3 ms·

> The core idea (deploy an easter egg via an add-on) seems pretty reasonable I am stunned. I need to think about it for a few days, but this, to me is enough o

by ptero 9y ago

> The core idea (deploy an easter egg via an add-on) seems pretty reasonable I am stunned. I need to think about it for a few days, but this, to me is enough of a reason to stop using FF. Force feeding users this way is not even Chrome-style; it is early Internet Explorer like behavior.

scrollaway 9y ago
What's unreasonable about deploying an easter egg via an add-on? Dan is saying "Easter egg yay, auto-include in browser nay".
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  Yet, here we are.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    You're missing the point.
- ptero 9y ago
  > Dan is saying "Easter egg yay, auto-include in browser nay". Let me clarify: I do not want Easter eggs in my browser. At all. If you have to insert it, doing it via an add on is better than via core capability (I guess), but either way it is a very bad idea. And I think (correct me if I am wrong) that it is not "auto include nay". It is rather "Easter egg yay, auto-include yay, auto-activate nay". At best an Easter egg is some useless junk and at worst it is a possible backdoor which can be activated by mistake on the developer side (as happened) or by a user fat fingering some input. Sadly, I do not trust Mozilla anymore. It is just another evil empire competing to capture any user information it can. Any time there is another non-removable "feature" added I could bet 10:1 that the goal is to try putting yet another hook into the user and "good news: we are enhancing user experience again" is a clumsy PR. My 2c.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    > I do not want Easter eggs in my browser So don't install the addon. Why is everyone missing Dan's point? He's saying the current method (Available on AMO, you can install it if you want it) is what it should have been from the start. BTW, they didn't get paid for this.

3 ms·

> The core idea (deploy an easter egg via an add-on) seems pretty reasonable I am stunned. I need to think about it for a few days, but this, to me is enough o

by ptero 9y ago

scrollaway 9y ago
What's unreasonable about deploying an easter egg via an add-on? Dan is saying "Easter egg yay, auto-include in browser nay".
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  Yet, here we are.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    You're missing the point.
- ptero 9y ago
  > Dan is saying "Easter egg yay, auto-include in browser nay". Let me clarify: I do not want Easter eggs in my browser. At all. If you have to insert it, doing it via an add on is better than via core capability (I guess), but either way it is a very bad idea. And I think (correct me if I am wrong) that it is not "auto include nay". It is rather "Easter egg yay, auto-include yay, auto-activate nay". At best an Easter egg is some useless junk and at worst it is a possible backdoor which can be activated by mistake on the developer side (as happened) or by a user fat fingering some input. Sadly, I do not trust Mozilla anymore. It is just another evil empire competing to capture any user information it can. Any time there is another non-removable "feature" added I could bet 10:1 that the goal is to try putting yet another hook into the user and "good news: we are enhancing user experience again" is a clumsy PR. My 2c.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    > I do not want Easter eggs in my browser So don't install the addon. Why is everyone missing Dan's point? He's saying the current method (Available on AMO, you can install it if you want it) is what it should have been from the start. BTW, they didn't get paid for this.