4 ms·

Also problematic: "0 - Off (default). use standard native resolving" ... "5 - Explicitly off. Also off, but selected off by choice and not default." It seem

by acqq 8y ago

Also problematic: "0 - Off (default). use standard native resolving" ... "5 - Explicitly off. Also off, but selected off by choice and not default." It seems that the plan for the "0 - default" is to switch the users to other modes without the user knowing it, and to keep the behavior off the user must specifically change the option to "5."

anonymfus 8y ago
No, it is not problematic, it's a good engineering. Imagine in the future DNS over HTTPS will be supported by OS and there will be an OS-wide setting for it. Then it will make sense to change default setting in FireFox to use OS-wide setting.
bagder 8y ago
"I better speculate on the reason here because surely Daniel is part of a conspiracy meant destroy the browsing experience of millions" or... It could be prepared for when the user gets asked what they want and then Firefox can remember an explicit "no" as compared to not selection ever made. / Daniel (author of the blog post)
- acqq 8y ago
  Daniel is not responsible for the decisions made by other Mozilla managers who already used their powers to deliver an unsolicited ad to the millions using the means presented as having apparently other purposes. Daniel’s own decisions aren’t in question here. If he works for Mozilla he is not more powerful than the whole company. Having “off” and “off when selected by user” but not other variants still points to the intention of the default state not remaining off. Which is not problematic. Problematic is however naming the state that will obviously be changed “off.”
  - Operyl 8y ago
    It’s worth noting that Daniel is the GP here. You’re talking about him in the third person.
    - acqq 8y ago
      It’s worth noting that I know that but that he started this style of referring to him(self) in this thread! So it wasn’t accidental or due to unawareness in any its occurrences.
      - tialaramex 8y ago
        No, he didn't. What he's done there is use a rhetorical style in which he uses your voice, that's what those quote marks are for. He's loosely paraphrasing your comment in order to ridicule it. That's arguably rude, but then your follow-up is exactly the type of conspiratorial bullshit he's implicitly accusing you of, so it was just foresight after all I guess.
        acqq 8y ago
        Your selection of words says much more about you than about anything else.

by acqq 8y ago

anonymfus 8y ago

No, it is not problematic, it's a good engineering. Imagine in the future DNS over HTTPS will be supported by OS and there will be an OS-wide setting for it. Then it will make sense to change default setting in FireFox to use OS-wide setting.

bagder 8y ago

"I better speculate on the reason here because surely Daniel is part of a conspiracy meant destroy the browsing experience of millions" or... It could be prepared for when the user gets asked what they want and then Firefox can remember an explicit "no" as compared to not selection ever made. / Daniel (author of the blog post)

acqq 8y ago
Daniel is not responsible for the decisions made by other Mozilla managers who already used their powers to deliver an unsolicited ad to the millions using the means presented as having apparently other purposes. Daniel’s own decisions aren’t in question here. If he works for Mozilla he is not more powerful than the whole company. Having “off” and “off when selected by user” but not other variants still points to the intention of the default state not remaining off. Which is not problematic. Problematic is however naming the state that will obviously be changed “off.”
- Operyl 8y ago
  It’s worth noting that Daniel is the GP here. You’re talking about him in the third person.
  - acqq 8y ago
    It’s worth noting that I know that but that he started this style of referring to him(self) in this thread! So it wasn’t accidental or due to unawareness in any its occurrences.
    - tialaramex 8y ago
      No, he didn't. What he's done there is use a rhetorical style in which he uses your voice, that's what those quote marks are for. He's loosely paraphrasing your comment in order to ridicule it. That's arguably rude, but then your follow-up is exactly the type of conspiratorial bullshit he's implicitly accusing you of, so it was just foresight after all I guess.
      - acqq 8y ago
        Your selection of words says much more about you than about anything else.