with it. The technical problem here is clear to me as a techie. I was going to post this to r/mrrobot but realized it'd have no credibility among show's fans -- would you read past such a major error on a topic you cared about even if it eventually got to a correct core point? e.g. a rant about YouTube censoring videos of a certain political bent that began with "YouTube, a subsidiary of Baidu..."
  • Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    Shit. I'll get that fixed ASAP. I don't know why I thought it was Fox.
    • porky 9y ago
      too much simpsons?
• damontal 9y ago
  Is there anything wrong with pocket itself? Or is it just that it was forced into the browser?
  • AsyncAwait 9y ago
    I don't think people have much problems with Pocket itself, especially now that it's owned by Mozilla, it was mostly about it being a default addon. I don't personally mind it, since it's a lot better than just having a full bookmarks bar, but can see why some people would.
    • scott_karana 9y ago
      It was never an add on. It's built into the core of the browser. You can hide its button, but all the code is still there.
  • kowdermeister 9y ago
    No, it's a great product. Everyone complains that bookmarking is broken then here's an alternative, then some naysayers find a hole in it too. Some folks are impossible to please.
• carlsborg 9y ago
  Let me propose an experiment: fire up wire shark and start your favourite browser and revel in the boatload of encrypted traffic that gets phoned home on startup. Now turn off updates, telemetry and a bunch of other built in features and do the same with Mozilla: the tcp connections out of your system are zero, nada. You can literally turn off everything.
  • lucideer 9y ago
    Mostly. There are some exceptions, mostly not easily detectable by wireshark while Firefox is idling. These are things like extra requests made while browsing ancillary to the requests you're explicitly making, certain browser functions needlessly requiring an internet connection when they could well work fine without, and also in the form of "bugs" that slipped into the browser largely out of a lack of consideration for users' privacy by devs. The point here is that, while competitors' browsers might be worse, this doesn't mean that being "almost private" should be good enough for Firefox. Saying "but Firefox is still better than X at privacy" doesn't mean they can't be better. X is setting a very low bar.
    • Sylos 9y ago
      >and also in the form of "bugs" that slipped into the browser largely out of a lack of consideration for users' privacy by devs. Tor Browser is based on Firefox. Human lifes would be at risk, if Tor Browser were to send additional data over the net that it's not supposed to send. So, Firefox is going to be very well vetted for whatever kind of bugs you imagine to be there.
      • lucideer 9y ago
        If Tor browser sends additional data over the net, it does so via the Tor network, so you are at no more risk than any other explicit requests you make via Tor browser. Unless you're using uMatrix in advanced mode with extra strict content settings enabled, Tor browser won't keep your session completely private. It isn't designed to do so. It's designed to keep a single session isolated and - if you're careful - anonymous within itself, but any activity within that session can still be easily associated with other activity within that session, unless you're selectively blocking 3rd parties. NoScript (bundled with TorBrowser) does this partially but not fully. Beyond the above (that TorBrowser isn't designed to protect from what we're discussing here, and as such their vetting won't be overly concerned with it), there's also the fact that they track ESR which is likely to have less of these issues since they'll usually be fixed before feature releases are backported. Edit: In case you're still of the view these bugs are "imagined", here's two small (related) examples: [0], [1] though not the only ones. The "lack of consideration" I referred to in my above post that imo causes these bugs is the language seen in the second one of those bugs: > It's not tracking but I'd imagine users who were uncomfortable submitting usage data from the app to GA also don't want to log their errors in Sentry This is a Mozilla developer who seems to fundamentally disagree with (I'd guess most) users on what tracking means. [0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380754 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380754 [1] https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2802 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2802
• _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  Everyone in Mozilla management has to go. Mozilla again needs to be about a browser not about making money. If $500M per year from G is not enough you're doing it wrong.
  • kowdermeister 9y ago
    How on earth is this related to money?
• cseelus 9y ago
  Whats all the hate for Pocket anyway? Isn't it just like the Reading List feature of Safari (or other Browsers) only more open (syncs with various devices, even some eBook readers which I think is quite nice). Also its owned by Mozilla[1]. 1) https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-pocket/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po...
  • degenerate 9y ago
    "We've putting this thing that nobody asked for in everyone's toolbar, with no option to remove it, because we think everyone should use it" That was the hate. If they released it as an official extension, fine, but they baked it into the browser and didn't let you opt out.
    • kowdermeister 9y ago
      But they bought the company, now they are an extension to the company. What the hell is the difference?
      • throwaway2048 9y ago
        they bought the company years after the fact, and seemingly as a rebuttal to the people constantly complaining about it.
        • kowdermeister 9y ago
          I'm not a Firefox user, sorry. Was it integrated before the purchase?
      • gkya 9y ago
        I still don't understand that move. If Mozilla needs money, why spend whay they already have on these useless thigs?
        • kowdermeister 9y ago
• qwerty456127 9y ago
  I am actually very sad IceWeasel has been discontinued. We the people really need a community-maintained reasonably up-to-date no-nonsence (without hidden extensions built-in, proprietary stuff hard-coded, legacy features (like Java plug-in - my government still requires me to use it!) force-disabled, random stuff testing etc.) version of Firefox IMHO.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    Isn't that icecat?
    • qwerty456127 9y ago
      Perhaps. But does it incorporate the recent improvements that make Firefox fast again (this is an important part of what I mean under "reasonably up-to-date")? I don't think so.
      • yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
        It's built on ESR releases, so you're currently correct, but in a few more months it will jump from version 52 to 59 (IIRC) and get all of that. It still gets security updates, so I view it as "reasonably" up-to-date. So it mostly comes down to what your definition of reasonably up-to-date in this context is.
• jsrjenkins 9y ago
  Anyone looking for a browser project that disables these add-ons should look at the 'waterfox project'. https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ Full discloser: I use waterfox as a renderer for conkeror [http://www.conkeror.org/ http://www.conkeror.org/].
• djcjr 9y ago
  Developers often have bills to pay. Griping should be weighted by how much money YOU have sent, no?
• LeoPanthera 9y ago
  My search for a "just a browser" browser lead me to this: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium It's a fork of Chrome, with all links and connections to Google compiled out. I'm not a fan of using a fork of a major browser for the same reason that a fork of Firefox relies on the continued existence of Mozilla - but I guess I trust Google to continue existing more than I trust Mozilla. It's a shame. I want to like Firefox. But I'm finding it hard to find the trust.
• _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  If you want to know why they need all this money: "Every six months, Mozilla gets all of its employees from around the world together in one place, for a week." http://words.steveklabnik.com/user-agent-moz-a http://words.steveklabnik.com/user-agent-moz-a They just act like RichCorp.
  • makecheck 9y ago
    Their employees are mostly or entirely remote workers, I think. Even bringing them all to one place once a year may be cheaper than maintaining office space, and you can pay everyone local salaries (since many will be in cities with sane costs of living instead of northern California, they’re probably cheaper to hire). In other words, I seriously doubt they’re spending more, they are most likely using money more wisely than your average tech company.
    • a_imho 9y ago
      Paying salaries according to a local index in a remote context is externalized discrimination.
• mnm1 9y ago
  The author really gets the underlying issue, and it's an issue that is extremely common amongst software, hardware, and vendors, tech and non-tech alike: trust. Almost every major issue with software boils down to trust. Do I trust this browser, or more specifically, the people that develop it? Do I trust this database / people that develop it? Do I trust technology X? These are the types of decisions we have to make everyday and that the tech world is forcing upon billions of people, most of whom are simply not informed enough to make them. Free software is about trust. Open source is about trust. So many "tech" issues boil down to trust, that I'd say trust is the primary issue in tech and has been for quite awhile. Therefore, it's interesting to see that companies simply ignore this issue, don't care about it, and openly violate the trust of their customers, employees, partners, etc. I see very few organizations that consider the implications of lost trust to their business. Just like car mechanics who lie and say they fixed something they didn't, companies break users' trust by hiding malware in their products, spying on them, collecting data without their knowledge, releasing bad products etc. In the end, it doesn't matter how trust is broken because once it's broken, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to reestablish. That's something a lot of companies don't think about with the philosophy being that lost customers will be replaced by new waves of ignorant customers who don't know any better and don't know who to trust. Then they wonder why their market share slips when the company's main purpose is to scam people.
• itaysk 9y ago
  In light of recent Net Neutrality events, is the browser the next frontier?
• tfha 9y ago
  Shouldn't we consider it a giant, massive red flag that you need a corporation backing you to maintain one of the most critical pieces of web software? That's how we ended up in this mess. You can't compete in the web browser battles unless you have hundreds of full time engineers behind you. That's a failure of the web. None of this new decentralized technology is going to mean anything if we haven't learned that lesson. If you want free, open systems, competition needs to be easy. We need to be able to respond to a abusive platforms by making our own, and that means we need to live in an ecosystem where making our own platforms is easy enough that you can have 10-20 viable options simultaneously supported. Linux distros are a fantastic example of this. It's easy enough to create a viable linux distro that there are 5+ popular ones, and if you don't like those there are 10+ less popular ones which are perfectly viable and reasonable choices for an OS. We need to take the web back in that direction.
  • zeta0134 9y ago
    This is such a lovely idea on paper, but how do you put that into practice? Is the problem the monolithic design of a web browser, which now is basically an operating system all its own? Is the solution to break that into its component parts, so that each part can be maintained by a smaller group, and composed together to produce the browser as a whole?
    • stirner 9y ago
      The problem is the complexity of all the specifications that make up the Web. These specifications are heavily influenced by whatever major browsers already are doing (i.e. influenced by a handful of huge tech companies). These companies have a vested interest in making it hard to make a new, competitive browser. I think the Web is unredeemable at this point; there is so much entrenched complexity, ugly hacks, centralization, and misuse of various technologies that it can never be undone. The only solution is to refuse to contribute to the Web at all, which is hardly an option for most of us here.
      • thomastjeffery 9y ago
        The solution is to fork, or start over. I like the latter idea.
• sverige 9y ago
  I've used FF since the beginning. I've installed it on a lot of computers for friends and family. Today I uninstalled it, and that was before I found out about this latest sneaky trick.
• mlinksva 9y ago
  Fire the people responsible for making this decision. Or they can resign. This is against Mozilla values in a very different way, but as fundamentally, as what led to Eich leaving. The solution is the same in both cases.
• robbrown451 9y ago
  I agree with the complaints but I also wonder how else Mozilla is supposed to financially support their work. It is an unfortunate reality that donations alone don't tend to work on things of this scale. Humans don't work like that....most people are not going to send a significant amount of money to make an insignificant impact on browser quality. (i.e. if I donate $5000, would I even be able to tell the difference between the Firefox without my donation, and the Firefox with my donation?) This is pretty basic game theory (Tragedy of the Commons, Prisoners' Dilemma, etc). Nobody wants to be the sucker when most people are being freeloaders. So we have things like this. They are trying whatever they can do to get revenue. Bake shit in that increases their corporate sponsor's bottom line. Ugggh. I don't have a solution (short of government grants and the like) but I wish more smart people would work on this sort of problem.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• orblivion 9y ago
  Let's not forget that the whole idea of a FOSS company making it in the marketplace is sort of squaring a circle. It's amazing that we got this far. Unless we have better ideas, we should expect more things like this. I personally think we should all try to come up with better ideas. In the mean time, we should have some tolerance for things like the privacy respecting advertising scheme they came up with. I agree that this Mr. Robot thing crosses some sort of line. But I don't think our response should look anything like "How dare you try to make money!" lest our critique be useless.
  • dhimes 9y ago
    I think your response is reasonable. People will be happy to play games with their browsers as long as they trust the game and have control over when to play and not. Maybe firefox becomes the "fun" browser and we end up with a web version of a pokemon go type game. (Would be cool, huh? Websites would "trend" as people flocked to find $pattern and shared their discoveries.) Or some other game. Or a game-of-the-week, that advertisers can sponsor. But transparency, opt-in, and ease of use are all key to this working.
  • rihegher 9y ago
    I'd like to have the option to pay for getting a browser without unwantedwares guarantied, let say a 5$ per month subscription. Not sure they would be enough people that would pay though.
  • ksk 9y ago
    Also the article itself is quite poalarising. Its basically suggesting that there is zero room for disagreement over a decision. And that you either agree or you're an idiot who should be fired.
• alexasmyths 9y ago
  A lot of demands for someone who wants a few thousand people to work for us, for free. I think if everyone who used MZ paid $2 a year, these issues might be resolved ...
• n1vz3r 9y ago
  While I can agree with author on some points, I don't understand why everyone bashes Mozilla for Pocket so much, they have bought it and I thought it is part of Mozilla now: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-pocket/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po... Plase correct me if I'm wrong.
  • scott_karana 9y ago
    When Pocket was first added, it was an independent company with no signs of any acquisition by Mozilla. It was not added to the browser as an "add-on" but as core code. Sure, you could hide the button, but... it's still there, attack surface and all. Plus, it's a product in a competition-rich field. Adding first class support almost certainly affected adoption for competitors like Instapaper, Pinboard, etc, who still had to play by the rules. Hardly what you'd expect from a "choice centric" company like Mozilla, and it screamed of a cash bribe.
• daodedickinson 9y ago
  Completely unacceptable. But with how much disrespect Windows 10 gives users in terms of forcing distracting ads into faces, I can see why they think it's open season on us.
• yuhong 9y ago
  As it happens, I posted http://yuhongbao.blogspot.com/2017/12/google-mozilla-and-debt-based-economy.html http://yuhongbao.blogspot.com/2017/12/google-mozilla-and-deb... around the same time.
• unstatusthequo 9y ago
  I'd happily pay to use a Firefox that doesn't do this. There's the Mozilla monetization problem solved and upholds trust and supports more good development like 57.
• EugeneOZ 9y ago
  This way they are also risking the Rust language. Please don’t do it, it’s important fir humanity to evolve this language.
• Animats 9y ago
  It's become so bad that F-Droid won't even distribute Firefox on Android any more. They have their own fork, called Fennec. It still has "Firefox accounts", Pocket (which can be turned off) and Sync. Pocket is now an ad channel. There are Pocket "suggestions".
  • gkya 9y ago
    The suggestions annoy the heck out of me. I probably am going to dump Firefox altogether when I will find something similar to tabs sync with qutebrowser or the new nEXT browser (which is a very interesting thing because it's implemented in common lisp with emacs-like extensibility AFAIK).
  • steckerhalter 9y ago
    Fennec is actually Mozilla's name for the Android version of Firefox: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Fennec/Android https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Fennec/Android See also the filename of the latest release: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mobile/releases/57.0.1/android-x86/en-US/fennec-57.0.1.en-US.android-i386.apk https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mobile/releases/57.0.1/android-x...
    • Animats 9y ago
      "Fennec F-Droid" is a browser fork that F-Droid uses. It gets rid of some of Mozilla's junk in Firefox. They avoid mentioning Mozilla or Firefox, and use a different icon.
• eitland 9y ago
  After how they have locked down the marketplace to prevent malware this is really ironic. FTR: Usually a huge Firefox fan and still thinks it is better than sending everything wholesale to Google like Chrome does. But wow, this seems like an amazingly dumb move..!
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• xnx 9y ago
  With behavior like this (and previous acts) I view Mozilla as less trustworthy than Google. Wouldn't Chromium be a better option for those who still don't like Google? I'm still glad that Firefox mobile is available since Chrome mobile doesn't support extensions (e.g. for ad blocking).
• staunch 9y ago
  Mozilla is an embarrassment of an organization run by people paying themselves $1 million/year for years of gross mismanagement.
• feketegy 9y ago
  I was going to switch from Chrome back to Firefox after the Quantum update, but seeing this I've changed my mind. Firefox is a good browser, but pulling stunts like this make me loose faith in it. Sticking with Chrome for now.
• callahad 9y ago
  Most of us are on flights today, hence the slow response, but I want to clarify two things: 1. The study is not "still active and ongoing." It was pulled yesterday after the backlash, though that may take up to 24 hours to propagate: https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robot-extension-t-1821354314 https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robo... 2. Even when "enabled" in the add-on manager, the add-on was completely inert unless a user also manually dove into about:config and specifically enabled a flag related to the add-on. Without taking that deliberate action, it didn't do anything but watch that flag. No headers, no word inversions, etc. If you'd like to verify my claims, the source lives at https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr, and initialization is controlled by addon/bootstrap.js. This doesn't excuse our actions, but I hope it adds some context.
  • leeoniya 9y ago
    i have a question: why do any of this? yahoo and google pay hundreds of millions, is this not sufficient? have any of these gimmicks actually helped gain users? it's likely that only Quantum - a purely technical improvement (plus marketing dollars) - made any dent in your user share. it's almost like mozilla keeps expanding into all the shady corners to use up its budget so it can have a bigger budget next year. many users use firefox for ideological reasons, even when Chrome is/was technically superior. and these reasons are disintegrating at a ludicrous speed. you are throwing away the very users that helped you grow. we are telling you this here, directly and in plain language. much of the same group uses firefox because they can make it work exactly how they want with exactly 0 surprises. some of this died with the web extension addon transition, but it's at least justifiable from a technical & security perspective. every time you force-feed what should be a visible and removable extension, i have less and less control over my browser and less incentive to to use or recommend it. it's heartbreaking, really. whoever is pushing forward on all this farcical marketing spin and bundling stunts needs to be shown the door, asap. call ads "ads", not "experience enhancements". it is not okay. you guys need to stop this before you lose your most dedicated users that have stuck with you through thick and thin. having been on firefox/nightly for over 10 years, deploying firefox on thousands of PCs, reporting many bugs, and making donations to mozilla, i am this close to saying "fuck it" and taking my friends, relatives and coworkers with me. i'm gonna be one user that costs you 2000 more. please get this to whoever needs to hear it [and gives enough fucks to actually do something].
• reacharavindh 9y ago
  This is just really sad. I was among those thinking about switching to Firefox from Safari on my work machine. If Firefox is going to act creepy, I might as well get better battery life with Safari. Does anybody here known of better open alternatives than Firefox? I don't mind if it is slightly slower, or not as feature rich, or if it means I have to compile it myself. But, it has to be truly open and sane.
• deftnerd 9y ago
  Firefox keeps acting like they desperately need money, but there are clear paths to monetization with a freemium model. The simplest method is to limit the browser sync capabilities (bookmarks, passwords, settings, etc) and charge a small fee for improved sync. Limitation might be sync frequency or storage space. For Thunderbird, they could roll in an advanced spam blocker system and make it subscription-based. Or they could create a single button in commercial buttons to automatically unsubscribe from the content. Or, for the simplest model, just charge $10 a year for access to binaries from the beta + nightly + dev channels
• bitonio 9y ago
  I pledge to give $20 to Mozilla once: - they apologized for the fuck-up - they pledge to stop doing that kind of stupidity - they reconsider the employment of those really responsible for it. Not just the ones that wrote the code, the ones that asked for it which are likely more paid than the coders anyway. #firefoxpledge Many of us here are Firefox users, but I'm sure most of us are really happy to use it for free. If Mozilla is desperate enough to agree to some big cable companies, or some big search engine marketing contracts. Why do the users blame them? Maybe we should support them instead and help them to get out of that vicious circle so we can all enjoy a less corporate internet.
  • zamazingo 9y ago
    > I pledge to give $20 to Mozilla once: - they apologized for the fuck-up - they pledge to stop doing that kind of stupidity - they reconsider the employment of those really responsible for it. I was indeed considering making a recurring donation after their work on Quantum. But I won't bribe an organization into abiding by its own mission statement and I won't give money to an organization that cannot keep its promises. I wish the technical folk at Mozilla, who are literally building the browser, would split out, join in with FSF or EFF, and create the fork that we all would switch over to in an instant.
• disordinary 9y ago
  Building a web browser is potentially the most complicated application to build nowadays, it can't be sustained just by a community of volunteers and Firefox has to maintain a payroll of at least a thousand extremely highly paid engineers. They're needed for a proper free and open internet which is independent from the needs of corporations but they also need to pay their bills. It's a fine line that they have to tread, maybe they overstepped the boundary this time but I'd rather there was a firefox that can afford to innovate and push forward the web platform as a whole than not one.
• Jeaye 9y ago
  I've addressed this post with a response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15942647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15942647 In short, I'm worried that folks will pick up on this anti-Mozilla train and brashly jump to other browsers without considering the security and privacy impact.
  • scott_karana 9y ago
    I'm told that Chrome has been faster fixing security problems for quite some time (and their sandboxing model was better by default until e10s rolled out globally), so the only valid concern is likely to be Privacy. :-(
• OverThere 9y ago
  Thanks for writing this to inform the community. I had no idea this was even going on before reading your article. What browser do you use now?
  • scott_karana 9y ago
    The author mentioned http://qutebrowser.org/ http://qutebrowser.org/ in the article :-)
• shawn-butler 9y ago
  Maybe instead of a litmus test on their political donations, Mozilla needs one on whether its executives respect users.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• brightball 9y ago
  Brave browser looks more appealing all of a sudden
• z3t4 9y ago
  Lets compare Firefox with Windows or Mac or any other popular software that you guys pour money on. What I find most interesting is why you pay premium to get locked into a propriety closed source platform, getting "updates" pushed to your systems all the time, like force feeding chickens. While I'm most likely wrong I think this is actually a PR stunt, that somewhat backfired. At least they got you talking about these issues.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• dahdum 9y ago
  Eich says Mozilla is interested in integrating their BAT token into Firefox in the future too. His ability to make that happen is partly why they got so much funding and token sale proceeds. https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/942115844087169024 https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/94211584408716...
• KindOne 9y ago
  I'm a fan of Mr. Robot and this add-on went well over my head.
• bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Mozilla needs to get rid of the people responsible for this and specifically the rogue marketing team members that have been the source for much of Mozilla's missteps such as the tone def attack ads on Chrome which deeply embarrassed a lot of the Mozilla engineers.
• whyenot 9y ago
  I was a very strong supporter of Mozilla in the early days when it was a scrappy nonprofit dependent on donations of time and money from its users (I proudly gave them both). Today's Mozilla by comparison comes across as bulky and wasteful and to have lost its way. It doesn't in any meaningful way depend on code contributions from outside the organization anymore. It is opaque and unengaged with it's users compared to the old days -- remember the success of the spread Firefox campaign? I'm not sure what the solution is, but from outside, it seems like Mozilla should become a much leaner, more focused organization. Move out of that cushy building on the SF waterfront to somewhere where your neighbors are ordinary people, have employees want to work for you because they believe in open source and and the open web, not for the trips to Paris and the fat pay packages. Trim down management and all the other fat that has accumulated over the years. It won't happen, of course.
• porky 9y ago
  With all the right criticism, if we try to be constructive, I think this is an opportunity for a change. Mozilla/FF might not yet be Google/Chrome and we can change the course of the future of FF Let's not be fundamentalists - people make mistakes, and we can give Mozilla a chance to fix it and be 100% transparent next time. If they can't make it without these tricks, then they should say that it's not the FF we are used to and want, and they can share the user space with Chrome. But if it's not like that, then great, let's do it together
• BuckRogers 9y ago
  I've always left "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" and "Allow Firefox to send crash reports to Mozilla" enabled, and I've been using Firefox since it was Phoenix (beta) in the early oughts. I just like to make sure they get the info they need to improve it and also, advocate in that way for the features within the browser that I use- so they don't remove them. After this study add-on, I disabled all of those settings. I'm not moving to Chrome (and I never did all these years, FF has features that Chrome never will like toolbar RSS feed support), but now I'm probably withholding legitimately helpful information from Mozilla. I'm willing to do that because I don't feel like they can be trusted right now.
• ENGNR 9y ago
  This is hacker news... and it was a stunt related to Mr Robot Have you considered using Edge?
• foobarbecue 9y ago
  Why are people not calling this adware? This is silently installed, extra-creepy adware, promoting a TV show. Disgraceful.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• kindfellow92 9y ago
  I fully support Mozilla for doing this. Developing a browser is expensive and money doesn’t grow on trees. Cheers Mozilla
• trts 9y ago
  It's hard to identify with the vitriol in response to this thread, yeah it was dumb and silly but, without reading Hacker News, it would have been a completely invisible event for me. I've been totally in love with FF57 since release and this doesn't really detract from it at all. Very happy to have a fast, open browser that keeps me from needing to rely on Google, Apple, or Microsoft for web browsing, even if Mozilla doesn't always act perfectly.
  • twblalock 9y ago
    Some people think Mozilla is different than the other browser makers, that it protects the internet in some way. Personally I don't see how Mozilla could have any impact on important decisions about internet governance, DRM, etc. with such a small marketshare, and I believe the internet would have turned out the same even if Mozilla had never existed. I can't think of a single case in which Mozilla prevented some standard from being adopted when Microsoft and Google wanted it to happen. In any case, Mozilla differentiated itself because of that image, and that was one of a small number of reasons people stuck with Firefox through the past several years. I bet a lot of those people are now thinking that they might as well use Chrome because Mozilla is the same as every other commercial vendor.
• mdip 9y ago
  I've been a die-hard Firefox guy for a long time ... I stuck around while the browser was being surpassed in performance by Chrome[0]. I left briefly when developer edition was updated in a manner that prevented my most relied upon add-ons from working. This move, when I first read about it, rubbed me the wrong way. As things have settled out, though, I'm a lot less quick to want to jump ship. In the context of a simple "easter egg" kind of thing, it's actually somewhat cool (I'm a fan of Mr. Robot, personally, so hey -- that helps a little)[1]. I think what bugged me the most is the lack of communication. Upon first reading about the "bug", it sounded like it was something that was "on by default" and potentially being used to collect data. It at least sounds like it was disabled unless you intentionally turned a setting on in about:config. OK, I guess. It would have been nice if there was better communication once the crap hit the fan and The Internet started panicking. The "easter egg" idea isn't something most of us would complain about if a very clear explanation was available upon discovery, but the fact that it was a promotion with NBC Universal, I think, is where a lot of folks got seriously upset. I know it was the first red flag I latched onto. Frankly, it's hard to imagine a worse company to enter into this kind of an agreement with and the way this was implemented just looks really bad -- as an add-on that appears to be a telemetry-type service. I think NBC Universal and the first two things that come to mind are the MPAA and their desire to burn down the internet if it keeps people from downloading movies ... and Comcast -- bandwidth caps, JavaScript injection, abysmal customer service, ever rising Internet bills (especially if -- as is often the case -- you live in an area where they are the only provider). It's a shame they had to suffer such a poor lapse of judgement at a time when the press around Firefox was turning so heavily in its favor. This was, hopefully, a painful enough shot in the foot that something like this won't happen, again. But who knows? Out of the options, available, I'm sticking with Firefox for now. [0] Part of this was my stubborn refusal to import my bookmarks mixed with the convenience of sync being setup everywhere I used it, part of it was a general dirty feeling I got from using a browser from a company (Google) who's becoming increasingly aggressive in asserting their monopoly positions. [1] And there's no irony lost about the fact that a show that would directly appeal to security engineers was being promoted in a way that would cause a security engineer to lose his/her mind.
• linuxhansl 9y ago
  I just checked and studies seems to be default off - as it should be. 57.0.1 on Linux.
• ggg9990 9y ago
  I disagree that they are on a slippery slope. They were on a slippery slope, then they slipped on it and fell into the crevasse.
• muraiki 9y ago
  Mr Robot is created by Universal, which is owned by Comcast, who helped destroy net neutrality. Besides the fact that Mozilla abused my trust in "user studies" to show me advertising -- when Mozilla's lack of connection to advertising is precisely why I use Firefox -- support for this show funds the very people Mozilla has been fighting! On top of that, Jascha Kaykas-Wolff's non-apology is a whole other level of disdain for users. How am I supposed to explain to people who trusted my knowledge of tech that they should install Firefox because of Mozilla's ideals, but to be sure to say no to user studies because Mozilla uses it for advertising?
• shp0ngle 9y ago
  We now get ads bundled with OS (Windows 10, Android sort of, Amazon with Ubuntu), ads bundled with browsers is just a little step further...
• megaman22 9y ago
  Mozilla is chasing the money cock, it's that simple. I don't see a point in enduring the friction of not using Chrome
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• downandout 9y ago
  From the article: Frankly, whoever was in charge should be fired over this They won’t be. But do you know who was forced out there? Its former CEO, Brendan Eich, for making a $1,000 donation to a conservative political cause years before he became CEO. Yet this kind of thing, which actually has an impact on their user base and their market prospects, was allowed to happen and it is likely nobody will pay for it. If priorities are this out of whack at all Silicon Valley companies, the world that relies on them is in serious trouble.
• z0ltan 9y ago
  This is what happens when you mix SJWism with technology. I hardly ever use Firefox, but I am uninstalling it pronto anyway.
• znpy 9y ago
  Too bad, I just switched back to Firefox and now they are delivering this crap... Oh well, I guess it's Chromium time.
• wangii 9y ago
  i don't understand why folks are upset. opensource + nonprofit can't prevent corruption. it has nothing to do with technology, management, personality, good will or anything. it's about power. given enough power and time, what left is either marketing or corruption.
• zaro 9y ago
  So much Mozilla bashing in the comments here. And in general. Mozilla doesn't improve Firefox: FF is so slow I am using only Chrome now. Mozilla improves Firefox: why did you break my extensions. Mozilla add data collection: you are no better than Chrome. And so on... Meanwhile Google is doing most of these things with Chrome and nobody complains. The title is correct, Firefox is on a slippery slope. But this is slippery slope to oblivion. Whatever Mozilla does is wrong. But see now, the game is very different nowadays. The browser is not simply a renderer for Html. The browser has turned into the TV from 1984. And the Web game is very very different. So no need to be angry at Mozilla, they are just a player trying to adapt to this new reality.
  • MikkoFinell 9y ago
    The fact that FF users are so critical is a positive feature of the community in my opinion. It's the only thing putting the breaks on Mozilla's campaign to turn FF into a clone of Chrome.
• tannhaeuser 9y ago
  I hope this incident makes people realize what a farce the Web has become given the incentives for Web browsers and sites. And we're working hard to make the Web even more complicated, so it's becoming impossible to develop a new browser from scratch.
• xab9 9y ago
  "Study" is doublespeak for "ad". Let me write that down into my dictionary, thanks Mozilla for the info!
• alex_duf 9y ago
  That story triggered a lot of angriness towards Mozilla. Maybe if instead we'd all give a bit of money to Mozilla they wouldn't be trying to do questionable promotional campaigns. You haven't lost my trust Mozilla, keep up the good work.
• Fiahil 9y ago
  > Mozilla, this is not okay. This is wrong on so many levels. Frankly, whoever was in charge should be fired over this - which is not something I call for lightly. Whoho, calm down cowboy. Some of us don't live in the far west, and have better, proper, and more civilized ways of dealing with work issues than your "All-American-Fire-Everyone-Style".
• oconnor663 9y ago
  I think arguments like this would go better if they created some space for the other side. Like, we all know that there's arguments on the other side about making money to pay the bills, and about experimenting with new ideas about how to do that. Almost no one thinks that Mozilla shouldn't try to make any money at all. But this argument doesn't explicitly lay out any space for that. So then it's hard for someone to talk about that side of the question, without feeling defensive from the very beginning.
• mshenfield 9y ago
  You either die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain. They made a small mistake and HN is taking this opportunity to villanize people making a real product and usually thoughtful decisions to support it. Slippery slope my ass.
• thangngoc89 9y ago
  I uninstalled Firefox after seeing this. I have spent to last month to use Firefox (partly because of project Quantum), but this is unacceptable to me. Good bye!
• banku_brougham 9y ago
  I was this close to migrating back to firefox and investing time in customizing it to meet my workflow.
• asimpletune 9y ago
  I get that everyone is pissed, but can someone explain what looking glass does? After reading the article and the comments I get that it’s like an ad/game, but that’s it.
• dbolgheroni 9y ago
  While I understand the technical merits of the switch to the Quantum/Rust/WebExtensions/Electrolysis thing, and while I also understand that this "ad" add-on is not enabled by default, I can't stop thinking that in one month or so, I went from having very useful add-ons to one that is completely useless and pushed to its users without consent.