4 ms·

One of the issues was that companies that targeted IE often developed their sites using vbscript rather than jscript, therefore they would not be compatible wit

One of the issues was that companies that targeted IE often developed their sites using vbscript rather than jscript, therefore they would not be compatible without a re-write. Now days there's plenty of Chrome only web apps.

bigger_cheese 9y ago
Netflix used to refuse to run in Firefox I had to install Chrome on my laptop just to visit one site - incredibly frustrating.
- syshum 9y ago
  That was back in the days when Mozilla has a backbone and was standing up for users even though users were bitching Then they caved and now we have DRM in the standard.. sad days
  - mynameisvlad 9y ago
    > even though users were bitching > Then they caved Some people call that "responding to user feedback". It sucks that you don't agree with their decision, but trying to paint Mozilla in a bad light for listening to their users' demands is preposterous.
    - syshum 9y ago
      I am painting Mozilla in a bad light for Betraying the The Mozilla Manifesto .. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
      - mynameisvlad 9y ago
        Yes. And I am saying that it's preposterous because they did what any organization (and I mean any, this applies to companies, nonprofits, governments, etc) should be doing -- listening to their users. Their beliefs are great and all, but at the end of the day they are providing a product for the end user, so if their users are "bitching" that they want Netflix and other EME services available on Firefox, then the right choice is to make the user happy if possible.
        syshum 9y ago
        What about former users... because that who the most vocal people where, Chrome Traitors that do not value freedom, privacy or security. Their actual users were demanding they not do it, they not Embrace Web Extensions, they not Force install Adware on every system, they Not make Privacy Invading features opt-out instead of Opt-In. They not Embrace the destruction of the Open Web.... We, the actual Firefox user base, were given a big middle finger by Mozilla and instead they went on a sorry excuse for a begging marketing ploy to beg user to return to their new Chrome Clone
        mynameisvlad 9y ago
        Any organization cares about their userbase as a whole. There's no distinctions. No "former users", "traitors", or "actual Firefox user base". Just "users". Because once you get past a certain number of users, you need to start looking at decisions statistically. If 70% of users want Netflix, and the other 30% want privacy, then Mozilla is going to look at the 70%. Because that's what makes sense from any sort of organizational planning. You're not going to try to appease a tiny minority (and yes, privacy-conscious individuals are very much in the minority in the world. We may be in a bubble here on HN, but the common person is not going to give two shits about the privacy concerns we may have) when you can appease far more users by doing the opposite. You've made it clear you are biased in this argument. Maybe try taking a step back and looking at the issue more objectively, or from the other perspective.
        syshum 9y ago
        I am being very objective, The Mozilla Foundation is a Non profit tax free organization that gets that tax free status because they are suppose to be following their stated goal of the organization not to be popular Mozilla Foundation has a Tax Free Status in order to promote the Open Web They are no longer honoring that goal, as such they should lose their Tax Free status, the should stop calling themselves a Foundation, they should stop fraudulently holding themselves out as being For Privacy and the Open web if they want to make a Insecure, Privacy Invading Browser, that is perfectly fine. Google and MS already do that They need to be honest about it and not hold themselves out to be something they are not They do not fight for the open web, they do not fight for user privacy, they do not support the goals stated in the the Mozilla Manifesto. Thus it should be removed and Mozilla Foundation should be dissolved into the Mozilla Corporation a for profit software vendor making a Commercial Web Browser You taking the stance that Mozilla is no different than Google, MS or other Commercial Software Vendors. That they are a software company looking to make the best software for their customers.. Mozilla does not have customers, Mozilla is not and should not be a commercial entity, Mozilla is a Charitable Foundation with a set of goals they are violating
- cbr 9y ago
  That was a DRM thing. Eventually Firefox added support for EME: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3183742/data-center-cloud/netflix-debuts-on-firefox-for-linux-but-not-everyones-happy-about-it.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3183742/data-center-cloud/ne...
  - clouddrover 9y ago
    But a downside is that Netflix still limits Firefox to 720p video, even if you're paying for 1080p: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 You can see what resolution you're getting with the Ctrl+Alt+Shift+D shortcut to bring up Netflix's debugging information (and press again to dismiss it). You can also verify your resolution with the Test Patterns video. The sad thing is 1080p video works just fine in Firefox. There's a Firefox add-on available which enables the 1080p stream: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/force-1080p-netflix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/force-1080p-n...
    - tgb 9y ago
      But that's also the restriction for Chrome. Only edge, IE and Safari get 1080p support for browsers. Which proves to me that I don't need 1080p really since I hadn't noticed.
      - isostatic 9y ago
        How far do you sit from your screen, how big is it?
freedomben 9y ago
> One of the issues was that companies that targeted IE often developed their sites using vbscript rather than jscript, therefore they would not be compatible without a re-write. Based on: >> Firefox didn't have a problem displaying those pages It probably wasn't due to vbscript

bigger_cheese 9y ago

Netflix used to refuse to run in Firefox I had to install Chrome on my laptop just to visit one site - incredibly frustrating.

syshum 9y ago
That was back in the days when Mozilla has a backbone and was standing up for users even though users were bitching Then they caved and now we have DRM in the standard.. sad days
- mynameisvlad 9y ago
  > even though users were bitching > Then they caved Some people call that "responding to user feedback". It sucks that you don't agree with their decision, but trying to paint Mozilla in a bad light for listening to their users' demands is preposterous.
  - syshum 9y ago
    I am painting Mozilla in a bad light for Betraying the The Mozilla Manifesto .. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
    - mynameisvlad 9y ago
      Yes. And I am saying that it's preposterous because they did what any organization (and I mean any, this applies to companies, nonprofits, governments, etc) should be doing -- listening to their users. Their beliefs are great and all, but at the end of the day they are providing a product for the end user, so if their users are "bitching" that they want Netflix and other EME services available on Firefox, then the right choice is to make the user happy if possible.
      - syshum 9y ago
        What about former users... because that who the most vocal people where, Chrome Traitors that do not value freedom, privacy or security. Their actual users were demanding they not do it, they not Embrace Web Extensions, they not Force install Adware on every system, they Not make Privacy Invading features opt-out instead of Opt-In. They not Embrace the destruction of the Open Web.... We, the actual Firefox user base, were given a big middle finger by Mozilla and instead they went on a sorry excuse for a begging marketing ploy to beg user to return to their new Chrome Clone
        mynameisvlad 9y ago
        Any organization cares about their userbase as a whole. There's no distinctions. No "former users", "traitors", or "actual Firefox user base". Just "users". Because once you get past a certain number of users, you need to start looking at decisions statistically. If 70% of users want Netflix, and the other 30% want privacy, then Mozilla is going to look at the 70%. Because that's what makes sense from any sort of organizational planning. You're not going to try to appease a tiny minority (and yes, privacy-conscious individuals are very much in the minority in the world. We may be in a bubble here on HN, but the common person is not going to give two shits about the privacy concerns we may have) when you can appease far more users by doing the opposite. You've made it clear you are biased in this argument. Maybe try taking a step back and looking at the issue more objectively, or from the other perspective.
        syshum 9y ago
        I am being very objective, The Mozilla Foundation is a Non profit tax free organization that gets that tax free status because they are suppose to be following their stated goal of the organization not to be popular Mozilla Foundation has a Tax Free Status in order to promote the Open Web They are no longer honoring that goal, as such they should lose their Tax Free status, the should stop calling themselves a Foundation, they should stop fraudulently holding themselves out as being For Privacy and the Open web if they want to make a Insecure, Privacy Invading Browser, that is perfectly fine. Google and MS already do that They need to be honest about it and not hold themselves out to be something they are not They do not fight for the open web, they do not fight for user privacy, they do not support the goals stated in the the Mozilla Manifesto. Thus it should be removed and Mozilla Foundation should be dissolved into the Mozilla Corporation a for profit software vendor making a Commercial Web Browser You taking the stance that Mozilla is no different than Google, MS or other Commercial Software Vendors. That they are a software company looking to make the best software for their customers.. Mozilla does not have customers, Mozilla is not and should not be a commercial entity, Mozilla is a Charitable Foundation with a set of goals they are violating
cbr 9y ago
That was a DRM thing. Eventually Firefox added support for EME: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3183742/data-center-cloud/netflix-debuts-on-firefox-for-linux-but-not-everyones-happy-about-it.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3183742/data-center-cloud/ne...
- clouddrover 9y ago
  But a downside is that Netflix still limits Firefox to 720p video, even if you're paying for 1080p: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 You can see what resolution you're getting with the Ctrl+Alt+Shift+D shortcut to bring up Netflix's debugging information (and press again to dismiss it). You can also verify your resolution with the Test Patterns video. The sad thing is 1080p video works just fine in Firefox. There's a Firefox add-on available which enables the 1080p stream: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/force-1080p-netflix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/force-1080p-n...
  - tgb 9y ago
    But that's also the restriction for Chrome. Only edge, IE and Safari get 1080p support for browsers. Which proves to me that I don't need 1080p really since I hadn't noticed.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      How far do you sit from your screen, how big is it?

freedomben 9y ago

> One of the issues was that companies that targeted IE often developed their sites using vbscript rather than jscript, therefore they would not be compatible without a re-write. Based on: >> Firefox didn't have a problem displaying those pages It probably wasn't due to vbscript