3 ms·

No, it's not that blurry. Any competent manager should be able to tell the difference between "functionality directly related to what users expect of a browser

No, it's not that blurry. Any competent manager should be able to tell the difference between "functionality directly related to what users expect of a browser" and "code that we have installed on their machines without their knowledge, primarily motivated by our interests rather than theirs". This is not about the specific implementation of such decisions, such as whether including it as "part of" or "extension to". That's a pointless distinction - also something any competent manager in the tech sector should be aware of.

Vinnl 9y ago
So as a silly example, that means about:mozilla or Chrome's dinosaur game shouldn't have been shipped at all?
- Wingman4l7 9y ago
  Easter eggs have no functionality, and they follow the precedents of being harmless.
  - aangjie 9y ago
    Don't know why you're getting downvote, the first part of your stmt might be debatable, but being harmless is reasonable and in the example of about:config, it's also useful for a smaller set of users.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    Well, the same was true for the so heftily discussed Looking Glass extension. It did not do anything, unless you manually switched on an about:config value. And if you did, then all it did, was flip some random words on webpages upside down.
    - Wingman4l7 9y ago
      We can add a third criteria, then -- Easter eggs have no commercial purpose. The Looking Glass extension had tie-ins to a TV show.
      - Sylos 9y ago
        Which is a relatively arbitrary criteria to be so categorical about. No, I don't like it either to have eastereggs in my software that wasn't just put there for the fun of it, and rather was also motivated to some degree by a continued commercial relationship. But if this commercially motivated easter egg helps to gather more money to improve the software, which itself is non-commercial, and is as harmless as Looking Glass, then I do not see a problem with that. And let me repeat that, if it is as harmless as Looking Glass. I do not see a reason to categorically exclude any sort of commercially motivated thing from the browser. Even including some actual ads would in my opinion not be unthinkable, given that they get enough money for it and have effective ways to do good with that money, while especially also taking into account that users will get pissed off by it and leave the browser, effectively slimming the ability of Mozilla to do good. If you take everything into account, you can be morally on the good side without having to resort to never doing things from certain categories.
- tallanvor 9y ago
  I'll take up the argument that they shouldn't have shipped, sure. Bear in mind that I myself don't actually care that much, but I do think we need devil's advocates for this sort of thing on occasion. Easter eggs started at a time when software and games were shipped on cartridges, disks, or other media. If there was extra room available, it didn't affect the user experience to include them (performance was always very much in mind back then). Today, however, we see a couple of changes: First, apps and games are mostly downloaded. Easter eggs take up additional space, slowing down your download in the best case, and eating away at data caps in the worst cases. So you're already doing something that is somewhat hostile to the user. Second, both Mozilla and Google position their browsers as fast and lightweight. Does including Easter eggs actually help further either of those claims? Most likely not. One Easter egg might not really impact performance at all, but at what point does it become a problem? There are probably different teams working on the browser, and if each of them are adding Easter eggs, how long before those start to affect performance, whether because it's cruft or because many users are on older systems that don't have as much memory as the typical developer is used to? This at least bears consideration.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    Thanks, I think this is a reasonable viewpoint that I can understand, even if I don't agree with it - but it makes it clear that we come from different places and hence different conclusions on the situation at hand as well.

Vinnl 9y ago

So as a silly example, that means about:mozilla or Chrome's dinosaur game shouldn't have been shipped at all?

Wingman4l7 9y ago
Easter eggs have no functionality, and they follow the precedents of being harmless.
- aangjie 9y ago
  Don't know why you're getting downvote, the first part of your stmt might be debatable, but being harmless is reasonable and in the example of about:config, it's also useful for a smaller set of users.
- Sylos 9y ago
  Well, the same was true for the so heftily discussed Looking Glass extension. It did not do anything, unless you manually switched on an about:config value. And if you did, then all it did, was flip some random words on webpages upside down.
  - Wingman4l7 9y ago
    We can add a third criteria, then -- Easter eggs have no commercial purpose. The Looking Glass extension had tie-ins to a TV show.
    - Sylos 9y ago
      Which is a relatively arbitrary criteria to be so categorical about. No, I don't like it either to have eastereggs in my software that wasn't just put there for the fun of it, and rather was also motivated to some degree by a continued commercial relationship. But if this commercially motivated easter egg helps to gather more money to improve the software, which itself is non-commercial, and is as harmless as Looking Glass, then I do not see a problem with that. And let me repeat that, if it is as harmless as Looking Glass. I do not see a reason to categorically exclude any sort of commercially motivated thing from the browser. Even including some actual ads would in my opinion not be unthinkable, given that they get enough money for it and have effective ways to do good with that money, while especially also taking into account that users will get pissed off by it and leave the browser, effectively slimming the ability of Mozilla to do good. If you take everything into account, you can be morally on the good side without having to resort to never doing things from certain categories.
tallanvor 9y ago
I'll take up the argument that they shouldn't have shipped, sure. Bear in mind that I myself don't actually care that much, but I do think we need devil's advocates for this sort of thing on occasion. Easter eggs started at a time when software and games were shipped on cartridges, disks, or other media. If there was extra room available, it didn't affect the user experience to include them (performance was always very much in mind back then). Today, however, we see a couple of changes: First, apps and games are mostly downloaded. Easter eggs take up additional space, slowing down your download in the best case, and eating away at data caps in the worst cases. So you're already doing something that is somewhat hostile to the user. Second, both Mozilla and Google position their browsers as fast and lightweight. Does including Easter eggs actually help further either of those claims? Most likely not. One Easter egg might not really impact performance at all, but at what point does it become a problem? There are probably different teams working on the browser, and if each of them are adding Easter eggs, how long before those start to affect performance, whether because it's cruft or because many users are on older systems that don't have as much memory as the typical developer is used to? This at least bears consideration.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  Thanks, I think this is a reasonable viewpoint that I can understand, even if I don't agree with it - but it makes it clear that we come from different places and hence different conclusions on the situation at hand as well.