4 ms·

That isn't correct. Try the new mobile Firefox. Buying Pocket signalled that if you can take the right Mozillan to lunch, you can get an early exit. That did n

by yarrel 9y ago

That isn't correct. Try the new mobile Firefox. Buying Pocket signalled that if you can take the right Mozillan to lunch, you can get an early exit. That did not solve the problem. It's still impossible to remove Pocket.

calcifer 9y ago
I think you misunderstood me. The Pocket integration in Firefox does literally nothing (not even a single network request) if you don't actively try to use it. So by "remove Pocket" or "disable Pocket" all you really mean is "hide the icon" because there really is no difference.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  I get it, but the code is still there. What if Apache httpd came with a commercial module that was disabled by default but bundled with the base package? It’s not THAT bad compared to what some software companies do, but...why do it at all? Is Mozilla getting paid, similar to using !Google as the default search engine? If so, it’s more understandable. If not, what is the justification for not just making it a regular add-on?
leeoniya 9y ago
yes, this is the part that bugs me. they solved the privacy concern in a very awkward manner (via acquisition) but not the user choice concern. it is impossible to believe that pocket is so integrated into the codebase that it cannot live as a removable addon. it was an addonafter all. fwiw, firefox sync should also be a removable addon. i am fine with mozilla installing these as removable addons at major version upgrades. i am not fine with silently side-loading and permanent non-removable integration. i need my tools to be secure, reliable and predictable.
anonemouse145 9y ago
Yes, the latest mobile Firefox does make network requests. When Firefox updated, I got a "recommended by Pocket" section full of ads and click bait. I do not want that. And it's on about:blank just like when Chrome started capping up the blank page. I had to install a script to load an actual blank HTML page because about:blank isn't blank.
- ta87786554 9y ago
  I turned on transparent proxying for HTTP and HTTPS the other day to see what requests FF was up to for its highlights on the supposedly blank page etc. It's very chatty, annoyingly. Captive portal check on all requests that has to be disabled in about:config and a laundry list more. That config is scarily full of remote and telemetry based URLs also, but at least they are co figurable I guess. An open source browser that just does what you want and no more seems like a dying hope.

by yarrel 9y ago

calcifer 9y ago

I think you misunderstood me. The Pocket integration in Firefox does literally nothing (not even a single network request) if you don't actively try to use it. So by "remove Pocket" or "disable Pocket" all you really mean is "hide the icon" because there really is no difference.

seanp2k2 9y ago
I get it, but the code is still there. What if Apache httpd came with a commercial module that was disabled by default but bundled with the base package? It’s not THAT bad compared to what some software companies do, but...why do it at all? Is Mozilla getting paid, similar to using !Google as the default search engine? If so, it’s more understandable. If not, what is the justification for not just making it a regular add-on?

leeoniya 9y ago

yes, this is the part that bugs me. they solved the privacy concern in a very awkward manner (via acquisition) but not the user choice concern. it is impossible to believe that pocket is so integrated into the codebase that it cannot live as a removable addon. it was an addonafter all. fwiw, firefox sync should also be a removable addon. i am fine with mozilla installing these as removable addons at major version upgrades. i am not fine with silently side-loading and permanent non-removable integration. i need my tools to be secure, reliable and predictable.

anonemouse145 9y ago

Yes, the latest mobile Firefox does make network requests. When Firefox updated, I got a "recommended by Pocket" section full of ads and click bait. I do not want that. And it's on about:blank just like when Chrome started capping up the blank page. I had to install a script to load an actual blank HTML page because about:blank isn't blank.

ta87786554 9y ago
I turned on transparent proxying for HTTP and HTTPS the other day to see what requests FF was up to for its highlights on the supposedly blank page etc. It's very chatty, annoyingly. Captive portal check on all requests that has to be disabled in about:config and a laundry list more. That config is scarily full of remote and telemetry based URLs also, but at least they are co figurable I guess. An open source browser that just does what you want and no more seems like a dying hope.