4 ms·

This discussion on Reddit[0] would indicate that quite a few people saw this behavior unexpectedly, so even though it was off by default, it came as an unpleasa

This discussion on Reddit[0] would indicate that quite a few people saw this behavior unexpectedly, so even though it was off by default, it came as an unpleasant surprise to people who had opted in. It seems that they thought they were opting into Mozilla-lab-like experiments for improving the browser. Instead, they get an ad/easter egg that makes them think they-- or the site they are visiting-- have been hacked. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7k8pf7/firefox_is_on_a_slippery_slope/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7k8pf7/firefox...

gcb0 9y ago
mozilla has something called "system-extension" (the name changes over the years) that never shows up to the end user, and sole purpose is to enable/disable things in the users browsers. the use, as far as I know, has always been to disable broken features in older versions of users that do not update. pretty ok and necessary. but this makes me think they are using it to a/b test or capacity plan for marketing campaigns now :(
- StillNope 9y ago
  > pretty ok and necessary. There is NEVER a ethical reason for a dark update channel to exist. Altering the functionality of installed software without consent or notification is an act of sabotage, even when done by the vendor. If you want to disable broken features you prompt the user to have them disabled. Worst case (say something that allows malware to propagate or puts them or others at active risk) you disable it and display a message telling exactly what has happened.
- syshum 9y ago
  I agree it is useful to disable broken features, or other things in software that is not getting updates I completely disagree this need to be hidden from the end user, it should be FULLY and COMPLETELY transparent what is being disabled, added, or changed. There should be an "about/system-extension" page where a person could go and see everything that is doing or has done, and even optionally disable it if they desire.
jimktrains2 9y ago
It has also already caused economic damage as well as waisting a lot of people's time. https://reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/7k7wum/when_all_online_tests_are_invalidated_blame_mr/ https://reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/7k7wum/wh...
- chris_wot 9y ago
  Incredible. Mozilla really screwed up on this one.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  This. Apparently, we're still waiting for a Therac-class incident before "don't mess with critical infrastructure for what seems harmless fun to you" will even register on the radar with the "move fast and break other people's things" crowd.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  That story, uh. If you cut off the last couple sentences it would be somewhat convincing. In its entirety it just suggests a very broken process. Where an automatic extension invalidates firefox, but renaming chrome.exe to firefox doesn't invalidate firefox!?
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    Perhaps Chrome is also supported by the testing infrastructure, but they chose to use only firefox?
  - nallerooth 9y ago
    Or, they have multiple scripts running in the background which assume there is a `firefox` process. In such a case the smallest (and quickest) change is to rename the binary.
Dylan16807 9y ago
Can you point to a specific comment where someone saw the behavior unexpectedly? I've only seen people that saw the addon being installed unexpectedly. That doesn't lead to thinking any sites have been hacked.

gcb0 9y ago

mozilla has something called "system-extension" (the name changes over the years) that never shows up to the end user, and sole purpose is to enable/disable things in the users browsers. the use, as far as I know, has always been to disable broken features in older versions of users that do not update. pretty ok and necessary. but this makes me think they are using it to a/b test or capacity plan for marketing campaigns now :(

StillNope 9y ago
> pretty ok and necessary. There is NEVER a ethical reason for a dark update channel to exist. Altering the functionality of installed software without consent or notification is an act of sabotage, even when done by the vendor. If you want to disable broken features you prompt the user to have them disabled. Worst case (say something that allows malware to propagate or puts them or others at active risk) you disable it and display a message telling exactly what has happened.
syshum 9y ago
I agree it is useful to disable broken features, or other things in software that is not getting updates I completely disagree this need to be hidden from the end user, it should be FULLY and COMPLETELY transparent what is being disabled, added, or changed. There should be an "about/system-extension" page where a person could go and see everything that is doing or has done, and even optionally disable it if they desire.

jimktrains2 9y ago

It has also already caused economic damage as well as waisting a lot of people's time. https://reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/7k7wum/when_all_online_tests_are_invalidated_blame_mr/ https://reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/7k7wum/wh...

chris_wot 9y ago
Incredible. Mozilla really screwed up on this one.
Piskvorrr 9y ago
This. Apparently, we're still waiting for a Therac-class incident before "don't mess with critical infrastructure for what seems harmless fun to you" will even register on the radar with the "move fast and break other people's things" crowd.
Dylan16807 9y ago
That story, uh. If you cut off the last couple sentences it would be somewhat convincing. In its entirety it just suggests a very broken process. Where an automatic extension invalidates firefox, but renaming chrome.exe to firefox doesn't invalidate firefox!?
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  Perhaps Chrome is also supported by the testing infrastructure, but they chose to use only firefox?
- nallerooth 9y ago
  Or, they have multiple scripts running in the background which assume there is a `firefox` process. In such a case the smallest (and quickest) change is to rename the binary.

Dylan16807 9y ago

Can you point to a specific comment where someone saw the behavior unexpectedly? I've only seen people that saw the addon being installed unexpectedly. That doesn't lead to thinking any sites have been hacked.